Ron Paul & Kucinich - Can Candidates Who Speak Bitter Truths Ever Win in a Democracy?

not while the majority is in denial. "i don't have a problem! i can stop when i want to!"

Though I always think it'd make a nice little sitcom to see one of these guys win and be utterly befuddled.

"OH, Dennis!"

Probably not, but in both men's cases, their ideas are so far outside of the norm in many areas that they're essentially unelectable. Especially Paul, who has a fetish for the gold standard and some weird dream of essentially destroying the world economy.

lol, where's ethan?

The real bitter truth about the Iraq war is that if we leave Iraq things will get much much worse. McCain is really the only viable candidate willing to say that, and yes, it's going to hurt him in the polls.

Sorry, I'm wrong about that - he's not the only one.

Dunno, but Biden may prove that candidates who speak biter truths can't win.

Bitter truths tend to manifest themselves as "too much yell, not enough sell"

Ron Paul is less 'bitter truth' and more 'complete insanity.'

A lot of ideas that get passed off as bitter truths are actually comfortable half-truths.

Or just comfortable lies, even.

dude what are you talking about

"sound money"

"all we need to do is build a wall along our border"

etc.

The real bitter truth about the Iraq war is that if we leave Iraq things will get much much worse. McCain is really the only viable candidate willing to say that, and yes, it's going to hurt him in the polls.

-- Hurting 2, Sunday, June 10, 2007 3:57 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

well, yeah, sort of. i think what's most galling about the situation in iraq is that it is now abundantly clear that we went in without any plans for an exit. so, now, any exit at all will be uncomfortable, and possibly disastrous, but we've got to do it because we can't just hang out there forever

^^^^ capt obvious

My feeling at this point is that we should stay until late 2009/early 2010 - new, hopefully more competent and more internationally respected president in the White House, given time to develop a proper exit strategy and rebuild international support.

And most of Ron Paul's stances aren't really "bitter truths" so much as "insane libertarian whatever". But he's able to call the occupation what it is, which is such a major issue of itself that it's attracting progressive support.

Re: Iraq -- y'all might want to read this.

And guys like Don Neiwert have been watching the guy since his pro-militia days in the early '90s and writing a lot of good stuff, especially how the guy still talks about the New World Order and other cracked-out John Birch batshittery.

Ron Paul may or may not be a racist -- and arguing about it is likely to end up nowhere. But what is unmistakably, ineluctably true about Ron Paul is that he is an extremist: a conspiracy theorist, a fear-monger, and an outright nutcase when it comes to monetary, tax, and education policy. The more believers and sympathizers he gathers, the worse off the rest of us will be.

Billion a week: better spent here or abroad?

ok so what's wrong with kucinich's ideas exactly?

also not seeing how paul's ideas are especially more "insane" than the idea of doubling guantanamo bay or forcing every citizen to have a national ID card

They are more insane.

No one is arguing that Kucinich and Paul are the only insane candidates.

I still have my Dennis Kucinich 2004 button.

i wonder what it's like to actually be legimately excited about a candidate that actually has a chance of winning?

it's odd because i guess that puts me in the extremes, yet i'm probably a moderate in a lot of ways.

i think candidates who speak bitter truths could win, but you have to find a way to frame the bitter truth as blaming someone besides the general populace. you gotta get yerself some of that reform!
m.

I agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue, except that he's pro life, but even then he would let that be decided locally, which I'm fine with. It's really depressing that he's the only candidate to be talking about things like blowback and even being shouted down by idiots like giuliani for doing so.

If he were the republican candidate, I would even consider voting for him over say, Hillary. Although, I really couldn't ever fully trust the Republican party.

The truth is though, he probably wont be able to raise the huge sums of money necessary to continue a campaign, as he's been far too anti-corporate. That and his views all line up and his voting record has been consistant, which Americans don't trust.

also, I overheard a soldier who was on a few week leave from Iraq say this about the current situation:

"I think it's reached a point where, no matter what we do, it will not get any better or any worse."

Also, I think I sounded too strongly in favor of Ron Paul there. I'm more just excited that there's a candidate with a set of beliefs that even line up.

The truth is though, he probably wont be able to raise the huge sums of money necessary to continue a campaign, as he's been far too anti-corporate. That and his views all line up and his voting record has been consistant, which Americans don't trust.

Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.

The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).

FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336

Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.

“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”

Someone like Mott Romney has raised a great deal more - over $20 million - but the numbers a pretty impressive nonetheless.

In regards to his racism, I actually read a Ron Paul quote the other day about how racism is a "collectivist" idea because you'd have to see people as groups instead of individuals in order to be racist. Or something.

This actually gets to the root of why I could never be all out libertarian. You can shout about individual liberties and how the free market is going to save the world all you want, but there are people starving in inner cities right now, and changing to the gold standard and eliminating medicare and the public school system and whatever the fuck else wont "work itself out" for them.

maybe. but some might argue, sincerly, that the poor might be better off w/o the state (the fabled left-libertarian). libertarians and conservatives who talk about the 'free market' aren't typically vocal about the poor because thats not their demo. and the same politicians who like to talk about the free market happliy hand out corporate welfare.

i'd like to see an argument for why paul or kuchinich is crazy. does having radical political beliefs make a politician crazy? maybe if they sincerly thought they could win they'd be crazy. or do you think they aren't self aware? and whats wrong with being crazy? whats the alternative? america has a long tradition of eccentric politicians.

When Brits ask me questions like, "What do people on the left in America think?" my answer is: "There aren't any, unless you count a few media groupies and policy wonks."

lol

I'm a Brit and until this thread I had barely heard of Ron Paul and the only thing I knew about Kucinich was that he was married to a hot redhead Englishwoman. But now after a great deal of research I can say that I love this photo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Forbes-kucinich.jpg

so then, saying that black teenagers are "incredibly fleet footed" and therefore deserve to be tried & sentenced as adults & ranting about how bad it is that the U.S. is off the gold standard (a position that is as credible in mainstream economics as creationism is in mainstream biology) is "speaking a bitter truth"?

And going on about how Al Gore secretly wants to control all your guns, or that the only thing wrong with cross burning is that it might damage some property?

also, I overheard a soldier who was on a few week leave from Iraq say this about the current situation:

"I think it's reached a point where, no matter what we do, it will not get any better or any worse."

Wishful thinking.

I don't necessarily think Kucinich is crazy, and even Paul might not be capital "C"razy, but neither seem very realistic in their ideas.

Do we remember the bitter truth that guaranteed Walter Mondale's fate in an '84 debate? "President Reagan will raise your taxes; so will I. He won't tell you; I just did."

Americans prefer MAINSTREAM fantasists.

Also lets face it, even if, say, eliminating the federal income tax were a good idea (which it isn't), it would never get support in congress. Or perhaps Paul will have a magic scepter that will allow him to instantly bring his *radical ideas* to fruition once he's president.

I've noticed "non-crazy" candidates also propose things we all know will never happen.

i stopped taking kucinich seriously 3 years ago when i found out 3 things about him: (a) that he led cleveland into default when he was mayor there in the late 70s; (b) he wants to establish a "department of peace" (which seems to be as much about his attraction to shirley maclaine-ish new-age jibberish than any real or intelligible critique of the american foreign policy establishment); and (c) he was anti-choice for 20+ years until (how convenient!) he ran in the 2004 primary when all of a sudden he became pro-choice.

anti-choice

I really wish ppl said "pro-abortion." or included Tasters' Choice.

xpost ya that's when i took my kucinich pin off my bag

Paul may not be any crazier than Bush.

Believing that you can re-make the middle east overnight by force and that it will be easy is about as out-there as believing we can just bring all our internationally-stationed troops home and seal ourselves in a ziploc bag.

xpost

as there won't ever be a Dept of Peace, and there will be legal abortion as long as it provides *WHEW* relief to deadbeat straight men who find condoms so inconvenient, how are either of those relevant?

All of Paul's idea basically boil down to "Things that seem simpler are better" -- it's the same politics you find in those *Robin Williams* e-mail forwards.

I don't see much difference in voting for a declared candidate who has no chance of winning and writing-in the person you really want to vote for. If you're anti-war, instead of voting for Kucinich, why not write-in Chomsky or whoever? They have the same chance of actually being nominated. Lots of people seem to want to vote for Gore--what's to stop them? This is a democracy--we shouldn't have to wait around for these guys to make themselves available to us.

Well, if it's an independent candidate you'd be potentially helping his/her party with your vote whereas a write-in wouldn't have that effect.

I'm not going to engage you in an abortion debate, but I'll clarify that it was mainly learning that he drove Cleaveland into the ground that caused me to stop supporting him. He can do whatever the fuck he wants about a Department of Peace, in fact I might say it's a good idea to integrate ideas from the ISPN into the way we govern, but learning that he had completely and utterly failed when put into a position of actual leadership made me renege my support.

xxxpost to da morb

He can do whatever the fuck he wants about a Department of Peace, in fact I might say it's a good idea to integrate ideas from the ISPN into the way we govern...

haha I read that as ESPN and now I want Dick Vitale primary debate commentary

The KOOCH with the DEPARTMENT OF PEACE again...IT'S NO GOOD! OBAMA WINS IT!

kucinich is catholic so that might explain his stance on abortion. also lots of cities were in financial ruin in the 70s.

I don't necessarily think Kucinich is crazy, and even Paul might not be capital "C"razy, but neither seem very realistic in their ideas.

-- Hurting 2, Monday, 11 June 2007 16:38 (24 minutes ago)

but they are just talking from principle. i don't see whats wrong with that. in a world with viable third parties politicians like paul and kucinich would have more exposure and their positions wouldn't seem quite as novel. both of their idealogies have precidents in this country.

i'd like it if paul or kucinich or folks like them could catch fire not because i think they'll win or would even vote for them, but because they might shift the debate.

(or I would even vote for them0

i'd like it if paul or kucinich or folks like them could catch fire

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/999/koochfireez3.png

To me, someone like Giuliani is Krazy with a capital K. His views don't line up, he doesn't HAVE an ideology. I don't even understand what makes someone like that want to be president besides the fact that a series of events that he had no control over made it possible for him to do so.

well it's true that Cleveland went into default and it's true special K wasn't a great mayor but he preserved Cleveland Public Power after the banks wanted it. He let cleveland slide into default rather than give in.

power to the people etc

Believing that you can re-make the middle east overnight by force and that it will be easy

Maybe a straw man should run for president.

but they are just talking from principle.

But Paul's principles are whacked - extreme isolationism and libertarianism. I mean even Lyndon LaRouche says some things I agree with.

royal family's after you then too, huh

hurting just because you think someone's positions are 'whacked' doesn't mean they aren't valid. it is easy to be dismissive of fringe candidates, but i haven't heard anyone give a good reasons for why paul's or kucinich's views are bad

(beyond them being kinda nuty which i agree with and allegations of paul's bigotry which might be revealing, but does it say something about his ideology? maybe.).

I've read what I can of Paul's views on race and it seems like, well, plain ol' racism, self-excused by a monomaniacal insistence on reading everything through the prism of libertarianism. collectivism is bad, race is a form of collective identity, both racists and people against racism are racists, and giving any sympathy, let alone something material or legally consequential, to a black person because they are black: ...also racist! because collective! neat, huh?

Have fun with these: A collection of Ron Paul columns & speeches going back to 2001. Welfare is immoral, taxes are theft, etc etc etc

These guys really like going on about "life, liberty, and property"

as for big K's Dept of Peace, that sounds enough like Thomas Barnett, so nuttiness is in the packaging I guess

talking about the War on Christmas way back in 2003:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

yeah none of that stuff is very appealing to me. ron paul is pretty socially conservative and libertarians often stick to talking points more than democrats and republicans! he did catch my ear a little when he talked about corporatisim though.

Interview/feature from April 2004

The bottom line, for Dr. Paul, is the U.S. Constitution. He refuses to vote for any piece of legislation that is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution, and his stinging critiques of much of the unconstitutional legislation coming out of Rome on the Potomac are well known to LewRockwell.com readers.

Yeah, how's that 9th Amendment working out for you, jackass? Looks like we won't need any privacy at all, huh? Everyone knows that the word "privacy" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and that the denotation and connotation of "privacy" has never, ever changed since late-18th-C America.

Actually, I find really extreme stuff like RP's quotes as a good illustration of the problems inherent in modern american libertarianism & conservatism. All these guys continually make ranting condemnations of "collectivisms", that anything that a group of people agree to do is automatically Communist and Evil.

Among other things, it ignores that whole "We the People" bit that shows up both in our founding documents and in iconic bits of Americana that reinforce the philosophies and experimentation put forward in those founding documents(e.g. The Gettysburg Address, where Lincoln keeps the emphasis on We the People). It's this bullshit gated suburban nihilism, this atomic view that we're all like fish packed in ice and separate from each other, which is how it should be.

And I owe you nothing; in fact, the only reason I don't want you to just fucking die in the street is that your rotting corpse might lower my property values. ( etc etc etc)

well i guess that kind of criticism of libertarians is fair because they tend to take things to their logical conclusion. it is often difficult to seperate out libertarianism and conservatism, but of course when modern libertarianism was taking shape there was a lot flirtation by the left by karl hess, murray rothbard and others.

(should read flirtation with the left)

as for big K's Dept of Peace, that sounds enough like Thomas Barnett1984

for the record i disagree with paul on pretty much everything except his "extreme isolationism" (which isn't any more "extreme" than the modest foreign policy advocated by washington), and i suspect most leftists would feel the same way if they bothered to read any of his writings. i'm with kingfish on libertarians; it's impossible to read any of that lew rockwell stuff for long without feeling queasy, entertaining as it is. their embarrassing and creepy fixation on proving the evilness of abraham lincoln is especially hilarious.

There's one guy on Lew Rockwell who's worth reading, at least: Bill Barnwell, who's a fairly moderate conservative pastor from michigan who writes in depth about how bullshit the Rapture crowd is, to the point of explaining away their loopy citations of Scripture when they try to go on about the more john birch elements, and how all the un-converted jews will die, etc.

Yeah, this whole "Kucinich drove Cleveland into bankruptcy OMFG and therefore I wash my hands of him" is a whole lot more complicated than that. And history has pretty much vindicated Kucinich's actions on it, too. There's plenty of reasons to be wary of the Boy Mayor -- like the whole chemtrails thing, which is pretty nutty, but not that much more nutty than anything Rick Santorum ever said, ever -- but the Muny Light/default thing is not among them.

haha - first barnwell piece i click on has a reference to "America’s most beloved plagiarist, adulterer, and socialist conman, Martin Luther King, Jr."

Yeah, there's a weird mix of shit on there, too

kucinich is the only vegan presidential candidate

Kucinich is a naive pacifist and his policies would embolden our enemies and endanger our security. He's not up to the challenge of defending this country or its interests, and he wants to throw Iraq under a bus of UN "peacekeepers."

xpost: and he's a vegan.

There is something inherently evil about being non-productive on the Martin Luther King "holiday."

Should I choose non-work on this day, I am endorsing the State’s choice of a day of rest. I would be sanctioning King’s democratic socialism and grandiloquent notions of redistributing from the Do’s to the Do-Not’s. It is clear that virtually no employer would give such an absurd holiday were it not for PC pressure or State mandates. In my line of work as a corporate CPA, the timing of the holiday is made worse by the fact that we are in a crunch to close the books at year-end and produce financial statements. It’s a blow against capitalism if you ask me.

But since I work in a predominately black city, management at my company has decided that they shall seek the politically correct route for the very first time this year. A day off for all of us. Whoopee.

President’s Day, however, is not a component of the holiday package where I work. The birthday of two dead white guys is hardly a politically correct necessity. If I were boss for a day, I’d make everybody work mega-overtime on MLK day to give the Reverend King a capitalistic slap-in-the-face, and I’d make a holiday of April 14th, the anniversary of the war criminal Lincoln’s comeuppance at the hands of John Wilkes Booth. The aggressor who had ordered the abolition of freedom of the press and speech, of habeus corpus, of sound money, and of freedom from income taxes, and who had commanded the shooting of hundreds of thousands, and the starving of millions, found out what it was like. However, since April 14th falls on a Saturday this year, and since I’m not the boss, it shall not be. (My Catholicism teaches me not to celebrate any man's death, even Lincoln's, so I guess we'd actually be mourning the death of Booth.)

from http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster18.html

Yeah, most of the posters on Lew rockwell are real pieces of work, to be sure.

i actually think murray rothbard was a good writer and kind of an interesting thinker but a complete nutjob at the same time. my favorite "only a libertarian..." is still his defense of blackmail as a legitimate economic transaction.

Sometimes I wonder if we as a society/america/representative democracies/humans have some sort of self-destruct mechanism built into place. Kinda like in Cold War-era science fiction, where much is written about the concept of a civilization that can only advance so far, and only achieve a particular level of technology just before it can obliterate itself.

In this case, that our little American experiment worked well enough that the a good portion of the offspring of the generation that achieved the highest level of prosperity spent their lives actively trying to destroy all aspects of the society, culture and history that had brought them to this level of achievement. And that this level of prosperity empowered the nihilistic among us to finally make it past that threshhold and do it.

To steal from Mark Twain, we need another Flood; this time, no Ark.

Kucinich is a naive pacifist and his policies would embolden our enemies and endanger our security. He's not up to the challenge of defending this country or its interests, and he wants to throw Iraq under a bus of UN "peacekeepers."

xpost: and he's a vegan.

-- Kerm, Monday, 11 June 2007 22:31 (Yesterday) Link

Because our enemies aren't already embolded, and foreign wars instead of internal security operations WILL stop them!

Where is mass media coverage of this early victory:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43027

holy shit

Ron Paul, according to some supporters of the campaign, gave the most eloquent and convincing answer of any modern, televised debate when he identified President George Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine as the single most troubling moral issue faced by United States.

lol

Anyone see the neocon documentary "The Power of Nightmares?" Ron Paul is the only Republican from Texas I've ever heard who actually relates this neocon agenda accurately. It's not conservativism, it's something masquerading as conservatism and hides behind warped religious morality and false-enemy propaganda to unify the people and create the excuse for stronger government. I enjoyed hearing Ron Paul say without added ass-coverage like so many democrats, "all the experts who say exiting will cause more problems seem to be coming from the same camp. They attacked us because we were involved in their foreign policy, not because they hate our freedoms. They attacked us because they want us out. Staying there is like putting a stick in a hornet's nest and saying it'll be worse if we drop the stick and get away. No, it won't."

The best part of the documentary is the bit about pointing the finger at the USSR for having super advanced weapons which were a threat to the USA which everyone knew they did not. Lacking evidence, but convincing some old idiot (who told them to make up the evidence they needed) they said, "no evidence is just proof of their advanced technology. It's probably something we can't detect." and somehow presented the CIA's lack of evidence as "proof," which was all the old fuck asked them to do. Gee, reminds me of the WMD strategy for attacking Iraq. (sorry, the old fuck escapes me at the moment)

Doc here: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Part 1 has all the interesting bits. 2 and 3 are good, too.

The Ron Paul booster who posts on my other regular message board refers to non-supporters as "sheeple," and uses phrases like "when the country gets caught with its economic panties around its ankles."

I thin that says it all.

There have been signs going up around my neighborhood encouraging people to join the "ron paul rEVOLution," where the 'evol' is fake stenciled to look like love backwards. You know those libertarians and their love for the people.

haha. "That Ron Paul, the way he talks, it's like an 'Expressway to Yr Skull!'"

Where is mass media coverage of this early victory:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43027

-- dean ge, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 23:09 (3 weeks ago) Link

You're asking where the mass media coverage is of Ron Paul winning meaningless victories in non-scientific for-fun-only internet polls held by media outsiders CNN and MSNBC.

A candidate who eats velveeta cheese win can never win in a democracy.

er...velveeta cheese FUDGE

Coming next: an appearance on "The Simpsons."

Gail Collins hilarious in Times on Whispergate yesterday,

It amazes me that there are people who still think we should remain in Iraq. Realism, my ass.

In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks: Paul voted against similar medals for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He routinely opposes resolutions that presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Robert Mugabe’s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).

So that would be bitter truths or fucking crazy?

That's not crazy, the US needs to stop screwing around and bullying the third world, as if they had some higher moral ground.

There aren't a lot of nations that don't hold the high moral ground on Bob Mugabe.

What part about intervening in Darfur would be screwing around? What part would be acting as if we have "some higher moral ground?" Teach with examples please, I R stupid.

I suspect that he might be Gore Vidal's favorite son.

Ok - intervening in arabic vs. non-arabic speaking Somali's civil war when you've managed to spark a Shia vs. Sunni civil war in the last country you invaded?

So, because one thing went wrong, we should stay out of all foreign interventions. That's the logic?

Ron Paul's logic is that we should stay out of other countries' business regardless of positive/negative outcomes. This probably includes military invasions and foreign aid alike.

Basically I don't believe that because one thing happened it causes some kind of moral freeze on all action that we might take elsewhere.

As for the statement that Ron Paul is against abortion, but AT LEAST he wants it decided at the local level, having something decided at the local level is not at all comforting. There are a reason why many things are covered by federal laws, because there is the possibility of extremism converging at the local level. What is so great about the local level? Is my second question. Several comments up on that one.

Kerm -- Of course the obvious test is WWII. What is the appropriate course of action / what would Ron Paul say about that? As a historical example that's a good one, as a thought experiment on ideals here's one: France invades the UK and begins a program of mass extermination. What should we do? I would be uncomfortable with a rigid Ron Paul principled approach.

As for the statement that Ron Paul is against abortion, but AT LEAST he wants it decided at the local level, having something decided at the local level is not at all comforting. There are a reason why many things are covered by federal laws, because there is the possibility of extremism converging at the local level. What is so great about the local level? Is my second question. Several comments up on that one.

South Dakota to thread.

Probably more like Idaho skinhead radical militias to thread.

dude, you do know about what the legislature of South Dakota has been doing about abortion and even contraception, right?

Yes of course.

I'm not into it but I'm just saying that there are worse outcomes that strict libertarians don't really like to discuss when they talk about essentially breaking up the United States.

He'd probably say we provoked Japan with oil and steel embargoes. How do you say that in German?

I believe you say that Heil Hitler!

So, because one thing went wrong, we should stay out of all foreign interventions. That's the logic?

-- humansuit, Sunday, 22 July 2007

One thing? American forign policy has been a series of humanitarian catastrophes, firebombing, nuking, carpetbombing cities, funding rebellions, propping up dictators, training terrorist, defoilating vegetation, causing famine, killing, maiming torturing hundreds of thousands. What gives such a country the right to set itself up as the world policeman or the ultimate moral arbiter for all nations?

I'm not sure they should. But regardless, please answer the questions already put forward.

1) WWII - a mistake for the US to enter? 2) mass genocide in Britain - do nothing? 3) genocide in Africa - do nothing?

I'm not very interested in what America did in the past, but rather what should be done in the future. Ron Paul and his supporters will have to give me answers to the above three scenarios first before I care to agree with them.

Heave Ho: what role do all the positive things the United States has done abroad play in your analysis? You forgot to mention any of them so I was wondering...

I'm not very interested in what America did in the past, but rather what should be done in the future.
Unless someone like Ron Paul takes over, what America did in the past is exactly what america will do in the future. I do not see any great differences in the past and present american manner of fucking with other countries nor in the ideology of the democrat or republican mainstream candidates.

Ron Paul should run for president in Iran.

Yes, I know that's probably true Heave, and I'm not into getting you pissed off or coming across like an asshole. But I am really much more interested in evaluating what should be done in any given situation rather than simply stating that things have gone so badly in the past that we need something radically different. Radically different is fine, as long as it can be clearly explained as to what exactly the difference would be, why that is appropriate, and what the likely result would be.

I hate to play the "our worst actions aren't as bad as their worst actions" game, but uh, yeah. I'm pretty sure the United States has some importance in world affairs other than "we indiscriminately bomb people and poorly set up puppet democracies" and that part of that role ties back into why our culture is so widespread and our economic influence has been, well, influential, even when we're borrowing money from China and such. How is Ron Paul saying we should be more isolationist any different from Pat Buchanan saying it?

This is a false debate. The United States's foreign policy has always been primarily driven by whatever the administration in power thought served its interests best - ensuring access to resources, thwarting perceived national security threats, etc. Which is not to say our stated humanitarian concerns have always been false, just that they've always been secondary. Playing "world policeman" has never, or at best rarely been the United States's true intention, and on the other hand it will never let other countries "mind their own business" because everyone's business is intertwined beyond possibility of disentanglement.

Kerm, what other threads have you posted in?

U.S. foreign policy has never been driven by the need to thwart "perceived national security threats," because genuine threats to our "national security" by foreign countries haven't been a problem since 1812.

that said, no one who links to lewrockwell ought to be taken seriously.

Right, because the Bay of Pigs never happened and nuclear weapons never existed.

well if you're counting "threats" we deliberately created, sure.

xxxp:??

lolz:

http://kaligulawired.com/rp.jpg

guy wants to abolish federal income tax

i mean, er

Longshot White House hopeful Paul takes in 4.3 million

Tue Nov 6, 2007 11:29am EST

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential longshot Ron Paul became an Internet fund-raising sensation this week by bringing in $4.3 million in 24 hours through a Web drive by supporters.

The fund-raising by Paul, a Texas congressman who is the only Republican to oppose the Iraq war and who has argued for a limited government, was almost as much he took in from July to September. During that time period, he raised $5 million.

But Paul has been outpaced by Republican rivals who have raised tens of millions of dollars. Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, raked in more than $6.5 million during a daylong telephone marathon in January.

"The message is powerful and the level of frustration in this country that people are sick and tired of what they're getting," Paul told the MSNBC network on Tuesday. "They don't like the war and they don't like the economy. And they like the answers that I've been giving."

The Houston obstetrician-gynecologist has been a fierce critic of the Iraq war, calling for withdrawing U.S. troops. He also has said free trade deals and international groups like the World Trade Organization threaten U.S. independence.

Paul's campaign set a goal of raising $12 million by December 31. His spokesman Jesse Benton called Monday's results a record for online fund-raising in a single day for the primary nominating contest for the November 2008 presidential election.

The online drive for Paul was done to coincide with a day in British history when rebels, including Guy Fawkes, plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Fawkes was captured and tortured to turn in his brethren.

While the Paul campaign and a top supporter who helped organize the online drive, Trevor Lyman, said they were not advocating such violence, they argued the lawmaker's candidacy was about taking back control of the government.

"Ron Paul is the only one who talks about our Constitution, our founding document," Lyman said in a telephone interview. "We want America as it's been."

Paul has registered only in single digits in most opinion polls. But he recently spent $1.1 million on advertising in the early primary voting state of New Hampshire.

"His success in fund-raising shows that he's tapped into some deep attitudes of dissatisfaction in the electorate, but that doesn't mean that that financial ability will translate into votes in the primaries," said Anthony Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine.

(Editing by Lori Santos and John O'Callaghan)

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

Greenwald has a good post today.

not to be outdone:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/house-tables-re.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/

exciting news for me! i gave $25 a few months ago just cuz i like having his voice out there.

anyone else want to out themselves as supporters?

I might give D-Ku a few bucks.

lolz @ Paul's understanding of Constitutional law

fwiw I'm not giving anybody any fucking money. elections should be publicly funded and that't that.

whats wrong w/paul's understanding of constitutional law? i don't claim to have any myself.

so if elections were publicly funded would kucinich, say, have more exposure? why?

(im more of a declaration of ind guy and i don't agree w/paul on everything, but i am glad he is out there)

Okay Ron Paul is a guy I strongly dislike and I'm gonna blame HIM for this horrible swollen crelbow bruise I had for like two fucking weeks!

SO I was donating blood on campus in some blood drive busmobile and they're all getting ready to shove thing in my arm. Giving blood makes me feel like I should not be alive or am a replicant etc. bcz they can never ever find my veins. The lady thought she could draw blood from the left. I told her it hadn't happened so far but I thought I'd give it a try.

So as they're about to jab me, right, student journo mang comes and is like 'can I do some photojournalism shots of you giving blood." I say sure, and they put this thing in my arm, and he's taking photos and being muy creepo flirty mcgirty lechwad. Then I realize he is WEARING A RON PAUL SHIRT. wtf? So I say, "If yr gonna be a journalist it might help not to wear a shirt of such a polarizing political figure, it could alienate people or make them uncomfortable." He says, as he's clearly trying 'subtly' to take some upskirt photo, "No that's just what the media says, he's not polarizing!" I say, "YOU'RE the media!" So my vitriol kinda chases him off the busmobile and I look down and see that my crelbow is completely swollen with blood that is going nowhere and the nurse was away, assuming everything was okay bcz Ron Paul fudgewad was accosting me.

Fuck Ron Paul.

yeah he's entertaining and says some things I'm glad are being said on the national level.

But arguing that the federal government has no jurisdiction over things like schools or healthcare flies in the face of how the law works. There is no stripping the federal government of these powers now that hundreds of years of cumulative legal precedent delineating them. Its ridiculous to suggest that this can be done without acknowledging that it would completely undermine the legal system - Paul is essentially saying that he is a higher legal authority than the Supreme Court.

x-post

yeah its hard to strip away powers the federal government has accumulated! still not sure what you mean though shakey. are you talking about HOW THE LAW WORKS or just being a 'realist' (or are they the same)?

Ron Paul & Kucinich are the only aamerican candidates outrightly opposed to attacking other countries

I'm saying the law operates on precedent. You can't just wipe away hundreds of years of precedent.

I disagree with about 60% of his positions, and has no chance of winning, but, hell, a Ron Paul presidency would be the most fun the Republic's had in a century. And what's wrong with it? Besides, he'll face so much congressional opposition that he'd have to compromise.

otm

shakey are you saying there are HUNDREDS of years of precedent for federal involvement in education and health care???

and what does the judiciary have to do w/the dept of education?

no, I'm saying there's hundreds of years of the Supreme Court delineating the powers of the federal government pursuant to Articles I and II of the Constitution.

and what does the judiciary have to do w/the dept of education?

Brown vs. the Board of Education springs to mind.

a Ron Paul presidency would so appall the Beltway media and career politicians that we'd finally have another Constitutional Convention.

lolz @ Paul's understanding of Constitutional law

You can't just wipe away hundreds of years of precedent.

LOLZRZ

I guess you can if you amend the Constitution. what's so funny Don?

Enumerated powers

I love how amending the Constitution is an after thought for you Shakey. It's really rich in the context of you calling out Ron Paul for being ignorant of the Constitution.

It's even funnier that you think posting a link to enumerated powers will make us forget this.

its not an afterthought - I've never heard Paul suggest amending the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government

if that's what he's really after hey good luck with that

Paul boosters are right up with 9-11 conspiracy people in 'distrust alarm' levels. I try to keep an open mind about people's beliefs but sheesh.

Shakey, Ron Paul is probably that crazy, and I'm sure he's probably suggested something like that.

The point is more that precedent is only as strong as the judiciary and legislative bodies allow it to be.

Sorry if I came off like an asshole in pointing that out.

it's cool

and you're entirely right about precedent - its just that in this case, the precedent of enumerated powers is pretty deeply embedded in our political culture (as opposed to something more recent and vulnerable to attack, like say, Roe v. Wade)

bitter truth - reintroduce the draft to constrain military policy

?

i sort of wish i liked ron paul - the idea of a republican who actually takes republican doctrine seriously (instead of preaching "moral values" while selling weapons to terrorists and calling for "small government" while bloating the federal budget beyond recognition) and completely horrifying every republican leader is delightful.

but in practice, his so-called "constitutional literalism" is just that - uselessly literal. would paul have objected to roger taney's ruling, in dred scott, that blacks couldn't sue for their freedom because their rights were not protected by the constitution? a "literal" reading of the constitution, in 1858, would have meant just that. does paul want to repeal popular election of senators? or women's right to vote?

there's democratic potential today that just didn't exist when the constitution was framed.

one can argue that this is a minor point, that we'd be better served by having a "constitutional literalist" as president than a reckless warmonger (which is true), but it raises the issue of why paul - despite being superb on a few issues - grates on anyone who believes in (small-r) republican government. the founders envisioned a country of activist citizens who would use the republic to ward off tyranny and make their own lives better; paul wants a "small government" that will leave everyone in peace. both might be utopias, but only the former has a shot at actually working.

i think he would consider amendments constitutional.

Tho "literalism" is arguably a concept that didn't occur in the Founders' time, and a useless ill-named tenet only brought about by fundies who couldn't/can't handle the changes brought by the onset of modernism.

And although i disagree with like every single one of his domestic policies, i feel the field is improved by having Ron Paul in there.

And I'm a guy who friggin' can't STAND libertarian-types(see my interactions with manalishi/roger a. circa 2004-present)

ron paul's creepy newsletters and militia-type connections back in the day make me a little suspicious of him.

but then i have a kucinich bumper sticker on my car and HE SAW A UFO DA HURR DA HURR. also his wife has a TONGUE STUD DA HURR DA HURR.

fuck hannah storm, is what i'm saying.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html

and Don's response to the Greenwald post

btw ron paul has said he doesn't plan on trying to demolish things like social security and medicaid and whatnot. he is running on the war and civil liberties and the economy/the dollar. and hes able to seperate out his vision of the ideal role of government from the realities of the position he is running for/etc.

he doesn't like the increasing power of the executive either and i'd think some on the left could get behind that too!

which is why if he goes third party i could see him finding someone like kuchinich or gravel to be his running mate. should also note he is closer to someone like perot or buchanon on a lot of economic policy than a more 'pure' libertarian. he used the word 'corporatism' in a debate.

Kucinich would never get with Paul, come on now.

i know...they are kinda pals though. they've worked together in the house.

maybe gravel then. he supports a flat tax, wants to end the drug war and reads reason magazine.

http://www.ronisright.com/

http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/827544/ron_paul_girl.swf

Not really sure why Kucinich is crazy or unrealistic in the same way as Paul. DK's views, AFAIK them, seem to me to be pretty mainstream by the standards of any non-US Western democracy.

Sundar haven't you heard, DK is totally unrealistic

kucinich is pretty great, isn't he?

I think I'm going to vote for him in the primary.

I'm going to vote for him (if he's still on the ballot at that point). First time I ever bothered to vote in a primary.

Kucinich: Winning ILE, Winning America!

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/media/kucinich_paul_obama_hillary.jpg

sundar OTM

i voted for kucinich in the last primary, will vote again A+++

also running a kucinich bumper sticker and fully expecting to be shot at anytime now.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3753/rossperot2k8zj1.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5381/soundinvestmentig5.jpg

Ron Paul is on CSPAN right now, ranting at NH voters. I fucking swear, it's like a scene from "Slacker" or something.

Oh dear lord, that tattoo.

OMG.

Ok, raise your hand if you've discovered yet that someone you thought to be smarter-than-that is voting for Ron Paul?

(raises hand)

I gave up on them being 'smarter-than'that' when they explained it was bcz Paul is for '9/11 truth.' *dies*

heave ho's political insight sadly missing now, another voice of dissent silenced!!

-So you're for returning to the gold standard?
-shyeeeah!
-So you're against immigration?
-Ron Paul isn't against immigration!

no further questions

ps Congrats Abbott! I didn't have the patience to read the whole wedding thread, but feel free to message/e-mail me if you want any further advisings!

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

http://images.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/01/08/obama/story.jpg

Sarah Silverman: Obama is Magic

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

Start printing Confederate money!

someone should ask ron paul why if he loves the constitution so much he thinks that states should have the right to declare it null and void if it interferes with their citizen's rights to take slaves wherever they want

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution.

what a rebel! he's against the war!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fandom.png

exciting news for me! i gave $25 a few months ago just cuz i like having his voice out there.

-- artdamages

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anyone else want to out themselves as supporters?

-- artdamages

A blimp? A blimp!

Imagine.. the mainstream media is mesmerized as the image of the Ron Paul blimp is shown to tens of millions of Americans throughout the day (and throughout the month). Wolf Blizter, stunned and as if in a trance, repeats the words “Amazing, Amazing”.

As GPS co-ordinates stream to the website a map shows the Ron Paul blimp’s location in real time. The local Television stations broadcast its every move. The curious flock together and make a trip to see history in the making. Emails with pictures are sent, then forwarded, then forwarded again. Youtube videos go viral and reach tens of millions of views. Ron Paul becomes the first presidential candidate in history to have his very own blimp. The PR stunt generates millions upon millions of dollars worth in free publicity, and captures the imagination of America.

Please join us in our goal to raise $350,000 to make and fly the first ever Presidential Blimp in history.

http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/ronpaulblimp2.jpg

Can someone in the know or at least versed in semiotics plz to decode/explain wtf the "EVOL" thing means?

http://www.w-fenec.org/photos/2005/rock/sonic_youth_evol.jpg

If nothing else, it always makes me think of "Expressway to Yr Skull", which is cool, but not when the song is associated with such unsavory types.

EVOL = EVIL for people who can't spell

evol is love spelled backwards

SONIC TRUTH! BITTER TRUTH!

burt stanton OffTM

I'll "out" myself as a RP supporter (I did so months ago, but since you asked...). I'm even volunteering to help with the campaign.

ok, then read on:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ron_pauls_explo.html

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

What is this quote from?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

re: EVOL - there's a line from a Diane di Prima poem:

talking love, talking revolution
which is love, spelled backwards
(April Fool Birthday Poem for Grandpa)

"bitter truths"

And Paul is out too

did it via status update

http://www.angryflower.com/paulvk.gif

Still pulling 'em in Pennsylvania:

Mr. Malcolm --- Thanks for the note. I know the majority of your readers probably think we (Ron Paul supporters) are off-the-deep-end crazy, but those who really try and understand Congressman Paul begin to see that he only wants what is best for our country. I cherish our United States, as I imagine you do as do most of your readers.

Thanks for being honest and acknowledging the material fact that McCain is not winning Pennsylvania 99% to 1% like he SHOULD be if he were the party's clear choice.

It's truly a saddening year for my Republican Party.

Ron Paul supporters not only have big hearts for Congressman Paul, but also for our country.

Meanwhile...

The goal of Paulville.org it to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty.

A little plotting never hurt anyone.

Republican Platform Committee's online suggestion box raped and pillaged by Ron Paul supporters.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/disaffected-lib.html

Says Bob in Clemons, North Carolina: "We need to abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. Not just any gold though, I heard about this stuff, pure-strain gold that has been around since God created the universe. That's what we should base our currency around since it is so close to God."

I'm gonna miss paultards.

"we don't need the FDA. If companies sold drugs that killed people, people would stop buying the drugs!"

Well, he's got a point.

DAVE!

(And be sure to read the comments.)

in my current neighborhood (vestal) there are stenciled, wooden signs on electrical poles reading "ron paul 2008" about once a mile. i want to stencil a rebuttal

palin makes ron paul look like a lil' angel.

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/ron-paul-and-the-conspiracy-of-history/

Who needs Ron Paul when you have Rand Paul?

RON PAUL HAS A SON NAMED RAND!?!?!?!?

RAND!?!?!?!?

short for Randall maybe?

heave ho's political insight sadly missing now, another voice of dissent silenced!!

― gershy, Sunday, January 6, 2008 3:34 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark

so then, saying that black teenagers are "incredibly fleet footed" and therefore deserve to be tried & sentenced as adults & ranting about how bad it is that the U.S. is off the gold standard (a position that is as credible in mainstream economics as creationism is in mainstream biology) is "speaking a bitter truth"?

― Eisbaer, Monday, June 11, 2007 11:56 AM (4 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol @ how naive i was back then re the really vile racist shit in Paul's newsletters. remarking about the alleged fleetfootedness of black teenagers doesn't hold a candle to the stuff that has come to light since then.

The Fleet Footes

the Ron Paul superhero-ism gets more LOL by the day. every day someone I know talks about him (in a positive light) it's always...

"...the only man that can save the world's economy"
"...predicted what would go wrong 4 years ago, and has stuck to his message"
"...isn't afraid to tell the truth".

somehow when the topic comes up about how he predicted outlandishly devastating inflation after 3 years of the Fed's monetary expansion, and it didn't happen, they tend to have less answers.

You do not understand the underlying foundational issue. Ron Paul protects the rights of every individual. Whenever individuals are put into groups and given special rights and powers and not held by the same rule of law placed on individuals, the individual loses and Big Corp and Big Labor win. When you say, "thank goodness he doesn't have a chance of winning" you are saying "thank goodness the Republic and the rights of the individual do not have a chance." Please, think through the underlying Principle more deeply and connect with your heart to how precious and rare freedom is. We can use all the help we can get to save the Republic. RP 2012!

lolololol

someone please shop Paul's face on Batman's body

Outside the polls, students campaigning for Paul and Romney dueled for the support of their peers.

LU junior Braedon Wilkins, a local coordinator for the Paul campaign, organized about 35 student volunteers to man polling sites across Lynchburg. By 5 p.m., Wilkins had clocked ten hours at the Vines Center. His face was sunburned and his voice was hoarse from yelling.

“Real conservatives read the Bible, not the Book of Mormon,” Wilkins bellowed as a cluster of students entered the polls.

A smaller, quieter group hoisted Romney signs and chided the Paul camp for their aggressive tactics, preferring one-to-one conversations with undecided voters.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2012/mar/06/ron-paul-wins-lynchburg-gets-strong-support-libert-ar-1745784/

Krugman looked befuddled and tried to explain why government involvement in currency is inevitable. But Paul proceeded to assert that loose monetary policy caused the end of the Roman Empire. It's not an easy worldview to engage with. Krugman, by this point, could do little more than try to suppress his laughter and insist, "I am not a defender of the economic policies of the emperor Diocletian."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/paul-krugman-meets-ron-paul.html

http://i.imgur.com/7jEo6n0.jpg

somebody, anybody, pplans, karl malone, help me out here

http://www.michaelbickelmeyer.com/

Presidential candidacy as mid-life crisis. From the "Campaign Statement":

I just bought a bench press with weights yesterday, and in my spare time I plan on beginning to lift again. Before fall I plan to start running hopefully on a treadmil in my apartment and attain the distance of 3 miles in 27 minutes.

http://www.wellstonetheykilledhim.com/images/imghompagetop6.jpg

ok i feel bad now, this bickelmeyer guy appears to be unwell

http://i.imgur.com/ooDkhSD.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/svzc0Lo.jpg

Good grief.

http://i.imgur.com/GVmor8R.png

Parma/Parma Hts = RWNJ central in Cuyahoga County, along with Westlake