PDA

View Full Version : The Revolutionary Candidate



grunt
04-01-2007, 08:53 PM
No one quite knows what to do about Congressman Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president.

He refuses to play by the rules. He’s a bigger supporter of the free market than anyone in Congress, but he’s also the most consistent opponent of war. (That the conjunction of these positions – which amount to classical liberalism in a nutshell – should actually seem surprising or odd goes to show how perverse our political system has become.)

Other than Dennis Kucinich, he is the only authentic antiwar candidate in either party. He has won so many awards from the National Taxpayers Union that he’s probably lost count. CNET rated him the best out of all 435 congressmen in the House of Representatives on issues relating to the Internet. There is no more reliable civil libertarian in Congress than Ron Paul.

His conduct, moreover, is beyond reproach. Lobbyists don’t even bother going to his office. If their scheme doesn’t fall among the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution, they know perfectly well that there is no chance Ron Paul will support it.

Paul’s new book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, calls for the abandonment of hyper-interventionism and the restoration of a foreign policy of commerce and peace. Although more and more Americans polled agree that their government should mind its own business and try to scale back its impossible commitments – Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes of Columbia and Harvard, respectively, now say that their initial estimate of $2 trillion as the long-term cost of the Iraq war is too low – no one in politics other than Ron Paul will actually say such a thing, much less write a book about it. At last we have a choice, not an echo, as Phyllis Schlafly used to put it.

Dr. Paul, an Ob/Gyn who has delivered 4,000 babies in his career, utterly defies the view of the world shared by right-wing blogs and talk radio, in which America is divided into "liberals" who oppose the Iraq war and conservatives who support it. (As I’ve shown in the past, "liberals" don’t have a particularly stellar antiwar record over the past hundred years, and the "liberal media," including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the cable news networks, overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war.) Ron Paul’s candidacy is having the useful effect of showing people that their ideological choices are not limited to Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh. You can in fact be antiwar without being a leftist.

At the same time, some on the left are giving Paul a respectful hearing, sensing that this is no ordinary politician. A writer for The Nation argued that "this Constitution-wielding contender, who voted against authorizing Bush to invade and occupy Iraq and has steadily opposed that war since its launch four years ago, would certainly make the GOP debates worth watching – and perhaps applauding."

A writer for the Keene Free Press, who admits he doesn’t "normally give Republicans much of a hearing," found himself in for a "pleasant surprise" at one of Paul’s New Hampshire speeches. "His speech, like his candidacy, is refreshing. Paul seems to be genuinely authentic. He doesn't have the feel of a politician. His arguments are substantive, and his demeanor warm."

For my part, I hope Paul decides to run. In a weak field, Paul is a true champion. America is at a critical crossroads. Our liberties have been trampled. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in shambles. Our reputation has been tarnished internationally by decades of provocative foreign policy. Paul is the only candidate thus far who seems interested in reversing that trend. And for that, if he runs, he has my vote.

An antiwar Republican who is also much sounder on other issues than they are – this is not exactly welcome news to neoconservatives. Not long ago, the neoconservative Pajamas Media featured a presidential poll on which Ron Paul kept winning. That wasn’t the outcome they wanted, naturally, so they finally removed him from contention in order to make things come out right.

Covering their tracks, Pajamas Media tried to claim that they wanted to feature only those candidates who registered at least one percent in national polls. When Ron Paul surpassed that figure, however, they still refused to include him, even though they have included people like Tommy Thompson who are at zero percent because they are not actually running for president. Read all about it here.

Paul did manage to make his way onto the Fox News Channel thanks to the entreaties of hundreds of viewers who wrote to the station demanding to know why the "fair and balanced" network had totally neglected the Paul candidacy. It was a short appearance on Fox News Live’s "Because You Asked" feature, which features stories that viewers themselves have asked to be covered.

Ron Paul has made numerous media appearances, from C-SPAN to Lou Dobbs, since and prior to the announcement of his candidacy. Still, the strategy thus far has been to ignore him to the extent possible. That approach cannot work in the long run, since for one thing the enthusiasm for Dr. Paul all over the Internet cannot be contained forever. For another, people are going to become curious about him when they watch, or hear reports about, the first Republican primary debate on May 3. They’ll see a bunch of establishment hacks uttering platitudes devised for them by handlers and focus groups, and they’ll see Ron Paul, who unlike his opponents is not only intelligent enough to write his own speeches, but who will also raise questions the other candidates would prefer not to discuss. He can pummel every single one of them on their lousy records on taxes, the Constitution, and war. Ron Paul is about to spoil the party. This will be like no other Republican primary debate in many, many years.

Now that will get him noticed.

Think of how much less interesting, indeed how downright intolerable, this election cycle would be without Ron Paul: a bunch of hacks and drones, not one of whom would make a single substantial change to Washington, D.C., if elected. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani may as well drop the pretense and just run on the same ticket, for heaven’s sake. And since they’re part of the same racket, they both despise Ron Paul much more than they dislike each other – another excellent endorsement of Dr. Paul, of course.

I’ve sometimes said that political discourse in America today consists of a three-by-five card from which no one is permitted to stray. The issues we’re allowed to discuss are confined to whether the top tax rate should be 35 percent or 38.1 percent, for example, or whether the U.S. government should invade country A or country B. If you argue that the questions themselves are faulty in that they unduly restrict our choices, you have strayed from the three-by-five card and will not appear on Meet the Press ever again.

Ron Paul has a tremendous opportunity to shred that three-by-five card once and for all.


by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

avatar4321
04-01-2007, 09:08 PM
hardly...

grunt
04-01-2007, 09:55 PM
hardly...


I think Ron Paul would do wonders for the US. I think he's better than anything presented by either party at the moment.

manu1959
04-01-2007, 10:47 PM
anyone with two first names can't be trusted

grunt
04-01-2007, 10:52 PM
anyone with two first names can't be trusted



LOL! I'll remember that....

manu1959
04-01-2007, 10:54 PM
LOL! I'll remember that....


here is another one......antime someone starts off with " I have been doing this 20 years...." ......know that the rest will be utter bullshit

grunt
04-01-2007, 10:58 PM
here is another one......antime someone starts off with " I have been doing this 20 years...." ......know that the rest will be utter bullshit

says the man with the signature quoting a communist. :laugh2:

manu1959
04-01-2007, 10:59 PM
says the man with the signature quoting a communist. :laugh2:

i see him as a great philosopher ... you see him as a communist .... says quite a bit doesn't it

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:04 PM
i see him as a great philosopher ... you see him as a communist .... says quite a bit doesn't it

Doesn't change the fact that he was, indeed, a communist.

manu1959
04-01-2007, 11:41 PM
Doesn't change the fact that he was, indeed, a communist.

a french communist fighting nazis....if memory serves....part of the resistance.....

5stringJeff
04-01-2007, 11:47 PM
I'd vote for Ron Paul.

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:51 PM
a french communist fighting nazis....if memory serves....part of the resistance.....



i think you're right. He was actually kicked out of the party...and then went socialist I believe...lol..anyhow, he was a very smart man regardless.

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:52 PM
I'd vote for Ron Paul.


Me too. People want to talk about being conservative. Ron Paul is a REAL conservative.

gabosaurus
04-01-2007, 11:59 PM
Ron Paul is an interesting person. His platform includes reasons to despise him and reasons to admire him.
The Republicans will never support Ron Paul, though. His ideas are too thought provoking. And most Republicans dislike thinking.

manu1959
04-02-2007, 12:02 AM
i think you're right. He was actually kicked out of the party...and then went socialist I believe...lol..anyhow, he was a very smart man regardless.

i love his writings.....myth of sisyphus is brilliant

Baron Von Esslingen
04-02-2007, 01:18 AM
He's too honest for the current GOP. He doesn't stand a chance.

avatar4321
04-02-2007, 01:38 AM
I think Ron Paul would do wonders for the US. I think he's better than anything presented by either party at the moment.

I've seen his platform. I'm not impressed. Quite the opposite. it's rather weak IMHO.

grunt
04-02-2007, 09:17 AM
I've seen his platform. I'm not impressed. Quite the opposite. it's rather weak IMHO.


What do you find weak about it?

grunt
04-02-2007, 09:20 AM
Ron Paul is an interesting person. His platform includes reasons to despise him and reasons to admire him.
The Republicans will never support Ron Paul, though. His ideas are too thought provoking. And most Republicans dislike thinking.


Nobody can please every single person.

Well, i take that back, a lot of LIEberals thought Clinton did everything right. But, then again, LIEberals are sheep.

avatar4321
04-02-2007, 10:45 AM
What do you find weak about it?

Ill have to go and get a copy of his platform and look it over again point by point. I don't have the time now. but if i forget just remind me later.

grunt
04-02-2007, 11:33 AM
Ron Paul is an interesting person. His platform includes reasons to despise him and reasons to admire him.
The Republicans will never support Ron Paul, though. His ideas are too thought provoking. And most Republicans dislike thinking.

Would you vote for him?
Or are you the type that just tows your party's line no matter what?

GW in Ohio
04-02-2007, 12:35 PM
Me too. People want to talk about being conservative. Ron Paul is a REAL conservative.

grunt: Thanks for educating me about Ron Paul. I had not hitherto been aware of him.

grunt
04-02-2007, 12:54 PM
grunt: Thanks for educating me about Ron Paul. I had not hitherto been aware of him.


np and you're welcome.... :salute:

theHawk
04-02-2007, 01:43 PM
If he is a true Constitutionalist then he probably doesn't support taxpayer money to support Israel. For that reason he probably won't see the light of day in the media. Doesn't matter if your Democrat or Republican, you must support the Israeli state with tax dollars. Deviation from this is unacceptable and you will be labeld anti-semitic.

grunt
04-02-2007, 01:49 PM
If he is a true Constitutionalist then he probably doesn't support taxpayer money to support Israel. For that reason he probably won't see the light of day in the media. Doesn't matter if your Democrat or Republican, you must support the Israeli state with tax dollars. Deviation from this is unacceptable and you will be labeld anti-semitic.

I'm not sure about his stance on Israel. As far as my opinion goes, I do not consider people anti-Semites just because they don't want our tax monies going to Israel. I completley understand their reasonings. However, even though I am a Libertarian, I believe Israeli support is vital to American interests. Israel is the only democratic, stable country in the Middle East. This is probably the only thing I really don't agree with other Libertarians about. In that I do believe we should support Israel.

theHawk
04-02-2007, 02:05 PM
Looks like I was right:


Quit Meddling in the Middle East

by Rep. Ron Paul
The death of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat last week once again brings the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the international forefront. The Bush administration finds itself in an uncomfortable but familiar role as peacemaker for yet another intractable, ancient, and deadly Middle East conflict. The popular press and political world both accept without question the notion that the United States is somehow responsible for resolving any and all conflicts around the globe, but especially in Palestine.

We conveniently forget, however, that American tax dollars militarized the entire region in the first place. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.

Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.

This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn't buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, many Muslims hate the United States despite the billions we give to their governments.



more at ...
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=3987

5stringJeff
04-02-2007, 02:26 PM
More to the point, Ron Paul opposes all foreign aid as unconstitutional, not just that which we give to Israel.

theHawk
04-02-2007, 02:39 PM
I'm not sure about his stance on Israel. As far as my opinion goes, I do not consider people anti-Semites just because they don't want our tax monies going to Israel. I completley understand their reasonings. However, even though I am a Libertarian, I believe Israeli support is vital to American interests. Israel is the only democratic, stable country in the Middle East. This is probably the only thing I really don't agree with other Libertarians about. In that I do believe we should support Israel.

Well thats were you and I differ, I don't believe America's destiny has anything to do with the Zionist state. Yes, we want to promote democracy but that does not mean we should heavily support them with welfare policies. There are many democractic nations throught the world, yet we don't send them billions in tax dollars each year. I don't have any problem with Jews wanting to set up their Jew only state in the heart of the middle east. I think its a stupid idea that is doomed to fail, but if they want to try to live right next to rabid inhuman jihadists then so be it, I just don't want to have to support their cause with tax dollars. And lets be realistic, no Islamic country is ever going to look at Israel as some shinning example of Democracy with their blatantly racist aparthied laws. I'm not saying those laws are wrong, its their country and they can do whatever they want, but its silly to think Palestinians will just accept it and shut up. And the more our Presidents (whether their names are Clinton or Bush) say that Israel is a role model for all the middle east and we keep funneling them money, the more credibility we lose with them. Not that I really care about credibility with Islamic countries but I'd rather they turn to democratic forms of government than turn to brutal dictators.

theHawk
04-02-2007, 02:41 PM
More to the point, Ron Paul opposes all foreign aid as unconstitutional, not just that which we give to Israel.

True, but for the fact that it does include Israel, he will be ostracized.

grunt
04-02-2007, 02:55 PM
Well thats were you and I differ, I don't believe America's destiny has anything to do with the Zionist state. Yes, we want to promote democracy but that does not mean we should heavily support them with welfare policies. There are many democractic nations throught the world, yet we don't send them billions in tax dollars each year. I don't have any problem with Jews wanting to set up their Jew only state in the heart of the middle east. I think its a stupid idea that is doomed to fail, but if they want to try to live right next to rabid inhuman jihadists then so be it, I just don't want to have to support their cause with tax dollars. And lets be realistic, no Islamic country is ever going to look at Israel as some shinning example of Democracy with their blatantly racist aparthied laws. I'm not saying those laws are wrong, its their country and they can do whatever they want, but its silly to think Palestinians will just accept it and shut up. And the more our Presidents (whether their names are Clinton or Bush) say that Israel is a role model for all the middle east and we keep funneling them money, the more credibility we lose with them. Not that I really care about credibility with Islamic countries but I'd rather they turn to democratic forms of government than turn to brutal dictators.


Again, I totally see where you are coming from and understand the idea of not supporting Israel. The support we provide to Israel will always make us a target for radical muslims. I just feel that the good outweighs the bad when it comes to supporting Israel. And having a Democracy that is helpful to the U.S. in the middle of fanatical muslim countries is needed.

The "Palestinian" problem is another thread.

AlexZello
02-18-2008, 08:50 AM
What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?

bullypulpit
02-18-2008, 10:25 AM
says the man with the signature quoting a communist. :laugh2:

Camus was an existentialist. ;)

AlexZello
02-20-2008, 01:32 PM
What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?

uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict (http://samsonblinded.org/blog)

DragonStryk72
02-20-2008, 02:51 PM
Here is my problem with the Israel situation: Beyond the tax money issue (we seem to be in the business of building up others houses, while our own burns to the ground), the bigger problem is that we hold Israel back whenever they get attacked, and make them talk peace. Now, keep in mind, we're the same people that brought about the term 'Shock & Awe', as well as our roll across all of Afghanistan. Yet whenever is Israel is attacked, we suddenly yank the leash.

We don't seem to have a clear vision of what we are doing with our own country, and should not be meddling in the affairs of others.... unless Israel wanted to apply for statehood, then I could see jumping in.

DragonStryk72
02-20-2008, 02:56 PM
Now, on the point of Ron Paul, I definitely like, even if he hasn't got a shot, but let me ask you this question: Are people not voting for him because they do not believe he is right, or are they not voting for him because the RP has already lined up to kiss McCain's ass?

One of the frequent refrains I hear on politics: "Yeah, he'd be great, but he's got no chance of winning, so I won't vote for him"

WTF?! I mean seriously, does no one see where that is the exact problem we are having? If everyone who isn't voting for Paul due to his lack of numbers got together and voted for him, you would see one of the most enormous swings in votes in our history. We get great candidates that attempt to run, but we are ALL, both sides, acting as sheep, voting only for the Republican candidate, or only for the Democratic candidate, instead of voting for the best people for the job.

Dilloduck
02-20-2008, 03:32 PM
Now, on the point of Ron Paul, I definitely like, even if he hasn't got a shot, but let me ask you this question: Are people not voting for him because they do not believe he is right, or are they not voting for him because the RP has already lined up to kiss McCain's ass?

One of the frequent refrains I hear on politics: "Yeah, he'd be great, but he's got no chance of winning, so I won't vote for him"

WTF?! I mean seriously, does no one see where that is the exact problem we are having? If everyone who isn't voting for Paul due to his lack of numbers got together and voted for him, you would see one of the most enormous swings in votes in our history. We get great candidates that attempt to run, but we are ALL, both sides, acting as sheep, voting only for the Republican candidate, or only for the Democratic candidate, instead of voting for the best people for the job.

He can still have my vote if he'll get some balls and run Libertarian like he was we we first sent him to Washington.