Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Ron Paul's Fascist Views at Jan 5 TV Forum; Obama Matches Him
The reactionary positions of Ron Paul came straight from his mouth at a televised forum on January 5. His "peace position" on Iraq is simply the old isolationist position; he is not an isolationist on Afghanistan and he is in complete agreement with all Republican candidates on all other issues.
The reactionary positions of Ron Paul came straight from his mouth at a televised forum on January 5. His "peace position" on Iraq is simply the old isolationist position; he is not an isolationist on Afghanistan and he is in complete agreement with all Republican candidates on all other issues.
All of the Democrat and Republican candidates failed to recognize the reality the the events of 9/11 were an Inside Job and still promtoe the capitalist class' fairy tale, all in the same manner that they used to do with the Soviet Union "red menace" bogeyman. They have simply replaced communist with terrorist, all to maximize the profits of the war profiteers, the motivation for both anti-communism, and the latest version of exactly the same thing, anti-terrorism.
From the World Socialist Website, January 7, 2007 article by Partick Martin,
"New Hampshire debates: Democrats and Republicans embrace US militarism"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/deba-j07.shtml
"Paul, a social and political reactionary who harks back to the old isolationist wing of the Republican Party, expresses the position of a section of Republicans who consider Iraq a diversion that cuts across the global interests of the American ruling elite. Paul supported and continues to support the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan."
"The Texas congressman was fully in accord with his Republican opponents once the debate shifted to domestic policies. He joined in a right-wing chorus opposing any government action to alleviate the social conditions produced by American capitalism."
"All the Republicans opposed government action to improve access to health insurance, deriding even the most modest and inadequate measures proposed by the Democrats as “socialized medicine.” All rejected a windfall profits tax or any other measure to curb the ability of the giant oil companies to plunder the American consumer. Not one Republican so much as mentioned jobs, unemployment or the growing threat of recession."
"All six candidates supported an immigration policy based on savage repression of immigrants, rejecting any path to legalization as “amnesty” and howling for bigger border fences, more sensors, more border guards and immigration agents, and more detention camps."
"Thompson and Romney suggested that all 12 million “illegal aliens” be forced out of the country by a combination of repression and denial of access to jobs and public services. McCain and Giuliani rejected this as impractical, while agreeing that undocumented workers should be punished. Paul and Huckabee focused on completion of a militarized fence across the entire US-Mexican border."
Barack Obama's warmongering position, agreed to by the other Democrats, were shown here:
"He first asked the candidates whether they would authorize a unilateral military strike into Pakistan if, as president, they received intelligence information confirming the location of Osama bin Laden."
"This question was directed to Obama, who made headlines during the summer when he said that he would order a cross-border strike, with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. He reiterated his position, and was then asked by Gibson whether this wasn’t a version of the Bush doctrine: “Attack when we want, regardless of the sovereignty of the government.” Obama replied with a lame evasion, saying an attack on Osama bin Laden would not be “anticipating a future threat,” but responding to the attacks of September 11, 2001."
As to the economy which is in a major crisis due to the collapse of the housing market and credit, which is he primary issue, the occupation of the oil fields of Iraq being an extension of that issue,
"This utter indifference to the fate of the vast majority of the American population characterized both of the debates. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are instruments of the American financial aristocracy, which is separated by an unbridgeable social chasm from the problems and concerns of working people."
If you want serious change for the better, you have to vote for candidates from the 2 peace parties, the socialist Peace & Freedom Party and the Green Party. These millionaire Democrat-Republican candidates have nothing to offer and do not even speak to the needs and interests of the workingclass.
All of the Democrat and Republican candidates failed to recognize the reality the the events of 9/11 were an Inside Job and still promtoe the capitalist class' fairy tale, all in the same manner that they used to do with the Soviet Union "red menace" bogeyman. They have simply replaced communist with terrorist, all to maximize the profits of the war profiteers, the motivation for both anti-communism, and the latest version of exactly the same thing, anti-terrorism.
From the World Socialist Website, January 7, 2007 article by Partick Martin,
"New Hampshire debates: Democrats and Republicans embrace US militarism"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/deba-j07.shtml
"Paul, a social and political reactionary who harks back to the old isolationist wing of the Republican Party, expresses the position of a section of Republicans who consider Iraq a diversion that cuts across the global interests of the American ruling elite. Paul supported and continues to support the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan."
"The Texas congressman was fully in accord with his Republican opponents once the debate shifted to domestic policies. He joined in a right-wing chorus opposing any government action to alleviate the social conditions produced by American capitalism."
"All the Republicans opposed government action to improve access to health insurance, deriding even the most modest and inadequate measures proposed by the Democrats as “socialized medicine.” All rejected a windfall profits tax or any other measure to curb the ability of the giant oil companies to plunder the American consumer. Not one Republican so much as mentioned jobs, unemployment or the growing threat of recession."
"All six candidates supported an immigration policy based on savage repression of immigrants, rejecting any path to legalization as “amnesty” and howling for bigger border fences, more sensors, more border guards and immigration agents, and more detention camps."
"Thompson and Romney suggested that all 12 million “illegal aliens” be forced out of the country by a combination of repression and denial of access to jobs and public services. McCain and Giuliani rejected this as impractical, while agreeing that undocumented workers should be punished. Paul and Huckabee focused on completion of a militarized fence across the entire US-Mexican border."
Barack Obama's warmongering position, agreed to by the other Democrats, were shown here:
"He first asked the candidates whether they would authorize a unilateral military strike into Pakistan if, as president, they received intelligence information confirming the location of Osama bin Laden."
"This question was directed to Obama, who made headlines during the summer when he said that he would order a cross-border strike, with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. He reiterated his position, and was then asked by Gibson whether this wasn’t a version of the Bush doctrine: “Attack when we want, regardless of the sovereignty of the government.” Obama replied with a lame evasion, saying an attack on Osama bin Laden would not be “anticipating a future threat,” but responding to the attacks of September 11, 2001."
As to the economy which is in a major crisis due to the collapse of the housing market and credit, which is he primary issue, the occupation of the oil fields of Iraq being an extension of that issue,
"This utter indifference to the fate of the vast majority of the American population characterized both of the debates. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are instruments of the American financial aristocracy, which is separated by an unbridgeable social chasm from the problems and concerns of working people."
If you want serious change for the better, you have to vote for candidates from the 2 peace parties, the socialist Peace & Freedom Party and the Green Party. These millionaire Democrat-Republican candidates have nothing to offer and do not even speak to the needs and interests of the workingclass.
For more information:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
There is a big difference between someone who is against socialism and someone who is a fascist.
Ron Paul opposes actual fascism, like the War on Drugs.
Ron Paul opposes actual fascism, like the War on Drugs.
Could you possibly be any more incorrect?! To say that "Ron Paul is in complete agreement with all Republican candidates on all other issues (than the Iraq War)" is so completely incorrect, and outright ludicrous, that you clearly have not read about nor listened to the man even slightly. He is so fundamentally different from the other pro-war, pro-status quo, anti-freedom Republican candidates that I encourage you to look beyond a few sanitized, sound-bite, talking-point "debates" ---- or even to consider THAT evidence, since you so obviously did not. To spout such shrill, clueless ad hominem attacks does nothing but bring shame and discredit to yourself.
This is the most rediculous "reporting" I have ever seen. I'm sorry I visited your website, and I hope no one else visits it. You either have no clue about Ron Paul, or you're scared of him because he's right.
please... read something instead of watching tv to make this crap up
I urge you to look up what Fascism is.
Paul is the only candidate looking to enforce the constitution.
If you want local control of your tax money, your schooling, your social programs, your money, he's the only choice. If we end up with another actual fascist in office again, this entire country will be soon regretting it.
We have an extremely corrupt, dishonest, federal government, and your only possible chance of reducing it's heavy handed extremism, is to vote for the one man that wants to reduce this government back to it's constitutional role.
It's a pitty that so mnay lackies are willing to sink the nation by misrepresenting his views to the country's detriment.
Paul is the only candidate looking to enforce the constitution.
If you want local control of your tax money, your schooling, your social programs, your money, he's the only choice. If we end up with another actual fascist in office again, this entire country will be soon regretting it.
We have an extremely corrupt, dishonest, federal government, and your only possible chance of reducing it's heavy handed extremism, is to vote for the one man that wants to reduce this government back to it's constitutional role.
It's a pitty that so mnay lackies are willing to sink the nation by misrepresenting his views to the country's detriment.
A string of ill-spelled pro-Paul rants, insisting that the Constitution must be defended against social spending, and wondering why this site does what it has always existed to do.
They're ALL driving without a clue.
Here's a short history on the last "America First" movement, when the goal was to keep the USA from delcaring war on Nazi Germany.
quote:
The America First Committee launched a petition aimed at enforcing the 1939 Neutrality Act and forcing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to keep his pledge to keep America out of the war. They strongly distrusted Roosevelt, arguing that he was lying to the American people.
On the day after Franklin D. Roosevelt's lend-lease bill was submitted to Congress, Wood promised AFC opposition "with all the vigor it can exert." America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. In order to achieve the defeat of lend-lease and the perpetuation of American neutrality, the AFC advocated four basic principles:
* The United States must build an impregnable defense for America.
* No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.
* American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
* "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could.[CMH, Chapter 19]. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.
end quote [Source]
Does this at all ring a bell? A false appeal to the noblest sentiments of the American people, for thoroughly rotten purposes. Sounds a lot like..... like all this pro-Paul garbage, come to think of it.
They're ALL driving without a clue.
Here's a short history on the last "America First" movement, when the goal was to keep the USA from delcaring war on Nazi Germany.
quote:
The America First Committee launched a petition aimed at enforcing the 1939 Neutrality Act and forcing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to keep his pledge to keep America out of the war. They strongly distrusted Roosevelt, arguing that he was lying to the American people.
On the day after Franklin D. Roosevelt's lend-lease bill was submitted to Congress, Wood promised AFC opposition "with all the vigor it can exert." America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. In order to achieve the defeat of lend-lease and the perpetuation of American neutrality, the AFC advocated four basic principles:
* The United States must build an impregnable defense for America.
* No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.
* American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
* "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could.[CMH, Chapter 19]. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.
end quote [Source]
Does this at all ring a bell? A false appeal to the noblest sentiments of the American people, for thoroughly rotten purposes. Sounds a lot like..... like all this pro-Paul garbage, come to think of it.
The only war that Paul agree is WW2 because US had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. The president can't go to war without the declaration of war. He has to go to congress for that. US can only go to war due to a significant threat.
Americans should know the history of their government foreign policy. Policy have unintended consequences especially the middle eastern foreign policy. Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon for example. US have a foreign policy to make puppet government with CIA covert operation which is already outdated.
I am ashamed to look at the way the other Republicans like Guilliani try to debate this without facts and data which RP has.
Americans should know the history of their government foreign policy. Policy have unintended consequences especially the middle eastern foreign policy. Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon for example. US have a foreign policy to make puppet government with CIA covert operation which is already outdated.
I am ashamed to look at the way the other Republicans like Guilliani try to debate this without facts and data which RP has.
So it's not "America First".... it's Ron Paul First. Much clearer, thanks!
What about the Cold War? Did Ron Paul support that?
What about the Cold War? Did Ron Paul support that?
Imo, Ron Paul is a major disappointment with obvious potential. He presents himself as a defender of freedom and human rights, but is rabidly anti-abortion and voted against stem cell research funding. 'Mr Constitution' did NOT support the bill to impeach Cheney/ Bush, both of whom have done more damage to the actual Constitution than any entity or event in American history. Ron Paul is a bit of a joke.
Ron Paul is a fascist?
Wow.. when a democratic president is elected, and you see the police state continue to grow, and the real jackboot of tyranny is grinding down on your face, you'll think why oh why was I such a douche that abortion and pandering to illegal aliens meant more to me than saving the constitution.
Ron Paul even says he would be for allowing states to decide, and most states would decide to keep abortion.. of course thats not good enough for you, you want to force everyone to live the way you believe they should.
Calling someone who is against the War on Drugs, against warrantless wiretapping, against aggressive overseas war, against corporatism and special interests a fascist is so ridiculous its hard to know what to say.. What level of education did you complete?
You sound like a Chinese government press release from 40 years ago.. "Ron Paul is fascist, reactionary lapdog of capitalist west"..
You don't even come across as a well-read socialist otherwise you would understand the meaning of a united front.. especially as it pertains to critical issues like aggressive overseas wars, domestic police state, corporatism and the military industrial complex.
Wow.. when a democratic president is elected, and you see the police state continue to grow, and the real jackboot of tyranny is grinding down on your face, you'll think why oh why was I such a douche that abortion and pandering to illegal aliens meant more to me than saving the constitution.
Ron Paul even says he would be for allowing states to decide, and most states would decide to keep abortion.. of course thats not good enough for you, you want to force everyone to live the way you believe they should.
Calling someone who is against the War on Drugs, against warrantless wiretapping, against aggressive overseas war, against corporatism and special interests a fascist is so ridiculous its hard to know what to say.. What level of education did you complete?
You sound like a Chinese government press release from 40 years ago.. "Ron Paul is fascist, reactionary lapdog of capitalist west"..
You don't even come across as a well-read socialist otherwise you would understand the meaning of a united front.. especially as it pertains to critical issues like aggressive overseas wars, domestic police state, corporatism and the military industrial complex.
"you want to force everyone to live the way you believe they should."
Freedom to choose or not to choose abortion, is not "forc[ing] everyone to live the way you believe they should."
Denying access to abortion, IS.
Also, some of us remember it took constitutional amendments and federal force, to make some of the southern states start treating African-Americans like human beings and citizens with inalienable rights. Is that stuff to go back to being decided by the states as well?
Of course, we never get answers to these questions, because the Ron Paul People aren't here to debate. They're here to dump identical-talking-point garbage under a variety of names.
And you think we should vote for tat? Trust our few, hard-won and (generally) federally-enforcable rights for that?
Nope. Not even ultra-leftists are out of touch with reality enough for that.
Also, we remember that you are the extreme right wing. You've been out to destroy us since forever. Only a fool would trust the likes of you.
Freedom to choose or not to choose abortion, is not "forc[ing] everyone to live the way you believe they should."
Denying access to abortion, IS.
Also, some of us remember it took constitutional amendments and federal force, to make some of the southern states start treating African-Americans like human beings and citizens with inalienable rights. Is that stuff to go back to being decided by the states as well?
Of course, we never get answers to these questions, because the Ron Paul People aren't here to debate. They're here to dump identical-talking-point garbage under a variety of names.
And you think we should vote for tat? Trust our few, hard-won and (generally) federally-enforcable rights for that?
Nope. Not even ultra-leftists are out of touch with reality enough for that.
Also, we remember that you are the extreme right wing. You've been out to destroy us since forever. Only a fool would trust the likes of you.
Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he is against Nation building, and thus wants out of Iraq. He states that Bin Laden should be brought to justice, but we need to pull out of the middle east, pull out of europe, and pull out of asia. We need to defend our home, the United States of America. He wants peace and diplomacy with all nations, and has never stated otherwise. Your smear attempt wont work, socialists see the threat that Paul poses to their globalist agenda and need him gone, which is why most socialists are backing Obama.
Who most definitely are NOT supporting Obama. (Tho the idea of a Black president is kinda cool... we were hoping for something more like Angela Davis.)
You should really get your political smears sorted out, before you try to go selling them to people.
You should really get your political smears sorted out, before you try to go selling them to people.
You have gotta be kidding -- his fascist views? Congressman Paul is the only one who has anything backing his foreign policy. Ever read the 9/11 commission report??? It supports his concept. Ever read all those messages that supposedly came from Osama Bin Laden or any of the other renowned terrorist?? They support him too. The people took time to compile the 9/11 report, how bout taking a look. In fact, the 9/11 report says that Saddam Hussein had no connection with Bin Laden whatsoever. It's amazing what you learn when you read. So basically we invaded a country that never attacked the US, never was composed of Al Quaeda and never reportedly found weapons of mass destruction (and quite frankly -- who cares if they did). What are they going to do, send them on a balsa wood plane? The 9/11 Commission reports along with the messages Osama has sent to the United States all soundly support the Congressman. Quite frankly, I haven't seen anything on the other candidates side that supports us going there. Everyone talks about radical islam.... blah-blah-blah. No one except Paul talks about the motivating factor.
No one here is talking (let alone believing) that "radical islam blah blah" bullshit.
Go back to Freeperville. Please.
Go back to Freeperville. Please.
Reminds me of the recent quote by RP regarding Lincoln. According to RP, Lincoln should have paid off the slavemasters to avoid war. Slight problem with that statement, considering the fact that Lincoln tried repeatedly to pay off the slavemasters and they wouldn't have any part of it. The man is a Texas Republican, 'nuff said.
For the CENTURIES OF ATROCITY they'd endured. Or at least their descendants, for the enduring social disadvantages...
But they didn't count, and their descendants still don't count..... at least, not down in Texas. Eh?
But they didn't count, and their descendants still don't count..... at least, not down in Texas. Eh?
yes, he opposes abortion and he has several other views that fail standard leftist litmus tests. but he redeems himself by standing firm for personal freedom, whether you come from left or right, gay or straight, man or woman or cyborg and believes that the Fed has no business making laws to restrict their behavior. he doesnt want to code his personal beliefs into law, he wants to minimize laws. he wants to minimize the federal government--back away from the Empire, back away from our Corporatocracy and simply let live. If abortion, or pick-your-issue, is more important than these things, then by all means, bash your head against your opposing constituent until the end of time. Ron Paul has an option that could work.
Ron Paul knows that the Constitution does NOT authorize federalized medical care. It does NOT authorize federal government action regarding insurance, and it does NOT allow invasion by illegals for ANY purpose whatsoever!
You, writer, desperately need to read the Constitution. THAT is the document which allows a federal government to even EXIST, and provides the ONLY powers said government is allowed to use to restrict the otherwise UNLIMITED rights of the States and the people of THIS country.
Illegals are destroying our economy, our health, and our food crops. They MUST be stopped at ALL cost. We must bring the troops home from the 200 countries in which they covertly influence governments and overtly murder millions of people, and be brought home to do the Constitutional work of defending our borders from invasion.
You, writer, desperately need to read the Constitution. THAT is the document which allows a federal government to even EXIST, and provides the ONLY powers said government is allowed to use to restrict the otherwise UNLIMITED rights of the States and the people of THIS country.
Illegals are destroying our economy, our health, and our food crops. They MUST be stopped at ALL cost. We must bring the troops home from the 200 countries in which they covertly influence governments and overtly murder millions of people, and be brought home to do the Constitutional work of defending our borders from invasion.
What's Ron Paul going to do against the power of corporations? Or does that just get thrown in the laundry list if we object enough?
After all, legally speaking, corporations ARE individuals. Bit of a contradiction there, eh?
After all, legally speaking, corporations ARE individuals. Bit of a contradiction there, eh?
Who's the illegal, Pilgrim?
Yeah, he just believes human rights like ABORTION should be completely abandoned and handed over to the wolf pack. The slaves were freed on a FEDERAL level, why not repeal that decicion and "let the States decide".............
Is all this Ron Paul, "federal = fascist" stuff a preparation for if/when a Black man actually wins the US Presidency?
I mean, the racist-right's heads must just be popping at the idea. What to do? Retreat to state's rights!!
I mean, they certainly didn't mind voting for Bush II, twice. The fed wasn't "fascist" then, was it? If ya see what I mean...
I mean, the racist-right's heads must just be popping at the idea. What to do? Retreat to state's rights!!
I mean, they certainly didn't mind voting for Bush II, twice. The fed wasn't "fascist" then, was it? If ya see what I mean...
ron paul states unequivocally that the current corporate control of government is out of control. in the last segment of the recent bill moyers interview he states this plainly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njne6PA-h6s&eurl=http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/04/ron-paul-defends-liberty-on-pbs/#
the good news is that if a corporation is able to legally defend its status as an "individual", the federal government's jurisdiction is minimized to the basic constitutional limits under a Paul program, so the corporation may be forced to answer to a state or local jurisdiction that has complaints. this should have a dampening effect on all lobbies as well...though beware, your most favored lobbies may also lose power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njne6PA-h6s&eurl=http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/04/ron-paul-defends-liberty-on-pbs/#
the good news is that if a corporation is able to legally defend its status as an "individual", the federal government's jurisdiction is minimized to the basic constitutional limits under a Paul program, so the corporation may be forced to answer to a state or local jurisdiction that has complaints. this should have a dampening effect on all lobbies as well...though beware, your most favored lobbies may also lose power.
Um-hmm. SO, corporations will br dragged into court on local charges, and must hire lawyers to defend themselves.
Good thing their pockets are so deep, since THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY, becuase of YEARS and DECADES OF REPUBLICAN RULE.
If I had their money, I wouldn't have to worry about breaking the law for my own profit, either.
Paul's reply is, at best, insufficient, and at worst mendacious.
Good thing their pockets are so deep, since THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY, becuase of YEARS and DECADES OF REPUBLICAN RULE.
If I had their money, I wouldn't have to worry about breaking the law for my own profit, either.
Paul's reply is, at best, insufficient, and at worst mendacious.
this hung me up too, but i decided that the reality is that if slavery were put up to the states to decide, that all 50 would continue to ban it. why? bc the collective awareness is strong enough to make it so.
abortion is similar, some states may ban it, but i doubt it. it is a seriously contentious issue, but no state has a majority of abortion foes, so it would probably fall into the same class as slavery. if a state DID as a majority decide that abortion was criminal, then think of it as some other world that you dont want to do business with, think of it as a place that is loathsome, but please, dont think of it as a place that you have to go conquer and impose your favorite views upon. looking to the federal government to help impose your favorite views on the entire country gets a little weird. (and it explains the logjam that is the US 'democracy')
special interest/single issue politics reduce every election to a cat fight with no possible solution over ideals that do not effect 99% of our daily lives. meanwhile, the elite put their vetted candidates in without opposition who DO affect 99% of our daily lives...in their favor.
abortion is similar, some states may ban it, but i doubt it. it is a seriously contentious issue, but no state has a majority of abortion foes, so it would probably fall into the same class as slavery. if a state DID as a majority decide that abortion was criminal, then think of it as some other world that you dont want to do business with, think of it as a place that is loathsome, but please, dont think of it as a place that you have to go conquer and impose your favorite views upon. looking to the federal government to help impose your favorite views on the entire country gets a little weird. (and it explains the logjam that is the US 'democracy')
special interest/single issue politics reduce every election to a cat fight with no possible solution over ideals that do not effect 99% of our daily lives. meanwhile, the elite put their vetted candidates in without opposition who DO affect 99% of our daily lives...in their favor.
My freedom is not up for sale or debate, nor is its defense an "imposition" on other people's "lifestyles"-- unless their "lifestyles" insist that people like me should be destroyed. That's not so far in history, my friend.
The federal government, certainly no great shakes, is far from the worst evil out there... Racism is, however, very close to it-- particularly when organized. Stop a state from institutionalizing racism, by means of federal might? You betcha.
The federal government, certainly no great shakes, is far from the worst evil out there... Racism is, however, very close to it-- particularly when organized. Stop a state from institutionalizing racism, by means of federal might? You betcha.
"If I had their money, I wouldn't have to worry about breaking the law for my own profit, either. Paul's reply is, at best, insufficient, and at worst mendacious."
your resolution is then a strong federal government committed to the ideals you hold most dear. i have thought the same thing many times because my ideals are also quite excellent. Hitler thought that was pretty good too, but he was better at realizing it than you and I.
the Libertarian answer is to keep the centralized control to a minimum just in case the gang holding all the guns dont see things the same way as we do. the US govt was conceived on highly Libertarian concepts...people are greedy, people will abuse power, don't give any single body overarching power.
your resolution is then a strong federal government committed to the ideals you hold most dear. i have thought the same thing many times because my ideals are also quite excellent. Hitler thought that was pretty good too, but he was better at realizing it than you and I.
the Libertarian answer is to keep the centralized control to a minimum just in case the gang holding all the guns dont see things the same way as we do. the US govt was conceived on highly Libertarian concepts...people are greedy, people will abuse power, don't give any single body overarching power.
"The federal government, certainly no great shakes, is far from the worst evil out there... Racism is, however, very close to it-- particularly when organized. Stop a state from institutionalizing racism, by means of federal might? You betcha."
congratulations in your faith in the Fed...pity it hasn't managed to succeed in the last 50 years of valiant effort, but maybe if we elect the right guy, huh?
congratulations in your faith in the Fed...pity it hasn't managed to succeed in the last 50 years of valiant effort, but maybe if we elect the right guy, huh?
I'm no great fan of the Fed, such as it is; but I have at least a general sense of what it will and wont do, and how to proceed accordingly without getting squished by it.
But how does anyone deal with your "libertarian" army, or whatever fills the vacuum once you manage to slay the beast, as it were?
It's not really a matter of trusting them more, but rather, trusting you less.
But how does anyone deal with your "libertarian" army, or whatever fills the vacuum once you manage to slay the beast, as it were?
It's not really a matter of trusting them more, but rather, trusting you less.
"It's not really a matter of trusting them more, but rather, trusting you less."
funny that you would trust the army that currently occupies your nation, despite its obvious allegiance to someone other than yourself. libertarians don't form armies except to defend borders. as for me, i wouldnt expect you to trust me, it's not a matter of trust, in fact, a good dose of skepticism is quite a healthy way to go. hopefully the rationality will prevail.
funny that you would trust the army that currently occupies your nation, despite its obvious allegiance to someone other than yourself. libertarians don't form armies except to defend borders. as for me, i wouldnt expect you to trust me, it's not a matter of trust, in fact, a good dose of skepticism is quite a healthy way to go. hopefully the rationality will prevail.
What I trust, are the workers of the world. The international, class-conscious proletariat.
That means, your people are actively making war on my people. An alliance is not possible, without first a cease-fire and then negotiations.
Lay off the immigrants, and maybe we can talk. Until then, "which side you're on" is all too clear-- and it's not that of me and mine.
That means, your people are actively making war on my people. An alliance is not possible, without first a cease-fire and then negotiations.
Lay off the immigrants, and maybe we can talk. Until then, "which side you're on" is all too clear-- and it's not that of me and mine.
fool, i'm a gray-haired leftist class-conscious worker who hasn't voted for an establishment president in 30 years . i'll bet you've invested zero into listening to his positions. your analysis amounts to knee-jerk-ism. whatever, good night!
What are you doing, arguing for a propertarian, if you're so class-conscious? Hmm?
Oh, please, don't take my word for it. I hope ron paul 2008 dot com will suffice as an authority on the subject. Let's have a look under "Issues," shall we?
(and I quote):
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
(end quote.)
"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society." Looks like you've been doing some dancing with the devil in the last 30 years, comrade, and it's affecting your ability to tell enemies apart from friends.
Good night, indeed.
Oh, please, don't take my word for it. I hope ron paul 2008 dot com will suffice as an authority on the subject. Let's have a look under "Issues," shall we?
(and I quote):
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
(end quote.)
"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society." Looks like you've been doing some dancing with the devil in the last 30 years, comrade, and it's affecting your ability to tell enemies apart from friends.
Good night, indeed.
The writer of this piece displays breathtaking ignorance of both Ron Paul's positions and in politics in general. It is so bad I had to check I wasn't on a MSM site.
Much of what is plain wrong or misrepresented has already been dealt with in other comments although there are many other comments here that show, like the author, that they have been sucked in by the global elite to rely upon big government and are unable to appreciate the importance of sovereign rights of the individual.
To accuse Ron Paul of fascist views is utterly ridiculous when he's the only candidate with policies to counter the grip of fascist power that is already strangling America. Then there is the dead give away of the truly ignorant and confused who would call Ron Paul an isolationist when the exact opposite is true. For goodness sake at least do some basic research and turn off the TV.
Much of what is plain wrong or misrepresented has already been dealt with in other comments although there are many other comments here that show, like the author, that they have been sucked in by the global elite to rely upon big government and are unable to appreciate the importance of sovereign rights of the individual.
To accuse Ron Paul of fascist views is utterly ridiculous when he's the only candidate with policies to counter the grip of fascist power that is already strangling America. Then there is the dead give away of the truly ignorant and confused who would call Ron Paul an isolationist when the exact opposite is true. For goodness sake at least do some basic research and turn off the TV.
But what do you really have, but bald-faced opinion of what Ron Paul means to say he believes his Presidency might achieve, and epithets for those of us who remain dubious?
I thought indy media was anti-war and anti-imperialism. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party except for Cynthia McKinney in the Green Party, who will dismantle our 100 U.S. foreign bases and bring all the troops home. Obama will be just as pro-war as Bill Clinton was in his escapades in Somalia and Yugoslavia and will continue the GWB legacy in the Middle East. Good luck.
The author of this article needs to go buy a dictionary and look up the word, "fascism". Then, he needs to go read the Constitution. Ron Paul's views, and his defense of the Constitution are the complete oposite of fascism. By claiming that Ron Paul's views are fascist, the author also must assert that the Constitution of the United States is fascist. So many people use this word, yet don't know what it means, and it goes to show just how ignorant our citizens have become. The author's use of fascism as a descriptor only prove his membership with the sheople, not the people.
On another note, the author has failed to get his facts straight. He writes Paul voted for the invation of Afganistan, and continues to support the occupation of the country. WRONG, sir. Paul did support the initial invation of Afganistan after 9/11 to go after the people responsible. BUT, as Dr. Paul has stated, he is against the misuse of the authority given to the president, and believes we should now leave - that we should have left long ago. It was NEVER advertised as a nation building endeavor - the NeoCons went in under false pretense just as they did in Iraq.
On yet another note, the author is wrong in his estimate that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Wrong, sir....Ron Paul is NON-INTERVENTIONALIST. Big difference. While he supports trade, travel, diplomatic relations and friendship, Dr. Paul is against our nation's meddling in the internal affairs of another. We have no business messing around with an other nation's internal politics, just as they have no right to mess with ours. Our government has been at this game for years, and what good has it really done? They meddle for selfish, shortsighted reasons, and we the people pay for it in the long run, not to mention the citizens of the nations where we intrude.
So, to sum up: The author of this article needs to buy a dictionary, do some research, and get his facts in order. There is more I could go into from your article, but I won't here.
Ignorance might be bliss, but it pisses off those of us who have chosen to use our minds for good.
Vote FREEDOM
Vote LIBERTY
Vote RON PAUL
On another note, the author has failed to get his facts straight. He writes Paul voted for the invation of Afganistan, and continues to support the occupation of the country. WRONG, sir. Paul did support the initial invation of Afganistan after 9/11 to go after the people responsible. BUT, as Dr. Paul has stated, he is against the misuse of the authority given to the president, and believes we should now leave - that we should have left long ago. It was NEVER advertised as a nation building endeavor - the NeoCons went in under false pretense just as they did in Iraq.
On yet another note, the author is wrong in his estimate that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Wrong, sir....Ron Paul is NON-INTERVENTIONALIST. Big difference. While he supports trade, travel, diplomatic relations and friendship, Dr. Paul is against our nation's meddling in the internal affairs of another. We have no business messing around with an other nation's internal politics, just as they have no right to mess with ours. Our government has been at this game for years, and what good has it really done? They meddle for selfish, shortsighted reasons, and we the people pay for it in the long run, not to mention the citizens of the nations where we intrude.
So, to sum up: The author of this article needs to buy a dictionary, do some research, and get his facts in order. There is more I could go into from your article, but I won't here.
Ignorance might be bliss, but it pisses off those of us who have chosen to use our minds for good.
Vote FREEDOM
Vote LIBERTY
Vote RON PAUL
Unless you have $20,000 for legal/regulatory fees and 15 years to wait around for 'processing', your chances of getting into this country legally are slim. Heaven help you if something gets lost in the process and you end up at square one. The system has been rigged, over the last 100 years, to keep people out. This is not rule of law, it is blatant discrimination. It is one thing to want to keep tabs on who's coming in. That is not the current objective.
That being said, I'm still going to vote for Paul. I don't believe he'd support such a system, and is open to a reasonable discussion on how to fix it.
That being said, I'm still going to vote for Paul. I don't believe he'd support such a system, and is open to a reasonable discussion on how to fix it.
Saying that Obama has nothing to offer and/or he is just like the other candidates dressed up as a liberal isn't very informed. NOTHING, as in zero, nada? That reminds me of the wingnuts on AM radio.
They said the same thing about Gore and after 8 years of the moron we have in office I just wonder how different our country would be ....
They said the same thing about Gore and after 8 years of the moron we have in office I just wonder how different our country would be ....
You're really in a fish bowl. You are the fundamentalist on the left side. Like your rightwing brother, you've got a list of crutches that help you define your universe. It's obvious that your judgments don't flow from an objective analysis of the situation but from a deep well of resentful preconceptions which, to be fair considering the corruption of the establishment, are to a degree understandable. But your hysterical description of Ron Paul demonstrates your blindness. Ron Paul is certainly no fascist. He is the champion of the constitution and individual liberty. The main problem that you have is that he does not want to use the power of government to try to correct social injustices. This is your main hangup. He wants to reduce the size of government in every way. So, how could he possibly be criticized as a fascist. You, in fact, are more of a fascist because you want a sizable governmental entity to engineer change as you see fit. And your facts are simply wrong. He doesn't support our continued presence in the Middle East. Watch any of the debates. He has emphasized again and again that the best policy is for us to entirely evacuate the Arabian peninsula.
For more information:
http://www.unclesamsamusement.com
So you expect a candidate to go on national television and say outright the 9/11 was an inside job? Even for those of us who suspect that that is the case, you can not expect them to say it and still win. The vast majority of Americans do not have the information to even understand monetary policy much less a conspiracy theory. I do not know if 9/11 was an inside job and unless you worked for the government at that time nor do you. You may have a good idea or a strong feeling about it but you have no hard evidence. Nobody does or it would be called fact. This is not to say that you maybe wrong, I do not know. But to expect a Presidential candidate to remark on it is truly absurd. Your passion is totally misplaced if you feel Dr. Paul is a fasicst and it alienates your position, which has little ground to start. I would recommend to you if you actually want your info to get out (cause otherwise your just a covert hack job ie push polls) is to be more rational and not call people names using words you obviously do not understand. The only guy who wants us to truely be free you call a fascist. Ha this truly is proof that anyone can get published now a days.
If you're going to use the word "fascist", at least use it right. Notice the last 6 words.
"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism."
"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism."
You claim these positions come straight from Ron Paul's mouth, then proceed to make wild and baseless accusations, and fail to support them with anything at all.
That is dishonesty. I hope you don't aspire to be a journalist.
That is dishonesty. I hope you don't aspire to be a journalist.
Ron Paul is a patriot. Every person that dies at the hand of our bombs in the Middle East makes two new enemies for this country. Bombing for peace is a bad strategy. Ron Paul recognizes it, and you should too.
fascism is a corporatist thing--a socialist thing--a nationalist thing; i.e. more akin to your own cohersive statism than Paul's minarchism.
ron pauil before he started campaigning for president was one of the only government officials to question the offical story of 9/11 besides Cynthia Mckinney. Your article is very uninformed, and seems as if you only know of Ron paul as the presidential candidate and not the mans life long and more important positions. Its too bad because i agree with almost everything you say in the article.
IndyMedia used to be a great place to find news that other outlets wouldn't publish. Articles like this are just propaganda bordering on hate speech and are no better than Fox News attempts to smear the only Presidential candidate who wants to help the nation rather than line their pocketbooks.
A conspiracy theorist who thinks Ron Paul is part of a conspiracy?!? Amazing!
Since you seem misinformed and/or uneducated regarding economics and foreign policy, allow me to clue you in on a simple equation:
economic protectionism + foreign non-interventionism = isolationism
Since Dr. Paul does not subscribe to the economic protectionism doctrine, your assertion that he is an isolationist is severely flawed.
Criticizing Dr. Paul for being against big government and calling him a fascist demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what constitutes fascism - an authoritarian government regime. How then, if Dr. Paul is anti-government and anti-corporate lobby, can he possibly be considered fascist?
Your shrewd and uneducated attempt of spreading disinformation propaganda is absurd at best.
Learn more about Dr. Paul at http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Since you seem misinformed and/or uneducated regarding economics and foreign policy, allow me to clue you in on a simple equation:
economic protectionism + foreign non-interventionism = isolationism
Since Dr. Paul does not subscribe to the economic protectionism doctrine, your assertion that he is an isolationist is severely flawed.
Criticizing Dr. Paul for being against big government and calling him a fascist demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what constitutes fascism - an authoritarian government regime. How then, if Dr. Paul is anti-government and anti-corporate lobby, can he possibly be considered fascist?
Your shrewd and uneducated attempt of spreading disinformation propaganda is absurd at best.
Learn more about Dr. Paul at http://www.ronpaul2008.com
How do people reconcile a goofy belief that Ron Paul is a facist while recognizing he is the only one who espouses individual liberty, limited government, sound money that curtails government funding for foreign wars into which we can be lied, ending foreign aid, and getting rid of corporate welfare.?
He is the only one who understands the consequences of imperial spending and warned about 9/11 and the consequences of having an aggressive imperial foreign policy years before 9/11.
As far a being kept off FOX, people need to read http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/ and then go to www.antiwar.com and www.lewrockwell.com. After they read these sites they will never tune into FOX again.
Fascism 101 says that the ideology is inherently expansionist and authoritarian. Ron Paul in no way condones these things, and has always strictly opposed them with all his being. This article is an insane smear from envious socialists.
How sad that so many idealistic young people have fallen for the Ron Paul Devoluion crap.
The Texas congressman's Libertarian philosophy means he doesn't want any government regulation of industry or checks on corporate polluters. Libertarians delude themselves and try to delude others with the unproven and idiotic claim that capitalists will do good and regulate themselves.
In Ron Paul's world, there would be no Environmental Protection Agency, no Consumer Product Safety Administration, no inspection of deadly conditions at mines and meat packing plants, no regulation of dangerous pharmaceuticals, no opportunity for democratic participation to stop nuclear plant re-licensing - everything would be left to the 'market' and 'free enterprise'. Laissez Faire capitalism will continue to trickle down even more misery and give the bankers, war profiteers, corporate criminals, and toxic polluters free rein.
But as utterly stupid as American voters are, they deserve a know-nothing fascist like Mikey Hucksterbee or a capitalism uber alles fool like Dr. Paul, who both make GW Bush look like a scholar.
Ron Paul's rise in popularity could also be attributed to the failure of progressives to put forward truly independent and inspiring candidates who are willing to break with the incumbent duopoly. It's a little late in the game and totally counter-revolutionary to join the neo-fascist Republican party to vote for a reactionary like Ron Paul.
And now the hypocrite Kucinich joins Paul as a victim of their own corrupt parties' excluding them from debates. They never complained when Ralph Nader was shut out of debates in 200 and 2004. It's great they get a taste of their own bad medicine. If they were credible, they'd sue their Republicrat Party and run as independents. But they aren't, so you all can continue to waste your time on bullshit.
The Texas congressman's Libertarian philosophy means he doesn't want any government regulation of industry or checks on corporate polluters. Libertarians delude themselves and try to delude others with the unproven and idiotic claim that capitalists will do good and regulate themselves.
In Ron Paul's world, there would be no Environmental Protection Agency, no Consumer Product Safety Administration, no inspection of deadly conditions at mines and meat packing plants, no regulation of dangerous pharmaceuticals, no opportunity for democratic participation to stop nuclear plant re-licensing - everything would be left to the 'market' and 'free enterprise'. Laissez Faire capitalism will continue to trickle down even more misery and give the bankers, war profiteers, corporate criminals, and toxic polluters free rein.
But as utterly stupid as American voters are, they deserve a know-nothing fascist like Mikey Hucksterbee or a capitalism uber alles fool like Dr. Paul, who both make GW Bush look like a scholar.
Ron Paul's rise in popularity could also be attributed to the failure of progressives to put forward truly independent and inspiring candidates who are willing to break with the incumbent duopoly. It's a little late in the game and totally counter-revolutionary to join the neo-fascist Republican party to vote for a reactionary like Ron Paul.
And now the hypocrite Kucinich joins Paul as a victim of their own corrupt parties' excluding them from debates. They never complained when Ralph Nader was shut out of debates in 200 and 2004. It's great they get a taste of their own bad medicine. If they were credible, they'd sue their Republicrat Party and run as independents. But they aren't, so you all can continue to waste your time on bullshit.
Limited government except for forcing pregnant women to carry unwanted pregnancies to full term under threat of law.
Limited government so corporations can run free to pillage our towns and families, but then authoritarian sex police government forcing us to give birth to children of rape, incest, and other unwanted pregnancies.
Typical republican free enterprise/sex freak out perversion. Personal liberty? Ha! Corporate liberty is what he really believes in.
Limited government so corporations can run free to pillage our towns and families, but then authoritarian sex police government forcing us to give birth to children of rape, incest, and other unwanted pregnancies.
Typical republican free enterprise/sex freak out perversion. Personal liberty? Ha! Corporate liberty is what he really believes in.
This is such a shrill, poorly thought-out piece of writing. You need to look up "fascism" in the dictionary, for starters. Ron Paul (and Obama, for that matter) couldn't be further from fascism, yet you just blindly throw the word around without any thought at all.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to actually be serious - serious about facts, about thinking, about doing your research and backing up your absurd accusations and generalizations. I find it impossible to take this writer seriously at all, because none of the above apply.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to actually be serious - serious about facts, about thinking, about doing your research and backing up your absurd accusations and generalizations. I find it impossible to take this writer seriously at all, because none of the above apply.
Come to think of it, that is virtually the very definition of fascism, government and corporations working in tandem to oppress a country's own people.
Yep, Paul is a fascist.
Yep, Paul is a fascist.
well, his point of view is that a baby's life and rights need to be defended, and though I'm not in total agreement with him on that, I find the arguments of a man who has delivered more than 4,000 babies to this world more compelling than most, and would surely be more disturbed if he was in favor of abortions at any time during pregnancy or slightly after, etc.
The way I see some ultra-left people react on the abortion issue makes me want to rethink my own pro-choice position. It's like some people don't even want to acknowledge the ARGUMENT that the fetus might have rights, and that's kinda pissing me off. I guess nobody wants to entertain the idea that we are allowing massive genocide daily in this country, so we keep it scientific sounding and talk about clusters of cells and trimesters.
The way I see some ultra-left people react on the abortion issue makes me want to rethink my own pro-choice position. It's like some people don't even want to acknowledge the ARGUMENT that the fetus might have rights, and that's kinda pissing me off. I guess nobody wants to entertain the idea that we are allowing massive genocide daily in this country, so we keep it scientific sounding and talk about clusters of cells and trimesters.
hmm. corporations are evil. Ok I can see that, but Government is your friend? You think if just the right people were given all the power over corporations that they would be wonderfully selfless and giving and help you?
Sorry. The EPA stopped california from making it's own clean air laws.
FEMA stopped walmart from bringing water to hurricane katrina victims.
look it up.
Government is not your friend buddy. I have NO idea how you were convinced it was. If only Hillary or Barack was president it would be better right? Hmm... Hillary wants to censor internet and stay in Iraq, Barack wants to nuke Iran and invade pakistan without talking to Musharraf about it.
Sorry but that scares me a lot more than a pro-life baby doctor.
He wants to end corporate welfare btw too. He's not in favor of companies having unfair advantages, just fair advantages. He's in favor of the separation of corporate and government interests. You need to direct your irrational bile at another candidate who needs it directed at them for a while.
Sorry. The EPA stopped california from making it's own clean air laws.
FEMA stopped walmart from bringing water to hurricane katrina victims.
look it up.
Government is not your friend buddy. I have NO idea how you were convinced it was. If only Hillary or Barack was president it would be better right? Hmm... Hillary wants to censor internet and stay in Iraq, Barack wants to nuke Iran and invade pakistan without talking to Musharraf about it.
Sorry but that scares me a lot more than a pro-life baby doctor.
He wants to end corporate welfare btw too. He's not in favor of companies having unfair advantages, just fair advantages. He's in favor of the separation of corporate and government interests. You need to direct your irrational bile at another candidate who needs it directed at them for a while.
"What are you doing, arguing for a propertarian, if you're so class-conscious? Hmm? "
Paul is a Libertarian on the conservative side. they are big on the property issue which i understand the basis of and can live with. i'm 100% convinced a centrally planned social government is a failed concept. and while i dont agree that the Right Libertarians have the full answer to creating the ideal society, i do find RP's particular answers to present reality far far closer to that than anything the establishment candidates have to offer. His philosophy is still a bit too radical in this authoritarian age for most people to grok so this is all academic. it will be Clinton and 8 years of the same building the Empire for the benefit of the elite and paying half of everything you make to fund it for them.
Paul is a Libertarian on the conservative side. they are big on the property issue which i understand the basis of and can live with. i'm 100% convinced a centrally planned social government is a failed concept. and while i dont agree that the Right Libertarians have the full answer to creating the ideal society, i do find RP's particular answers to present reality far far closer to that than anything the establishment candidates have to offer. His philosophy is still a bit too radical in this authoritarian age for most people to grok so this is all academic. it will be Clinton and 8 years of the same building the Empire for the benefit of the elite and paying half of everything you make to fund it for them.
Ron Paul is not an "Isolationist" because Ron Paul wants OPEN TRADE with ANY/ALL Countries! He wants to get rid of these disasteruos FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS that are the source of this massive exoudous of our jobs to plants in outher countries. He is the bravest man on the current political stage because (all though you probably dont know this) the Federal Reserve is neither part of our Federal Goverment (its run by international bankers) nor do we know that the FED has anything (such as gold) in reserve. They are MAKING INTREST PAYMENTS on MONEY THEY PRINTED and/or CREATED out of THIN AIR. They then Multiply this money with a Pyramid money scheme known as fracionalized banking. We were taught to believe that this must be done (fractionalize) to have the currency in the economy to pay the interest on what we borrow. However, this model doesnt WORK if the people are left stranded paying INTEREST on this counterfit money while the BANKS are keeping the lions share of the 9 dollars they get for evey 1 you and I borrow! Let me put it in a simple way here, we are playing a ZERO SUM GAME. Your stocks go up BECAUSE your money goes down. Just because all currencies in the "free world" go down the same and trade at relativly stable prices related to eachother does NOT dismiss the FACT the FED has driven the VALUE of our dollar down 96% since 1913. We have just 4% of the buying power left that the dollar had when our govemrent GAVE it to the Federal Reserve unconstitutionally. If you are not aware of these FACTS, then GET EDUCATED. You are being PLAYED by the mainstreem media to think that issues like "abortion rights" are so important. If you are a liberal (like me) you can bet your bottom dollar I dont want a Federal Ban on Abortion, and Ron Paul will not support such a ban either. But get real people, Ron Pauls record is that of a STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST! Every casting vote he has ever made was made with the consult, and guidance of the constitution. So just because Ron Paul didnt vote for FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS to be SPENT on something that was not PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION, does not mean that he is some sort of card carying religous fanatic looking to bring about the end of times revalations in the bible. He wants us to end this sensless war because it is ONLY insighting more violence. We CAN NOT, and WILL NOT fight FIRE with FIRE and win. With over 650,000 Iraqi deahts to date since this war began you are NUTZ if you think we haven't created at least a million pissed off (and righfully so) iraqis, that WILL shoot an American if they get a chane. Come on, get real, wake up and use your imagination. Say the Chinese or Russian army was forcing you to borrow there money, follow their rules and do what they say, while killing over a half million americans, In that WE WOULD BE OUTRAGED, and VIOLENT, GUNS-A-BLAZING. You better believe it when I say I wouldnt be the only one shooting, millions of americans would become the "insurgents" over night. Ron Paul is simply being the bigger man in a bar when everyone wants to brawl, he's ready to be smart and get the heck outa there.
If you are a conservative/republican, there is simply nobody on that stage who will conserve the US, our dollar, our taxes, our spending, or our foreign policy. If you are a liberal democrat, then there is no one on that stage who will restore your constitutional rights (and no this does not mean we will strip the rights of African Americans granted in the constitution). Ron Paul wants a 2nd chance at a great american dream. He wants an American that we can all be proud to hand down to our grand children. Wouldnt you know it? Ron Paul got this great sense of concious about the world we are handing down to our children because he's delivered over 4000 babies as an OB/GYN. He is litterally the most revolutionary and great presedential candidate (in my book and in many others) since before ANY OF US WERE ALIVE, and Thomas Jefferson was still around 200 years ago. We can change it all right now though, if we vote for our liberty, and Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
FYI if you are a christian of any kind, you must follow ron paul. His plan advocates THE MOST peacefull path in foreign affairs, as the lord would want us to act. What would Jeasus do? I highly doubt he'd drop another million "smart bombs" in the middle east. Or allow the USARY that is taking place at the Federal Reserve Continue for a moment longer.
Peace, Love and God Bless us All
but most of all, VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!!
If you are a conservative/republican, there is simply nobody on that stage who will conserve the US, our dollar, our taxes, our spending, or our foreign policy. If you are a liberal democrat, then there is no one on that stage who will restore your constitutional rights (and no this does not mean we will strip the rights of African Americans granted in the constitution). Ron Paul wants a 2nd chance at a great american dream. He wants an American that we can all be proud to hand down to our grand children. Wouldnt you know it? Ron Paul got this great sense of concious about the world we are handing down to our children because he's delivered over 4000 babies as an OB/GYN. He is litterally the most revolutionary and great presedential candidate (in my book and in many others) since before ANY OF US WERE ALIVE, and Thomas Jefferson was still around 200 years ago. We can change it all right now though, if we vote for our liberty, and Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
FYI if you are a christian of any kind, you must follow ron paul. His plan advocates THE MOST peacefull path in foreign affairs, as the lord would want us to act. What would Jeasus do? I highly doubt he'd drop another million "smart bombs" in the middle east. Or allow the USARY that is taking place at the Federal Reserve Continue for a moment longer.
Peace, Love and God Bless us All
but most of all, VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!!
Talk about reactionary. These hardcore liberals are so conditioned to think in terms of red team/blue team, they appear to just be relying on media sound bites, and they are assuming they have full knowledge of RP's positions. Yes, a federally funded education system has done a wonderful job of teaching critical thinking, hasn't it? Try doing some reading because you don't have an in depth understanding of some very deep principals.
Why should someone who believes abortion is murder (right or wrong) be forced to have their tax dollars given to abortion clinics? The fact is, a president doesn't have the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision. We've had pro-life people in the White House for 7 years, and abortion is still legal.
The same holds true with racism and the Civil Rights movement. The Supreme Court decided that people of color were having their rights violated. It is the duty of the federal government to protect individual liberty, and since RP believes in the Constitution, this would not change under a Paul administration.
The EPA is doing a terrible job of protecting the environment. Hasn't anyone noticed that they are actually *preventing* states from implementing vehicle emissions standards because they are "too strict"? How is this helping anybody but the oil companies and auto makers? RP has said that the federal government should enforce laws against pollution, but not by using a huge agency that favors corporate profits.
The merger of corporations with the government is not protecting anyone but the biggest companies that have the most money. They give to the campaigns of the people they want in power, and then they are repaid with the passing of legislation that guarantees them billions of tax dollars. The other 99% of the population is left with no say in what Washington does -- the people have lost control of the government. The checks and balances built into a free market will prevent those huge corporations from running everyone else's lives.
The liberal idea that the government can take care of us, or the environment, by using our tax dollars to support huge bureaucracies... it sounds all warm and fuzzy, but it just doesn't work that way. And this perception that the "conservatives" have destroyed this country, that's a load of crap. The neocons are NOT conservative.
There is only one candidate for president who has addressed the issues at the core of the problems we face. A little turn to the left is not going to end the wars, save the economy, give us back our power over our government, or restore our liberty. It's too late for that. And one way or another, there's going to have to be a drastic change. It would be nice to see that change happen before this country collapses.
Why should someone who believes abortion is murder (right or wrong) be forced to have their tax dollars given to abortion clinics? The fact is, a president doesn't have the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision. We've had pro-life people in the White House for 7 years, and abortion is still legal.
The same holds true with racism and the Civil Rights movement. The Supreme Court decided that people of color were having their rights violated. It is the duty of the federal government to protect individual liberty, and since RP believes in the Constitution, this would not change under a Paul administration.
The EPA is doing a terrible job of protecting the environment. Hasn't anyone noticed that they are actually *preventing* states from implementing vehicle emissions standards because they are "too strict"? How is this helping anybody but the oil companies and auto makers? RP has said that the federal government should enforce laws against pollution, but not by using a huge agency that favors corporate profits.
The merger of corporations with the government is not protecting anyone but the biggest companies that have the most money. They give to the campaigns of the people they want in power, and then they are repaid with the passing of legislation that guarantees them billions of tax dollars. The other 99% of the population is left with no say in what Washington does -- the people have lost control of the government. The checks and balances built into a free market will prevent those huge corporations from running everyone else's lives.
The liberal idea that the government can take care of us, or the environment, by using our tax dollars to support huge bureaucracies... it sounds all warm and fuzzy, but it just doesn't work that way. And this perception that the "conservatives" have destroyed this country, that's a load of crap. The neocons are NOT conservative.
There is only one candidate for president who has addressed the issues at the core of the problems we face. A little turn to the left is not going to end the wars, save the economy, give us back our power over our government, or restore our liberty. It's too late for that. And one way or another, there's going to have to be a drastic change. It would be nice to see that change happen before this country collapses.
"The Texas congressman's Libertarian philosophy means he doesn't want any government regulation of industry or checks on corporate polluters. Libertarians delude themselves and try to delude others with the unproven and idiotic claim that capitalists will do good and regulate themselves. "
basic misconception here. Libertarians simply point out that government agencies are routinely ineffective at most tasks they are created to handle, (if not completely corrupt). having no EPA wouldnt mean there would be no pollution enforcement any more than doing away with the NEA would mean there are no more schools. if people care about something, it will happen as always and probably happen as efficiently as possible. it is a mistake to think that government cares about the environment, or anything. "IT" doesnt care, the lobbyists who work full time shaping that government care. meanwhile we all go to sleep thinking the big daddy has solved all of our problems for us.
basic misconception here. Libertarians simply point out that government agencies are routinely ineffective at most tasks they are created to handle, (if not completely corrupt). having no EPA wouldnt mean there would be no pollution enforcement any more than doing away with the NEA would mean there are no more schools. if people care about something, it will happen as always and probably happen as efficiently as possible. it is a mistake to think that government cares about the environment, or anything. "IT" doesnt care, the lobbyists who work full time shaping that government care. meanwhile we all go to sleep thinking the big daddy has solved all of our problems for us.
Paul firmly believes in government... kicking down your door to force your women to pro-create. He is not an anarchist who believes in no government. He's running for Pres after all.
as for the person who disingenuously wrote, "my own pro-choice position" -- it's hard to believe you are in any way pro-choice when you turn around and write a sentence or two later about a genocide of babies. why do so-called pro-lifers lie like that so much?
so, for those libertarians who dream of no government (save for the pro-creation cops), how exactly will environmental protection happen without an EPA? you say, "like it always did" or something to that effect, but, frankly, that's just ignorant. enviro protection basically never happened until the EPA was created. sure, there were a handful of national parks created about a hundred years ago, but it was not that long ago we had our rivers and lakes catching fire across this country. if people cannot act collectively through a democratically elected government (by the people for the people ect) to counteract unabated free enterprise, then how in the hell are we to really stop rampant pollution? what leverage to rugged individualists have to defend their air and water against international mega-conglomerates? and don't give me some pie-in-the-sky consumer choice pap. I want to hear something that has a realistic chance of checking corporate pollution as much as the (albeit imperfect) EPA has.
as for the person who disingenuously wrote, "my own pro-choice position" -- it's hard to believe you are in any way pro-choice when you turn around and write a sentence or two later about a genocide of babies. why do so-called pro-lifers lie like that so much?
so, for those libertarians who dream of no government (save for the pro-creation cops), how exactly will environmental protection happen without an EPA? you say, "like it always did" or something to that effect, but, frankly, that's just ignorant. enviro protection basically never happened until the EPA was created. sure, there were a handful of national parks created about a hundred years ago, but it was not that long ago we had our rivers and lakes catching fire across this country. if people cannot act collectively through a democratically elected government (by the people for the people ect) to counteract unabated free enterprise, then how in the hell are we to really stop rampant pollution? what leverage to rugged individualists have to defend their air and water against international mega-conglomerates? and don't give me some pie-in-the-sky consumer choice pap. I want to hear something that has a realistic chance of checking corporate pollution as much as the (albeit imperfect) EPA has.
Ron Paul is a patriot and he is a "top tier" contender... http://truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm
For more information:
http://truthalert.net
And everyone else here just hates this country.
Pah-lease, enough with the overuse/misuse of the word "patriot".
And how is someone a patriot if they have no interest in the common good and don't believe people have the ability to organize for the betterment of their country, that the only "good" is self interest, be that corporate or individual?
He's just willing to trade government of the people for corporate rule where the people have zero say in anything, no vote or nuthin'.
Pah-lease, enough with the overuse/misuse of the word "patriot".
And how is someone a patriot if they have no interest in the common good and don't believe people have the ability to organize for the betterment of their country, that the only "good" is self interest, be that corporate or individual?
He's just willing to trade government of the people for corporate rule where the people have zero say in anything, no vote or nuthin'.
Congratulations on painting an absurd, completely inaccurate caricature of Dr. Paul. If you want to debate his positions on various issues go ahead but don't try to say that other than the Iraq war, he's identical to the rest. I agree that his position on illegal immigration is wrong, so go ahead and pick out specific things to criticize him on, but don't mouth off inaccurate generalizations.
And also, the Federal Govt. was not needed to end slavery. Northern abolitionists had advocated NORTHERN secession for years as a way to weaken slavery by rendering the fugitive slave law ineffective. A few abolitionists stayed true to their principles and said to let the South go in peace such as Lysander Spooner, Moncure Conway and others. The North invaded for purely for financial interests and imperial reasons (manifest destiny mindset couldn't allow for an independent South). Slavery was dying out naturally and the South wouldn't have been able to keep it forever no matter what the North did. Even Alexander Stevens, the vice president of the CSA opposed secession and said that slavery was "safer in the union than out of it."
State schooling always glorifies the state so you don't hear this stuff in school. Do your own research and challenge the assumptions.
And also, the Federal Govt. was not needed to end slavery. Northern abolitionists had advocated NORTHERN secession for years as a way to weaken slavery by rendering the fugitive slave law ineffective. A few abolitionists stayed true to their principles and said to let the South go in peace such as Lysander Spooner, Moncure Conway and others. The North invaded for purely for financial interests and imperial reasons (manifest destiny mindset couldn't allow for an independent South). Slavery was dying out naturally and the South wouldn't have been able to keep it forever no matter what the North did. Even Alexander Stevens, the vice president of the CSA opposed secession and said that slavery was "safer in the union than out of it."
State schooling always glorifies the state so you don't hear this stuff in school. Do your own research and challenge the assumptions.
"enviro protection basically never happened until the EPA was created. "
wrong. enviro protection was a grass roots effort and continues to be one as committed activists do the heavy lifting and appeal to fellow citizens to join the cause of the day. and if their activism creates enough political heat, the EPA comes in to manage the discontent while keeping the industrialists happy.
thinking that only a large central govt agency can solve problems is stubbornly uncreative at best. i can imagine a much better environmental situation here in 2008, real global warming responses, real energy solutions, real changes in the total waste stream. the EPA is only holding us back as they are a massive sea anchor both in bureaucracy and the influence of corporate interests that centralization makes possible. states and localities get blocked from acting while the Fed stalls and tries to predict how the political wind is blowing.
the issue is about efficient management , not about doing away with laws and enforcement.
wrong. enviro protection was a grass roots effort and continues to be one as committed activists do the heavy lifting and appeal to fellow citizens to join the cause of the day. and if their activism creates enough political heat, the EPA comes in to manage the discontent while keeping the industrialists happy.
thinking that only a large central govt agency can solve problems is stubbornly uncreative at best. i can imagine a much better environmental situation here in 2008, real global warming responses, real energy solutions, real changes in the total waste stream. the EPA is only holding us back as they are a massive sea anchor both in bureaucracy and the influence of corporate interests that centralization makes possible. states and localities get blocked from acting while the Fed stalls and tries to predict how the political wind is blowing.
the issue is about efficient management , not about doing away with laws and enforcement.
having no EPA wouldnt mean there would be no pollution enforcement any more than doing away with the NEA would mean there are no more schools.
right but people's power to "care" is directly proportional to economic power. So poor people have to do this thing call "work" during the day won't have the same economic power that the wealthy have to stay home or pay someone to educate their children. Likewise environmentalist can never match resources of corporations that profit from that same environmental degradation. The idea that you can just point at government flaws and then promptly do away with any collective democratic control over social responsibility of individuals will quickly lead to massive civil violence. As people lacking economic power will exert the power in the only dimension in which they can affect change ie violence. This has happened dozens of times throughout history and would happen again if the likes of Ron Paul where to be elected. You can't possibly expect people to respect others rights to pay slave wages, and fuck the environment however they please.
meanwhile we all go to sleep thinking the big daddy has solved all of our problems for us.
Thats silly, everyone knows that any real social change comes from grass root massive campaigns to shift systems of control of concentrated power back into the hands of the people affected. The "government" is often that very system of control that you are fighting with. The government never helps in positive social change rather is forced to by the people. As a centralized power of course government favors more centralization of power, but it exists as a more malliable structure than the non-representational vertically integrated tyranny of corporate control.
The idea that things would be better off letting capital even more directly dictate our freedoms is a very natural ideological divined on the billions invested into free-market think tanks over the past 30 years. But if you actually look at societies that fully embraced free market ideology you find a rapid decline and quick embrace of fascism just to keep things running. Naomi Klein's shock doctrine offers an good overview.
This entire post is Bullshit. The hatred overflows to the point where facts are distorted and lies are introduced. There is no news here, only a virulent hate that can only harm anyone who reads this. Please deal with your own personal problems before attempting to write news for other people.
I usually don't comment on articles with gross mis-characterizations, but this particular one is so egregious I felt compelled. I'll work my way through...
Three words into the article (in the title no less!):
1) Using the term "fascist" represents the opposite of accuracy when used to describe Dr. Paul. Fascism is defined as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism". Dr. Paul advocates a reduction of the size of the federal government, an increased emphasis on respect for civil liberties and actual free-market economics. So by definition, you are wrong on all counts.
[sigh] you know what, there are too many false statements to correct each one. Dr. Paul is against a border fence and voted for a bill containing one because it also contained a variety of other restrictions that actually touch on the source of the problem: US welfare. He DOES NOT support the occupation of Afghanistan or any other foreign country. In general he is quite different from the rest of the GOP field, who are much closer to the Democratic contenders then they are to Dr. Paul's realistic stances. Also due to the complete misrepresentation of Dr. Paul I can only surmise that you have equally misrepresented Mr. Obama, although I'm not as familiar with the nuances of all his statements.
I do not know what your intent is although since most of your article is quoted from the "World Socialist Website", so it is safe to assume that you have socialist leanings. Because you have these leanings, I understand your fear of Dr. Paul. Not only is he working against your political philosophy, he is converting a large portion of the US population into activists on the opposing side. Your problem is that he does this with reasoned answers backed by historical fact (Al Qaeda motivations, the role of central banks, etc.) and supported by current events (Bhutto assassination, the devaluation of the dollar, executive power expansion, etc.). You use lies to support your philosophy. Good luck to you.
On a side note, since I think you have a socialist political philosophy (which is not meant to be derogatory, just an accurate descriptor) I am curious why you appear to be so anti-government. The Bush administration has done much to push us towards socialism (no child left behind, attempt at the ID card), past presidents have pushed your agenda and most of the Congress and Supreme Court appear to support the socialist movement as well. In any case, you have eleven (five democrats and six republicans) who are planning on further taxing the population and further increasing government control, which is the end result of socialistic systems anyway so you should be rejoicing!
In closing, your article sucks beyond comprehension. You must have very little respect for the education of your readers. It is because of articles like this that Indybay.org is destined to have a laughably small weekly readership. Good luck with that too.
PS. grow some balls and sign your name to your slander.
Three words into the article (in the title no less!):
1) Using the term "fascist" represents the opposite of accuracy when used to describe Dr. Paul. Fascism is defined as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism". Dr. Paul advocates a reduction of the size of the federal government, an increased emphasis on respect for civil liberties and actual free-market economics. So by definition, you are wrong on all counts.
[sigh] you know what, there are too many false statements to correct each one. Dr. Paul is against a border fence and voted for a bill containing one because it also contained a variety of other restrictions that actually touch on the source of the problem: US welfare. He DOES NOT support the occupation of Afghanistan or any other foreign country. In general he is quite different from the rest of the GOP field, who are much closer to the Democratic contenders then they are to Dr. Paul's realistic stances. Also due to the complete misrepresentation of Dr. Paul I can only surmise that you have equally misrepresented Mr. Obama, although I'm not as familiar with the nuances of all his statements.
I do not know what your intent is although since most of your article is quoted from the "World Socialist Website", so it is safe to assume that you have socialist leanings. Because you have these leanings, I understand your fear of Dr. Paul. Not only is he working against your political philosophy, he is converting a large portion of the US population into activists on the opposing side. Your problem is that he does this with reasoned answers backed by historical fact (Al Qaeda motivations, the role of central banks, etc.) and supported by current events (Bhutto assassination, the devaluation of the dollar, executive power expansion, etc.). You use lies to support your philosophy. Good luck to you.
On a side note, since I think you have a socialist political philosophy (which is not meant to be derogatory, just an accurate descriptor) I am curious why you appear to be so anti-government. The Bush administration has done much to push us towards socialism (no child left behind, attempt at the ID card), past presidents have pushed your agenda and most of the Congress and Supreme Court appear to support the socialist movement as well. In any case, you have eleven (five democrats and six republicans) who are planning on further taxing the population and further increasing government control, which is the end result of socialistic systems anyway so you should be rejoicing!
In closing, your article sucks beyond comprehension. You must have very little respect for the education of your readers. It is because of articles like this that Indybay.org is destined to have a laughably small weekly readership. Good luck with that too.
PS. grow some balls and sign your name to your slander.
"Paul supported and continues to support the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan." = False
Ron Paul supported a "surgical attack" on Osama Bin Laden. He is totally against all nation building and occupation. While I appreciate your views and opinions, please verify your facts before you post your comments.
Ron Paul supported a "surgical attack" on Osama Bin Laden. He is totally against all nation building and occupation. While I appreciate your views and opinions, please verify your facts before you post your comments.
For more information:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
Notice how so few of the Ron Paul People ever actually engage anything respondents say in the threads here. They come at the same original article with the same half-baked "stop the war" rhetoric they think will appeal to this crowd-- and that's speaking loosely, many of them have no idea where they're at, they think "journalists" have "jobs" here. Meanwhile, the rest of their sputum is full of hard-right Christianist, maybe even millenialist, back-to-the-19th-centuryism. I mean, the gold standard? Really?
They leave out some of the hard-rightie stuff, but it's very easy to find at RP's campaign website, ron paul 2008 dot com. Dig through the "issues" section for 60 seconds, max, and come back and tell us you wouldn't rather vote for Cynthia McKinney already.
Geez-- I mean, the anti-immigrant stuff is hater-type creepy, ya know?
They leave out some of the hard-rightie stuff, but it's very easy to find at RP's campaign website, ron paul 2008 dot com. Dig through the "issues" section for 60 seconds, max, and come back and tell us you wouldn't rather vote for Cynthia McKinney already.
Geez-- I mean, the anti-immigrant stuff is hater-type creepy, ya know?
I mean, right out of McCarthy Era.
I swear, these things get linked to from LGF or some kind of Paul-zombie blog site out there or something. They come in, no idea what the community sensibility is around here, and start spewing like it's the comments section at the Des Moines daily newspaper.
Clue by 4: This is not Idaho, kiddies.
I swear, these things get linked to from LGF or some kind of Paul-zombie blog site out there or something. They come in, no idea what the community sensibility is around here, and start spewing like it's the comments section at the Des Moines daily newspaper.
Clue by 4: This is not Idaho, kiddies.
"he is in complete agreement with all Republican candidates on all other issues."
This statement is so wrong it must be a joke. Ron Paul is so far away from GOP and even Democrats, that none of the candidates are comfortable debating him.
Which other candidates agree with Ron Paul on the following:
eliminating IRS and income tax and making no replacement taxes;
withdrawing from Iraq (even Hillary votes for more Iraq funding);
allow competition in currency and Federal Reserve.
This statement is so wrong it must be a joke. Ron Paul is so far away from GOP and even Democrats, that none of the candidates are comfortable debating him.
Which other candidates agree with Ron Paul on the following:
eliminating IRS and income tax and making no replacement taxes;
withdrawing from Iraq (even Hillary votes for more Iraq funding);
allow competition in currency and Federal Reserve.
For more information:
http://ronpaulsummit.com
The "patriot" meme (as in, Ron Paul is a...), especially when it's opposed to your own, personal belief in a "coercive" federal government, because you care about abortion rights, environmental preservation, and the defeat of institutionalized racism-- that, somehow, is "forcing everyone to live the way you want them to, but leaving hard-won abortion &c rights to the states to take away, is somehow "freedom." Well, not if that state reimposes Jim Crow, it's not, you assholes.
Because you're a leftie, you therefore must believe in a big, coercive government. Really! They read it right in Ayn Rand!!
Because you're a leftie, you therefore must believe in a big, coercive government. Really! They read it right in Ayn Rand!!
But like a broken record, they'll say the same thing, over and over again, as if it simply weren't said with enough vitriol and conviction the other 4,375 times-- but this time, you'll "get it."
Unfortunately, the site janitors have been hiding the threats of physical violence that these people inevitably revert to, when their debate "skills" fail them at length. That's the real persuason they offer.
Because they believe in freedom! from government coercion! I guess the coercion of large, organized groups doing systematic violence, should be left to "volunteer" "patriots"-- like what these types inflict on our brothers and sisters at the US/Mexico border.
Fascist squadristi, the lot of 'em, I say.
Unfortunately, the site janitors have been hiding the threats of physical violence that these people inevitably revert to, when their debate "skills" fail them at length. That's the real persuason they offer.
Because they believe in freedom! from government coercion! I guess the coercion of large, organized groups doing systematic violence, should be left to "volunteer" "patriots"-- like what these types inflict on our brothers and sisters at the US/Mexico border.
Fascist squadristi, the lot of 'em, I say.
blah blah gold standard! blah blah i may not agree with him on abortion but he's a patriot! blah blah stop the illegals blah blah blah stop the war, defend the borders! blah blah blah socialist domination! blah blah blah
blech. think i'm gonna vomit.....
blech. think i'm gonna vomit.....
This article is so biased and inaccurate I don't know where to begin. This may be a decent start:
Interview at Google
Interview at Google
"The idea that you can just point at government flaws and then promptly do away with any collective democratic control over social responsibility of individuals will quickly lead to massive civil violence. "
that's your idea, not Ron Paul's, nor mine.
"The idea that things would be better off letting capital even more directly dictate our freedoms is a very natural ideological divined on the billions invested into free-market think tanks over the past 30 years. But if you actually look at societies that fully embraced free market ideology you find a rapid decline and quick embrace of fascism just to keep things running. Naomi Klein's shock doctrine offers an good overview."
an excellent reason to elect ron paul, who is adamantly anti-corporate and wants to reverse that trend in the US today.
that's your idea, not Ron Paul's, nor mine.
"The idea that things would be better off letting capital even more directly dictate our freedoms is a very natural ideological divined on the billions invested into free-market think tanks over the past 30 years. But if you actually look at societies that fully embraced free market ideology you find a rapid decline and quick embrace of fascism just to keep things running. Naomi Klein's shock doctrine offers an good overview."
an excellent reason to elect ron paul, who is adamantly anti-corporate and wants to reverse that trend in the US today.
Why do people react so violent to tighter border security? It's as if the Republican candidates went on a rampage to decapitate thousands of illegal immigrants. Let's get real here. Securing a fence along the US-Mexican border is also for national security, keeping terrorists and smugglers out. If we have 12 million illegal immigrants here, imagine how easy it would be for terrorists to enter the country through the US-Mexican border. Also, "illegal immigrants" does not only apply to Mexican immigrants - there are illegal immigrants from other countries who enter the US as well. Mexican illegal immigrants really flatter themselves when they think the term only applies to them.
Okay, so everyone goes for the "be humane" propaganda to grant amnesty and give a path to citizenship. To give every single one of the 12 million a path to citizenship is extremely unfair to the immigrants who came here legally and it gives a false impression of law and order in the country. Forgiveness is great at a personal level, but offering this mass "pardon" and giving them the same rights as law-abiding individuals who came here the hard way is the wrong idea. I'm not anti-immigrant; both of my parents are immigrants, they came here the legal way, no privileges/welfare (despite living in poverty for 4 years), and they got their citizenship 13 and 14 years after being in the country. I'm angry, however, that schmucks like Huckabee want to grant scholarships and grants for illegal immigrants to attend universities when I, as a daughter of <i>legal</i> immigrants, don't deserve anything because I'm a "privileged" 18-year-old of European descent. My parents still work their asses off and paying for college is near impossible... and yet I'm not eligible for grants or scholarships. The "system" is unfair to even those who are seen as "privileged." Of course, that term is also liberally used to apply to those who are white and able to afford the basic necessities of life. My opposition to "socialized medicine" does not stem from being spoiled; just talk to my friend in the Netherlands (a beacon of socialized medicine) who cannot get her appendix out because the system has not approved surgery. Yes, health plans and insurance are expensive, but I'd hate to see how people would react when socialized medicine would rear its ugly head. See how nice it will be when it takes 3 years to approve a heart transplant and how many doctors will be laid off.
It's also real nice when illegal immigrants use expensive hospital services and don't pay a dime, driving hospitals into bankruptcy. Yes, America - give them welfare, health care, educate their children... and cheat law-abiding citizens of their hard-earned money. Remember one thing: the government doesn't pay for anything - the regular Joe Schmo is paying for your kid to attend public school.
My idea for how to deal with illegal immigration, since a mass deportation of 12 million isn't exactly feasible.
-Give each illegal immigrant a trial of 12 months in which they:
--Pay taxes
--Learn English (if they haven't)
--Live like model American citizens (no felonies, have jobs, pay dues, etc) and make a positive contribution to society
And, as a slap on the wrist for breaking the law, there should also be a fine. Nothing entirely crazy that would stick people into debt for years, but people need to know that what they did was wrong. If people do not do the above listed, they should get deported. Harsh, yes, but why would you come to the land of opportunity if you don't want to make a better life for yourself? The people who have met these requirements, after paying the fine, will get a path to citizenship.
The United States is a land of opportunity, but it should not condone legal acts.
Remember that the US is not a small, happy country of 5 million like Norway or Finland - it's a melting pot of 300 million people. We don't need big government, but we need to encourage the need to be law-abiding, responsible individuals.
Okay, so everyone goes for the "be humane" propaganda to grant amnesty and give a path to citizenship. To give every single one of the 12 million a path to citizenship is extremely unfair to the immigrants who came here legally and it gives a false impression of law and order in the country. Forgiveness is great at a personal level, but offering this mass "pardon" and giving them the same rights as law-abiding individuals who came here the hard way is the wrong idea. I'm not anti-immigrant; both of my parents are immigrants, they came here the legal way, no privileges/welfare (despite living in poverty for 4 years), and they got their citizenship 13 and 14 years after being in the country. I'm angry, however, that schmucks like Huckabee want to grant scholarships and grants for illegal immigrants to attend universities when I, as a daughter of <i>legal</i> immigrants, don't deserve anything because I'm a "privileged" 18-year-old of European descent. My parents still work their asses off and paying for college is near impossible... and yet I'm not eligible for grants or scholarships. The "system" is unfair to even those who are seen as "privileged." Of course, that term is also liberally used to apply to those who are white and able to afford the basic necessities of life. My opposition to "socialized medicine" does not stem from being spoiled; just talk to my friend in the Netherlands (a beacon of socialized medicine) who cannot get her appendix out because the system has not approved surgery. Yes, health plans and insurance are expensive, but I'd hate to see how people would react when socialized medicine would rear its ugly head. See how nice it will be when it takes 3 years to approve a heart transplant and how many doctors will be laid off.
It's also real nice when illegal immigrants use expensive hospital services and don't pay a dime, driving hospitals into bankruptcy. Yes, America - give them welfare, health care, educate their children... and cheat law-abiding citizens of their hard-earned money. Remember one thing: the government doesn't pay for anything - the regular Joe Schmo is paying for your kid to attend public school.
My idea for how to deal with illegal immigration, since a mass deportation of 12 million isn't exactly feasible.
-Give each illegal immigrant a trial of 12 months in which they:
--Pay taxes
--Learn English (if they haven't)
--Live like model American citizens (no felonies, have jobs, pay dues, etc) and make a positive contribution to society
And, as a slap on the wrist for breaking the law, there should also be a fine. Nothing entirely crazy that would stick people into debt for years, but people need to know that what they did was wrong. If people do not do the above listed, they should get deported. Harsh, yes, but why would you come to the land of opportunity if you don't want to make a better life for yourself? The people who have met these requirements, after paying the fine, will get a path to citizenship.
The United States is a land of opportunity, but it should not condone legal acts.
Remember that the US is not a small, happy country of 5 million like Norway or Finland - it's a melting pot of 300 million people. We don't need big government, but we need to encourage the need to be law-abiding, responsible individuals.
Regarding the comments posted about the Env. Protection Agency or EPA; I am an environmental inspector on the state level and I can assure you that the EPA has become a tool for politicians to manipulate at the federal level and actually avoid any environmental accountability. The majority of environmental protection comes from the localities themselves ie. counties, towns, cities. So, if the federal govt did decide to do away with the EPA then those duties previously held by the EPA would fall to the states and trickle down to the localities. Localities are much better at policing their own backyard than the federal govt., which very rarely gets involved. The localities would then require bonds for all environmental disturbance caused by a developer or business of some sort and would actually be inspected on a regular basis (something that will never happen with the EPA). If the business did not meet the requirements it would loose its bond ($$$$) and its business liscense. The bond money would then be used by the locality to correct the environmental impacts. The EPA along with many of Washingtons agencys are simply too large and bulky and loaded with red tape...they have outgrown their usefulness. I dont know much about Dr. Paul but doing away with the EPA and other federal agencys is a great idea and would benefit every single American tremendously, and in the EPA's case it would drastically benefit our ecosystems.
Fascist, Ron Paul? What dictionary do you use? Isolationist? again show me the definition. You are SO far off base you are not even in the ball park.
So tell me who will really end the war and bring the troops home immediately? Obama, Clinton, Edwards? None of them have committed to a timetable. When asked in the ABC debate a couple of months back none would committ to a timetable. Oh, except now for Billary. She's a changed woman now that her dream of the presidency is going down like a lead balloon.
Wow! unbelievable! Do you work for FOX news?
So tell me who will really end the war and bring the troops home immediately? Obama, Clinton, Edwards? None of them have committed to a timetable. When asked in the ABC debate a couple of months back none would committ to a timetable. Oh, except now for Billary. She's a changed woman now that her dream of the presidency is going down like a lead balloon.
Wow! unbelievable! Do you work for FOX news?
When you call Dr. Paul a fascist or an isolationist you remind me of a saying my grandfather had, "better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Liberty is about personal responsibility. When the government "helps" you, it is at the expense of your liberty. Here's the news flash, its a the expense of all of our liberty. My liberty, my kids liberty, my grandkids liberty.
As far as abortion goes, murder is not the right solution for forgetting to plan ahead. Without life there can be no liberty. Let me know if you are having trouble keeping up.
If you wish to give up your responsibility and your liberty so the government can provide all for you that is fine, join the military and go to Iraq. Free health care, clothes, boots, a company car, vacation, travel to great places and a 35% retirement if we let you retire after 20 some years.
Patriots are those that stand up to the urge of those in government to increase there restricted powers. They are the dissenters of the establishment of tyranny and champions of liberty. As far as the immigration goes, this is about American citizens! If you don't fall in that category your opinion doesnt count.
The Dems (socialist) want to withdraw from Iraq by 2013, Dr. Paul would start bringing my friends home Jan. 09.
Those who choose to bash and nit pick the man should spend more energy reading about him and less time showing your ignorance. Do us all a favor and read the U.S. Constitution sometime, it happens to be the law of the land. But you also probably think this is a democracy and not a Republic.
Liberty is about personal responsibility. When the government "helps" you, it is at the expense of your liberty. Here's the news flash, its a the expense of all of our liberty. My liberty, my kids liberty, my grandkids liberty.
As far as abortion goes, murder is not the right solution for forgetting to plan ahead. Without life there can be no liberty. Let me know if you are having trouble keeping up.
If you wish to give up your responsibility and your liberty so the government can provide all for you that is fine, join the military and go to Iraq. Free health care, clothes, boots, a company car, vacation, travel to great places and a 35% retirement if we let you retire after 20 some years.
Patriots are those that stand up to the urge of those in government to increase there restricted powers. They are the dissenters of the establishment of tyranny and champions of liberty. As far as the immigration goes, this is about American citizens! If you don't fall in that category your opinion doesnt count.
The Dems (socialist) want to withdraw from Iraq by 2013, Dr. Paul would start bringing my friends home Jan. 09.
Those who choose to bash and nit pick the man should spend more energy reading about him and less time showing your ignorance. Do us all a favor and read the U.S. Constitution sometime, it happens to be the law of the land. But you also probably think this is a democracy and not a Republic.
Play this song-- play it LOUD
Everytime you think of voting for Ron Paul:
America the Beautiful, by DOA
-----------------------------------
lock your doors, lock 'em tight
it's the new immoral right
they wanna cleanse the home of the brave
for the master race of the usa
it's so beautiful
on the street you won't know them
like a pack of wolves in sheeps' clothing
spreading wide, spreading far
not just another false alarm
it's so beautiful
america -- i got my bible
america -- i got my handgun
america -- now i'm ready
america -- home of the brave
america - and the home of the slaves
america -- now i'm ready
...but are you?
Everytime you think of voting for Ron Paul:
America the Beautiful, by DOA
-----------------------------------
lock your doors, lock 'em tight
it's the new immoral right
they wanna cleanse the home of the brave
for the master race of the usa
it's so beautiful
on the street you won't know them
like a pack of wolves in sheeps' clothing
spreading wide, spreading far
not just another false alarm
it's so beautiful
america -- i got my bible
america -- i got my handgun
america -- now i'm ready
america -- home of the brave
america - and the home of the slaves
america -- now i'm ready
...but are you?
some unnamed person wrote: "Libertarians simply point out that government agencies are routinely ineffective at most tasks they are created to handle, (if not completely corrupt). having no EPA wouldnt mean there would be no pollution enforcement any more than doing away with the NEA would mean there are no more schools."
1. Ron Paul Republican-Libertarians may believe that since government agencies are bloated and ineffective in most cases they should be abolished to give individuals 'freedom'. That's been the Republican line since before Reagan, but he, and the rest of the Republican-Libertarians, aren't talking about individuals' freedoms but about the freedom of corporate CEOs to exploit workers, rape the earth, and enrich themselves and their political cronies. Ron Paul may talk a good line about freedom but unless you inherited the Hilton fortune and if you actually work for a living, you are subject to loss of freedom, wages, health care, pension, social security, etc. And doesn't Dr. Paul benefit from government funded health insurance as a government bureaucrat congressmember? He has health care provided by taxpayers, so unless he renounced that, he's a fat cat hypocrite.
2. The EPA is a federal agency, the NEA is a labor union; this is a ridiculous analogy that only serves to expose the ignorance of the poster.
3. Given that we have a government of by and for the people yet it is failing us, we have some choices: get better people in government (not Ron Paul, who is after all part of the corrupt system), replace the government with a new more democratic, anarcho-syndicalist one, or follow the lemmings over the cliff with Dr. Paul with more government of by and for corporate elites.
1. Ron Paul Republican-Libertarians may believe that since government agencies are bloated and ineffective in most cases they should be abolished to give individuals 'freedom'. That's been the Republican line since before Reagan, but he, and the rest of the Republican-Libertarians, aren't talking about individuals' freedoms but about the freedom of corporate CEOs to exploit workers, rape the earth, and enrich themselves and their political cronies. Ron Paul may talk a good line about freedom but unless you inherited the Hilton fortune and if you actually work for a living, you are subject to loss of freedom, wages, health care, pension, social security, etc. And doesn't Dr. Paul benefit from government funded health insurance as a government bureaucrat congressmember? He has health care provided by taxpayers, so unless he renounced that, he's a fat cat hypocrite.
2. The EPA is a federal agency, the NEA is a labor union; this is a ridiculous analogy that only serves to expose the ignorance of the poster.
3. Given that we have a government of by and for the people yet it is failing us, we have some choices: get better people in government (not Ron Paul, who is after all part of the corrupt system), replace the government with a new more democratic, anarcho-syndicalist one, or follow the lemmings over the cliff with Dr. Paul with more government of by and for corporate elites.
"replace the government with a new more democratic, anarcho-syndicalist one, "
Do you know what syndicalists think should run society? UNIONS! Special Interests! Big Brother Socialist Terrorists! Immigrants and Welfare Queens!
You utter idiot.
Bet you got your bible..... and you got your handgun.....
Do you know what syndicalists think should run society? UNIONS! Special Interests! Big Brother Socialist Terrorists! Immigrants and Welfare Queens!
You utter idiot.
Bet you got your bible..... and you got your handgun.....
This writer's work obviously isn't worth reading. His article has more grammatical errors and poorly worded sentences than papers I wrote in the 5th grade. Go flip burgers at your local McDonald's and leave journalism to the grown ups.
"Go flip burgers at your local McDonald's..."
Hate the workers, much?
Hate the workers, much?
I'm too tired to go into a detailed explanation of how ignorant this article is, but I will say -- Ron Paul has fascist ideals? Are you crazy? Fascism entails a larger state and federal government which absorbs and conspires with corporations. So, by reducing the power of the state, how is Ron Paul a fascist? Complete agreement with all Republican candidates on all other issues? Wow, I hate to use names but this piece is moronic and the author would know that if they did any reading...
We're community activists.
And we know a crypto-fascist when we smell one. The war on women, and the war on immigrants, are two monstrous tip-offs.
"Ron Paul people" are selling snake oil here.
And we know a crypto-fascist when we smell one. The war on women, and the war on immigrants, are two monstrous tip-offs.
"Ron Paul people" are selling snake oil here.
War on women? Never heard that one before. Would you care to source yourself? War on immigrants? Hardly.... try ILLEGAL immigrants. I'm not a die hard RP supporter. But studying economics and what a truly free-market system ( NOT what we have now, which is fascism because our governments are totally compliant with some corporations benefiting and others not ie not true competition ) can do for the middle class convinces me to lower taxes and regulations. Besides, it's not like we can afford any more entitlement programs anyways...
Right. You love the government. What's the government done for you that's been so wonderful? Some one above asked, "hate the workers much?" My response would be that when workers don't give a damn about learning how to study, write, or talk, then yeah, I hate workers much. I bust my ass 12 hours a day at a job that I'd rather not go to. But I guess since I'm a "propertarian", I'm not a "worker".
If you love big government from cradle to grave so much; if Ron Paul is such a threat to you; I understand Cuba is still looking for "workers" for their "paradise". You should go check it out.
If you love big government from cradle to grave so much; if Ron Paul is such a threat to you; I understand Cuba is still looking for "workers" for their "paradise". You should go check it out.
1. Ron Paul Republican-Libertarians may believe that since government agencies are bloated and ineffective in most cases they should be abolished to give individuals 'freedom'.
this is called a 'straw man'. even as poorly constructed as it is. read his actual position and speak to that.
And doesn't Dr. Paul benefit from government funded health insurance as a government bureaucrat congressmember? He has health care provided by taxpayers, so unless he renounced that, he's a fat cat hypocrite.
he's against a national health insurance system. not the same as what amounts to an employer plan, but you have a debatable point (unless he actually has renounced it). i for one would love to see a national health insurance system, but in present reality, it would be constructed as a giant money funnel for corporate interests. consider his idea of abolishing the federal income tax and pay for it by bringing all of our troops home. you can buy a lot of insurance with your income tax money. (Slashing the military is huge for me, no one else but Kucinich has the courage to call for that)
2. The EPA is a federal agency, the NEA is a labor union; this is a ridiculous analogy that only serves to expose the ignorance of the poster.
you're right, i meant the dept of education. as an aside, he is unequivocal in supporting the right to organize.
3. Given that we have a government of by and for the people yet it is failing us, we have some choices: get better people in government (not Ron Paul, who is after all part of the corrupt system), replace the government with a new more democratic, anarcho-syndicalist one, ...
"better people" will fix Washington? people are people, power corrupts, money corrupts, and the system is designed to fail as it is a central clearing house for corporate interests that no amount of "good people" can combat. a better choice is to break up the monopoly, take control back to the states and localities. i'm with you for an anarcho-syndicalist system, and i'm sure Paul would be a lot happier with that too since it maximizes local and personal freedom and minimizes central govt.
or follow the lemmings over the cliff with Dr. Paul with more government of by and for corporate elites.
and i'm not sure if you're just stubbornly ignorant or dishonest, but of course Paul is highly anti-corporate, rails about the evils of their influence daily, refuses donations from corporations and of course, wants to reduce the federal govt.
Oh, my. What ignorance. Do you guys even know what fascism is? It is where the state controls the lives of the people. Ron Paul's message is exactly the opposite of fascism. Open up a book, for the sake of the rest of us, please. Agrees with the other candidates on all other issues? Which candidates? Where? How? Nothing shows him to be in agreement with much of any of the other candidate's ideas. He feels justified in declaring war only if we are attacked? Heaven forbid! He's practically Hitler! Believes we have no business interfering with other countries? The horror!
Is he pro-gun? Yep, he believes the final protection against government is an armed populace who will not let government rule unquestioned without a fight. Which is why we have a 2nd Amendment. Every dictatorship or fascist government has always limited access to weapons. It doesn't make the populace safe. It makes the government safe from the people. Because government has the guns at that point, and the people have nothing.
Is he against abortion? Yep. As and OB/GYN, he's the only politician with a professional opinion on the subject. But what does he say as far as government's role in abortion? Government shouldn't have a role. Imagine that. Government has no business with abortion. What a novel viewpoint.
As he said to Bill Moyer, he sees everyone as an individual, regardless of race or creed. None better or worse. That's what equality actually means.
We have social programs. How well are they working? Oh, still poor people? But surely our education system is high. We spend enough to be 1st..no? Um, second? No? Oh, the 18th best educated in the world. Yeah, we're doing a lot with government controlled education. Listen and understand, Nanny Government becomes Big Brother Government. Always. The more programs we have, the more government becomes involved in our lives. It's that simple.
Ron does not participate in the Pension program, I don't know about the health care. I do know he returns his offices unused money to the Treasury. If you actually listen to Ron, or read his essays (which are not hard to find) you would know his positions instead of assuming. He wants to reduce overseas spending, reduce the size and scope of government control, use the money we would save to help Americans. How many of the poor could be fed with what we have spent on war? Did you know he wants tax credits for those who need it because of medical issues like caring for a sick relative? Didn't think so.
With a little research, you would hear him speak against corporations and government. He wants to limit lobbyists by making it illegal to have a corporation lobby if it has government contracts. How do you think Halburton would fare with that law? He's spoken against what the CIA is doing internationally, what the FBI is doing domestically. He's spoken about the manipulation of our economy to benefit the banks. Seriously, did we just pick a candidate out of the air and decide to attack him as having inferred viewpoints the exact opposite of what he actually has? He's been saying the same things for 20 years, it's not hard to find out where he's coming from. He's fought all of his colleagues on these things with consistency. He's not saying one thing and doing another. He's perhaps the only politician in Washington who is not saying one thing and doing another. He voted against the Patriot Act, and it's renewal. Voted against war in Iraq. Consistency, consistency, consistency. For 20 years.
I mean he's one of the only proponents of individual liberty as opposed to government and corporate control. Even his recent ordeal with Fox News and his comments concerning it will show you what he thinks of corporate interference in our lives. Seriously, there's plenty to complain about without having to make things up. Are you so desperate to find flaws that you must invent them? Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes in smaller government (would a small, limited government have the power to do a 9/11 "inside job"?) and individual liberties. Get a clue.
Is he pro-gun? Yep, he believes the final protection against government is an armed populace who will not let government rule unquestioned without a fight. Which is why we have a 2nd Amendment. Every dictatorship or fascist government has always limited access to weapons. It doesn't make the populace safe. It makes the government safe from the people. Because government has the guns at that point, and the people have nothing.
Is he against abortion? Yep. As and OB/GYN, he's the only politician with a professional opinion on the subject. But what does he say as far as government's role in abortion? Government shouldn't have a role. Imagine that. Government has no business with abortion. What a novel viewpoint.
As he said to Bill Moyer, he sees everyone as an individual, regardless of race or creed. None better or worse. That's what equality actually means.
We have social programs. How well are they working? Oh, still poor people? But surely our education system is high. We spend enough to be 1st..no? Um, second? No? Oh, the 18th best educated in the world. Yeah, we're doing a lot with government controlled education. Listen and understand, Nanny Government becomes Big Brother Government. Always. The more programs we have, the more government becomes involved in our lives. It's that simple.
Ron does not participate in the Pension program, I don't know about the health care. I do know he returns his offices unused money to the Treasury. If you actually listen to Ron, or read his essays (which are not hard to find) you would know his positions instead of assuming. He wants to reduce overseas spending, reduce the size and scope of government control, use the money we would save to help Americans. How many of the poor could be fed with what we have spent on war? Did you know he wants tax credits for those who need it because of medical issues like caring for a sick relative? Didn't think so.
With a little research, you would hear him speak against corporations and government. He wants to limit lobbyists by making it illegal to have a corporation lobby if it has government contracts. How do you think Halburton would fare with that law? He's spoken against what the CIA is doing internationally, what the FBI is doing domestically. He's spoken about the manipulation of our economy to benefit the banks. Seriously, did we just pick a candidate out of the air and decide to attack him as having inferred viewpoints the exact opposite of what he actually has? He's been saying the same things for 20 years, it's not hard to find out where he's coming from. He's fought all of his colleagues on these things with consistency. He's not saying one thing and doing another. He's perhaps the only politician in Washington who is not saying one thing and doing another. He voted against the Patriot Act, and it's renewal. Voted against war in Iraq. Consistency, consistency, consistency. For 20 years.
I mean he's one of the only proponents of individual liberty as opposed to government and corporate control. Even his recent ordeal with Fox News and his comments concerning it will show you what he thinks of corporate interference in our lives. Seriously, there's plenty to complain about without having to make things up. Are you so desperate to find flaws that you must invent them? Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes in smaller government (would a small, limited government have the power to do a 9/11 "inside job"?) and individual liberties. Get a clue.
You will have to post a retraction soon since this article is entirely sladerious & lible.
But anyways my $.02 is
Mr. + whoever you really are, since you don't have the integrity to put your name on your propoganda.
Mr. + read some Franklin, Paine, Adams, Mises, and then read or listen to Ron Paul again and maybe just maybe the cobwebs in your mainstream media fed brain will break loose and you will start to get what this r3VOlution is all about!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA&feature=related
But anyways my $.02 is
Mr. + whoever you really are, since you don't have the integrity to put your name on your propoganda.
Mr. + read some Franklin, Paine, Adams, Mises, and then read or listen to Ron Paul again and maybe just maybe the cobwebs in your mainstream media fed brain will break loose and you will start to get what this r3VOlution is all about!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA&feature=related
Thank goodness people have Google and other search engines that can instantly pull up millions of sources on Ron Paul so that they can verify or refute a poisonous hit piece like this one.
In fact, Ron Paul's campaign is such a radical departure from the rest of the Republican field on U.S. war policy, foriegn aid, corporate welfare, the War on Drugs, domestic surveilance, and an enormous raft of other areas that Fox News, that seething nest of neocons, barred him from their "round table discussion" among Republican candidates held Sunday, Jan. 6. They, the military industrial complex, big agribusiness, big banking, and numerous other powerful interests are dead set against Ron Paul because of the changes he intends if elected.
In fact, Ron Paul's campaign is such a radical departure from the rest of the Republican field on U.S. war policy, foriegn aid, corporate welfare, the War on Drugs, domestic surveilance, and an enormous raft of other areas that Fox News, that seething nest of neocons, barred him from their "round table discussion" among Republican candidates held Sunday, Jan. 6. They, the military industrial complex, big agribusiness, big banking, and numerous other powerful interests are dead set against Ron Paul because of the changes he intends if elected.
I realize that most nay sayers in the world get their misinformation by sitting on their lazy 4th point of contact and let Pat O'Reilly fill you head with the Party line. Please do us all a favor and turn the TV off and read. Some recommended reading would start with the US constitution, comon sense, the federalist papers or anything penned by Madison, Jefferson or Franklin. For those of you confused about leaving all other powers to the state look at article 10 of the constitution.
But bottom lines is this you can choose to give up your liberty for dependancy on the state, the rest of us don't want to take care of you. Find a 1957 Chevy truck and construct it to travel to Cuba, there they can take care of all of your needs.
News flash the government does not love you, does not have your best interest at hand, but desires your dependance upon them. As dependance increases liberty decreases and thats everyone elses liberty you selfish ignorant tool.
Dr. Paul is not advocating a forced procreation of society, and to think so is so far absurd I will not entertain it, just responsibility of grown adults having protected sex if they dont want to get pregnant, trading murder for lack of prior planning seems a little sick to me and I welcome those people moving to China where murdering unwanted children is encouraged.
To talk of the worker in regards to immigration is so skewed us must be here illegally. In 1990 before joing the US Army I used to pay my way as a roofer, there is no way I can compete for 5 dollars an hour, yeah your current immigration policies take jobs away from AMERICAN workers, go home and tell Chavez the propganda doesnt work on the smart ones.
Those nay sayers have the right to have your own opinion, but for god sakes please make an educated decision if you indeed decide to vote, open your eyes and mind, read, make your own choice that is your responsibility, but since you seem like a disgruntled ignorant blogger from the Clinton/Gulliani camp we understand your ignorance or slander are based out of fear , but we take comfort in the fact that you wont vote anyway.
But bottom lines is this you can choose to give up your liberty for dependancy on the state, the rest of us don't want to take care of you. Find a 1957 Chevy truck and construct it to travel to Cuba, there they can take care of all of your needs.
News flash the government does not love you, does not have your best interest at hand, but desires your dependance upon them. As dependance increases liberty decreases and thats everyone elses liberty you selfish ignorant tool.
Dr. Paul is not advocating a forced procreation of society, and to think so is so far absurd I will not entertain it, just responsibility of grown adults having protected sex if they dont want to get pregnant, trading murder for lack of prior planning seems a little sick to me and I welcome those people moving to China where murdering unwanted children is encouraged.
To talk of the worker in regards to immigration is so skewed us must be here illegally. In 1990 before joing the US Army I used to pay my way as a roofer, there is no way I can compete for 5 dollars an hour, yeah your current immigration policies take jobs away from AMERICAN workers, go home and tell Chavez the propganda doesnt work on the smart ones.
Those nay sayers have the right to have your own opinion, but for god sakes please make an educated decision if you indeed decide to vote, open your eyes and mind, read, make your own choice that is your responsibility, but since you seem like a disgruntled ignorant blogger from the Clinton/Gulliani camp we understand your ignorance or slander are based out of fear , but we take comfort in the fact that you wont vote anyway.
I bet your net hits have been up this month! I haven't even heard of you until you started smearing Paul.
I am a Daughter of a Vietnam Veteran and I support Ron Paul. Many of his supporters are Children of Vietnam Veterans..it is something that most can not understand. My Dad spent 5 years in hell so people like you could spew filth from your mouth about Patriotic Americans who served this country, like Ron Paul. I am as appreciate as hell that you actually give a damn to keep up with a socialist mouthpiece as this website. If Ron Paul makes me a racist southern girl who wants my child to experience the America our Grandfathers fought so hard for...then call me a racist. I am tired of illegal immigration and people using the government like their Mommas left breast. I come from a low-income hard working family who never took a dime from the government except for Financial Aid for 60 credit hours of college. In addition to that, I am a full-time activist in my neighborhood and city. SO I don't know what side of the bed you woke up this morning and I appreciate your enthusiasm to write hit pieces about Ron Paul. He did fight for your freedoms you know and will continue to do so. If you let him. So, bring it on!
Support the Iraq Veterans Against the War
http://www.ivaw.org
I am a Daughter of a Vietnam Veteran and I support Ron Paul. Many of his supporters are Children of Vietnam Veterans..it is something that most can not understand. My Dad spent 5 years in hell so people like you could spew filth from your mouth about Patriotic Americans who served this country, like Ron Paul. I am as appreciate as hell that you actually give a damn to keep up with a socialist mouthpiece as this website. If Ron Paul makes me a racist southern girl who wants my child to experience the America our Grandfathers fought so hard for...then call me a racist. I am tired of illegal immigration and people using the government like their Mommas left breast. I come from a low-income hard working family who never took a dime from the government except for Financial Aid for 60 credit hours of college. In addition to that, I am a full-time activist in my neighborhood and city. SO I don't know what side of the bed you woke up this morning and I appreciate your enthusiasm to write hit pieces about Ron Paul. He did fight for your freedoms you know and will continue to do so. If you let him. So, bring it on!
Support the Iraq Veterans Against the War
http://www.ivaw.org
For more information:
http://www.dovv.net
Abortion as a contraceptive is murder.......Its human sacrifice of the most helpless on a massive scale. In the past barbaric cultures used to sacrifice young virgins. Now they kill them before they are even born. The fact is Abortion is a main ingredient for the continued domination of the world by corporate elites. The extreme leftists, in the guise of progressiveness, foolishly support abortion. They do not recognize that as long as our leaders can depend on us to kill our own children, the responsibility of creating a sustainable society can be repeatedly avoided.
Rather than developing strategies that welcome and recognize every new child as a potential Gandhi, Einstein, MLK or Lennon we are brainwashed to see every new child as another problem.
The fact is every new child represents a new hope and is a challenge to our leadership to develop a society that harnesses the potential of each and every one of us. We require a society that accepts its responsibility towards the future generations. The fact is a society that can not support its own birth rate is a failure. The Abortion advocates are the leading agents for the continued domination and oppression of the world by the corporate system. This system recognizes that through abortion they can maintain and perpetuate their agendas . Never having to admit that the birth rate is Mother Nature's challenge to them.
Every new preganancy represents Mother Nature's power of regenaration and represents our future hope. Continual and fanatic application of abortion is an attempt to supress this Natural power. Psuedo progressives parroting the abortion 'rights' agenda are truly agents for the continued dominatioon and oppression of the world. By removing this direct challenge from Mother Nature to the continual rape of the planet and its resources through abortion, psuedo progressives have become the aggressive spokespeople for ongoing global tyranny.
The fact is if every human being on this planet stood side by side we would barely cover the US State of Rhode Island or the island of Jamaica. So the propoganda that abortion is an answer to over polpulation is false. Abortion serves one purpose and one purpose alone. It removes the impetus for humanity to develop true sustainibilit. It disallows us from once and for all recognizing that the corporate economic system in place can not sustain such an integral and vital aspect of human existance....reproduction.
For the record Obama glories in this mass murder guised as a human right.
The Obama-Edwards team has already been appointed to win this election.
Rather than developing strategies that welcome and recognize every new child as a potential Gandhi, Einstein, MLK or Lennon we are brainwashed to see every new child as another problem.
The fact is every new child represents a new hope and is a challenge to our leadership to develop a society that harnesses the potential of each and every one of us. We require a society that accepts its responsibility towards the future generations. The fact is a society that can not support its own birth rate is a failure. The Abortion advocates are the leading agents for the continued domination and oppression of the world by the corporate system. This system recognizes that through abortion they can maintain and perpetuate their agendas . Never having to admit that the birth rate is Mother Nature's challenge to them.
Every new preganancy represents Mother Nature's power of regenaration and represents our future hope. Continual and fanatic application of abortion is an attempt to supress this Natural power. Psuedo progressives parroting the abortion 'rights' agenda are truly agents for the continued dominatioon and oppression of the world. By removing this direct challenge from Mother Nature to the continual rape of the planet and its resources through abortion, psuedo progressives have become the aggressive spokespeople for ongoing global tyranny.
The fact is if every human being on this planet stood side by side we would barely cover the US State of Rhode Island or the island of Jamaica. So the propoganda that abortion is an answer to over polpulation is false. Abortion serves one purpose and one purpose alone. It removes the impetus for humanity to develop true sustainibilit. It disallows us from once and for all recognizing that the corporate economic system in place can not sustain such an integral and vital aspect of human existance....reproduction.
For the record Obama glories in this mass murder guised as a human right.
The Obama-Edwards team has already been appointed to win this election.
What political history are you reading? Out of the past 70+ years, Republicans have controlled congress for a little over 10 of them and that ended only a few years ago. We have been ruled by Democrats for most of the last century! Two wings of our politcal checks and balances have been dominated by liberals for decades! Where we are is a product of progressive thinking, not conservative thinking.
For slavery and such, read history. It was Republican president that ended slavery. Almost all wars we have fought this past century were started while a Democrat was in office. Do people on this board assume that nothing happened or was different before they were born?
Have any of you read articles or debated ideas that support a view other than your own with a critical yet open mind? Or are you too preoccupied with your fist in the air and your head in the sand to listen? I'm guessing few of you are actually poor. Poor people tend to be conservative for some reason. Usually too busy trying to eat to think about social change. Not much free time to protest when you have to work hard for a living. You want to compare backgrounds? I support 6 people on a salary that is half of the poverty level for a family my size, and I have a disabled child. You'd think I'd be all for social programs.
Yet my intelligence tells me that I must not support socialism because I am aware of it's consequences and cannot bring myself to be a proponent of what is a bad idea for the sake of my situation. I, like Ron Paul, have principles that I keep to, regardless of how it affects me. I know that socialism and anarchy cannot co-exist. I value freedom more than that which will only benefit me in the short term. With freedom I can choose, with socialism, the government chooses for me. I will not live comfortably in slavery, I would rather struggle as a liberated individual. Plus, I've dealt with government social programs and they don't benefit people the way anyone on the right or left seem to think. Not exactly a handout, but not exactly beneficial, either. Lot of problems. I've learned the hard way and through direct experience, not in some classroom or think tank somewhere.
We used to operate as communities. We used to take care of each other. No anarchist agenda will work until we can remember how to do that without needing a law that makes us do it. Strive for a better humanity, by example. It will not work on a large scale you cannot force 300 million people to behave like a tribe. But you can work in your community to teach your neighbors to care about each other.
For slavery and such, read history. It was Republican president that ended slavery. Almost all wars we have fought this past century were started while a Democrat was in office. Do people on this board assume that nothing happened or was different before they were born?
Have any of you read articles or debated ideas that support a view other than your own with a critical yet open mind? Or are you too preoccupied with your fist in the air and your head in the sand to listen? I'm guessing few of you are actually poor. Poor people tend to be conservative for some reason. Usually too busy trying to eat to think about social change. Not much free time to protest when you have to work hard for a living. You want to compare backgrounds? I support 6 people on a salary that is half of the poverty level for a family my size, and I have a disabled child. You'd think I'd be all for social programs.
Yet my intelligence tells me that I must not support socialism because I am aware of it's consequences and cannot bring myself to be a proponent of what is a bad idea for the sake of my situation. I, like Ron Paul, have principles that I keep to, regardless of how it affects me. I know that socialism and anarchy cannot co-exist. I value freedom more than that which will only benefit me in the short term. With freedom I can choose, with socialism, the government chooses for me. I will not live comfortably in slavery, I would rather struggle as a liberated individual. Plus, I've dealt with government social programs and they don't benefit people the way anyone on the right or left seem to think. Not exactly a handout, but not exactly beneficial, either. Lot of problems. I've learned the hard way and through direct experience, not in some classroom or think tank somewhere.
We used to operate as communities. We used to take care of each other. No anarchist agenda will work until we can remember how to do that without needing a law that makes us do it. Strive for a better humanity, by example. It will not work on a large scale you cannot force 300 million people to behave like a tribe. But you can work in your community to teach your neighbors to care about each other.
I think you're trying to convince people on the wrong website. This is a pro-choice website. It sounds like you would prefer to sacrifice women, including women who have been forced into having sex and getting pregnant against their will, in order to save the lives of fetuses that might not even make it full-term. You and I will have to disagree.
and then there's this:
James Kirchick of the New Republic has a devastating piece on Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) online today on the TNR website. Kirchick provides a meticulously detailed history of the “Ron Paul Political Report,” a newsletter Paul had circulated to a network of some 7,000 subscribers from the late 80s and early 90s.
As Kirchick reports—whether describing post-apartheid South Africa as a “destruction of civilization,” alleging that Martin Luther King “seduced underage girls and boys,” warning of “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise,” or urging white readers to arm themselves after “the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,”—virtually every historic trope of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-gay bigotry, or conspiracy theorizing featured in the “Ron Paul Political Report” in one way or another.
For his part, Paul has alternately acknowledged writing some of the material that went out under his name, only to deny authorship when confronted with the most disturbing details. In any case, Paul has taken “moral responsibility” for the contents of the “Ron Paul Political Report.”
What follows is a quick digest of some of his greatest, which is to say most disgraceful, hits.
more:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
James Kirchick of the New Republic has a devastating piece on Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) online today on the TNR website. Kirchick provides a meticulously detailed history of the “Ron Paul Political Report,” a newsletter Paul had circulated to a network of some 7,000 subscribers from the late 80s and early 90s.
As Kirchick reports—whether describing post-apartheid South Africa as a “destruction of civilization,” alleging that Martin Luther King “seduced underage girls and boys,” warning of “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise,” or urging white readers to arm themselves after “the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,”—virtually every historic trope of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-gay bigotry, or conspiracy theorizing featured in the “Ron Paul Political Report” in one way or another.
For his part, Paul has alternately acknowledged writing some of the material that went out under his name, only to deny authorship when confronted with the most disturbing details. In any case, Paul has taken “moral responsibility” for the contents of the “Ron Paul Political Report.”
What follows is a quick digest of some of his greatest, which is to say most disgraceful, hits.
more:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
For more information:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
i love a guy who can and does piss off both the right wingers and the left wingers. cry babies both (and i'm a lefty - just know that most of my fellow lefties in this country are cry babies).
the guy cares about freedom, liberty, the constitution, truth.... i may disagree with his view of the role of the federal government in all of this, but that doesn't mean i'm not thrilled that he's in the race and doing well.
cry babies on both sides of the narrow, two party aisle need to get over themselves.
yo,
tommy
the guy cares about freedom, liberty, the constitution, truth.... i may disagree with his view of the role of the federal government in all of this, but that doesn't mean i'm not thrilled that he's in the race and doing well.
cry babies on both sides of the narrow, two party aisle need to get over themselves.
yo,
tommy
In no way does Ron Paul support racism. How can you write a whole article about him being a fascist because he believes that all Americans should be treated equally? He supports the constitution in which America's forefathers started. Unfortunately we starting to drift from such a brilliant concept that worked so well in the past. Please take time to read up on the position of a candidate before you make accusations of them. Ron Paul for president!
This article, ostensibly from the "left", is rather ludicrous.
Ron Paul is not an 'America First'-er, nor is he an isolationist. His positions are clear. Yes, he is against American intervention abroad. Yes, he is against the US spending vast amounts of money propping up foreign governments. However, he is also strongly in favor of free trade, *real* free trade, not free trade that is managed by the US. The Republicans present the option of continued American dominance and exploitation of foreign countries. Democrats are increasingly moving towards protectionism. Only Ron Paul is offering an alternative that allows trade to continue and everyone to prosper.
Also, yes, Ron Paul is against domestic spending. Have you considered that such domestic spending is only possible due to American intervention abroad? Its not a coincidence that this period of enlarged government has mirrored American domination of commodities like oil. Which is more important to you? Social programs for already-spoiled Americans or freeing the world from America as global-cop? Americans with more iPods or fewer dead Iraqis? I think in this case Indymedia clearly presents a nationalist position.
Ron Paul is the only candidate leading a mass movement challenging the police state, challenging the most overt examples of American imperialism, challenging the ludicrous idealist ideas concerning "Jihadist" boogeymen. When was the last time you people could claim to lead a movement that presented such a progressive agenda with wide popular support? Its a telling sign that instead of getting behind this movement you spend time attacking it as "fascist" which is positively absurd, do you have any idea what fascism is? There are zero examples of fascist states that centered around cutting domestic spending and ending foreign intervention. Quite the opposite. This comparison is so absurd its Orwellian. Not to mention coming up with absurd theories about returning to Constitutionalism because of Obama's success. Thats patently false, as Paul has identified Kucinich and Obama as his favorite Democrats. Not to mention its logically absurd ... yes, people are behind Ron Paul NOT because their civil liberties are being eroded and foreign intervention is reaching a maximum but because the next president might be black *rolls eyes*. Grow up. If you "leftists" want to cut off the face to spite the nose and choose to support the neocons just because the Paul movement isn't led by you, be my guest, it'll only drive you further into irrelevancy.
Ron Paul is not an 'America First'-er, nor is he an isolationist. His positions are clear. Yes, he is against American intervention abroad. Yes, he is against the US spending vast amounts of money propping up foreign governments. However, he is also strongly in favor of free trade, *real* free trade, not free trade that is managed by the US. The Republicans present the option of continued American dominance and exploitation of foreign countries. Democrats are increasingly moving towards protectionism. Only Ron Paul is offering an alternative that allows trade to continue and everyone to prosper.
Also, yes, Ron Paul is against domestic spending. Have you considered that such domestic spending is only possible due to American intervention abroad? Its not a coincidence that this period of enlarged government has mirrored American domination of commodities like oil. Which is more important to you? Social programs for already-spoiled Americans or freeing the world from America as global-cop? Americans with more iPods or fewer dead Iraqis? I think in this case Indymedia clearly presents a nationalist position.
Ron Paul is the only candidate leading a mass movement challenging the police state, challenging the most overt examples of American imperialism, challenging the ludicrous idealist ideas concerning "Jihadist" boogeymen. When was the last time you people could claim to lead a movement that presented such a progressive agenda with wide popular support? Its a telling sign that instead of getting behind this movement you spend time attacking it as "fascist" which is positively absurd, do you have any idea what fascism is? There are zero examples of fascist states that centered around cutting domestic spending and ending foreign intervention. Quite the opposite. This comparison is so absurd its Orwellian. Not to mention coming up with absurd theories about returning to Constitutionalism because of Obama's success. Thats patently false, as Paul has identified Kucinich and Obama as his favorite Democrats. Not to mention its logically absurd ... yes, people are behind Ron Paul NOT because their civil liberties are being eroded and foreign intervention is reaching a maximum but because the next president might be black *rolls eyes*. Grow up. If you "leftists" want to cut off the face to spite the nose and choose to support the neocons just because the Paul movement isn't led by you, be my guest, it'll only drive you further into irrelevancy.
Let the record speak for itself.
RP, over time and in his own words. He particularly hates on Blacks and queer folks, surprise surprise.
Denial: not just a river in Egypt!
RP, over time and in his own words. He particularly hates on Blacks and queer folks, surprise surprise.
Denial: not just a river in Egypt!
What Ron Paul did wrong with his newsletters was not overseeing it personally. If you follow up, you will find this news is a decade old, was brought up half a year ago and finally drudged up yesterday by a person who did it just to piss people off. This story has been retracted before because of the nature of the situation. He explained this a decade ago. He closed down the publication because of this. It's not news. It's grave digging.
Nothing else the man has said in public nor verifiably written himself reflects these views. He has said he regrets this incident deeply especially because one of these articles was directed at a colleague of his that he respected. Read Ron Paul's actual writings and compare the writing style. It's not the same. But he took responsibility for it because his name was on it. He did explain, years ago, but he had to accept that his name was on it, so he had responsibility. Because he's an adult. That's what responsible adults do when they make a mistake, even if it was unintentional. You can never explain a mistake to every one's satisfaction. But again, even with this, his known and provable record is above and beyond that of his competition. Unfortunately, the lesson learned is if your name is on it, you better make sure of what it says. I'm pretty sure I've made worse mistakes.
Anyway, it still doesn't change his message which he has said is more important than him. I've seen the discrepancy between our nation and our Constitution since I was in grade school. I don't understand how it's acceptable to be in debt to China, or how we came to be this nation that espouses freedom while giving it away to our government, or doing dirty tricks to take it away from other countries. I thought the choices were Liberty or Death. When did safety come in? When did the government become the protector of the people rather than a necessary evil? The problem with government control is there is no one to appeal to when the government abuses power. Corporations have stockholders and profit margins, and yes you can complain about illegal activity. And you can create laws and form unions. But what do you do when your government is abusive and controlling? You can't boycott the government. They put you in jail for that. In today's society you may be able to function without the government at some point, but with great difficulty and probably only by breaking a few laws. Who do you complain to at that point? There is no one. Socialism is, for lack of a better term, double ungood.
Nothing else the man has said in public nor verifiably written himself reflects these views. He has said he regrets this incident deeply especially because one of these articles was directed at a colleague of his that he respected. Read Ron Paul's actual writings and compare the writing style. It's not the same. But he took responsibility for it because his name was on it. He did explain, years ago, but he had to accept that his name was on it, so he had responsibility. Because he's an adult. That's what responsible adults do when they make a mistake, even if it was unintentional. You can never explain a mistake to every one's satisfaction. But again, even with this, his known and provable record is above and beyond that of his competition. Unfortunately, the lesson learned is if your name is on it, you better make sure of what it says. I'm pretty sure I've made worse mistakes.
Anyway, it still doesn't change his message which he has said is more important than him. I've seen the discrepancy between our nation and our Constitution since I was in grade school. I don't understand how it's acceptable to be in debt to China, or how we came to be this nation that espouses freedom while giving it away to our government, or doing dirty tricks to take it away from other countries. I thought the choices were Liberty or Death. When did safety come in? When did the government become the protector of the people rather than a necessary evil? The problem with government control is there is no one to appeal to when the government abuses power. Corporations have stockholders and profit margins, and yes you can complain about illegal activity. And you can create laws and form unions. But what do you do when your government is abusive and controlling? You can't boycott the government. They put you in jail for that. In today's society you may be able to function without the government at some point, but with great difficulty and probably only by breaking a few laws. Who do you complain to at that point? There is no one. Socialism is, for lack of a better term, double ungood.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network