Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | U.S. | Anti-War | Government & Elections | Health, Housing & Public Services | Labor & Workers | LGBTI / Queer | Racial Justice | Womyn
No to Rightist Ron Paul, Better Strategies for Ending the War
"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it." Socialist Anti-war Candidate Eugene Debs (who garnered nearly a million votes while he sat in prison for opposition to U.S. involvement in World War One).
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action" wrote Ron Paul, who voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in Congress, the act that gave Blacks the right to vote, quote from his “Ron Paul Newsletter”.
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action" wrote Ron Paul, who voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in Congress, the act that gave Blacks the right to vote, quote from his “Ron Paul Newsletter”.
No to Rightist Ron Paul, Better Strategies for Ending the War
By STEVEN ARGUE
Claiming that only an alliance with Ron Paul conservatives can end the war, New York City Indymedia volunteers have allowed blatant slander against Liberation News and have censored attempts to respond to those lies. Among the slanders posted were accusations that Liberation News is opposed to Ron Paul because we support Hillary Clinton and her healthcare program. I tried posting the following response, but it was censored on the site:
Ron Paul supporter: “it's pointed out that yes Ron Paul is a racist but Stevies candidate Hillary is even worse.”
Steven Argue: “I don’t support Hillary Clinton. Never have, but you don’t listen. This is pure slander.”
They then repeat their slander that I support Hillary Clinton for her healthcare plan saying, “It's pointed out that Stevie is willing to sacrifice liberty for a bogus health care plan”
Steven Argue: “Hillary Clinton opposes both socialized medicine and single payer healthcare. She supports insurance company healthcare, the kind that is killing untold millions in the United States. This is one of many reasons I oppose her.”
“And no, I don't see Clinton as a first step towards socialized medicine. Her promise to force people to buy insurance has nothing in common with socialized medicine, nor partially socialized medicine (i.e. single payer). I’m clear about this in my article:
The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It, By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php
“As for Ron Paul, he wants to privatize everything, including public education, Social Security, and Medicare, eliminate the Voting Rights Act and Roe V Wade in the name of "states rights", signed on to the "Marriage Protection Act", would eliminate every environmental and labor protection, etc. etc. etc. This is a prescription for the slavery of the majority to protect the “liberty” of a tiny handful of capitalists to exploit.
“I oppose both Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. But I’ve already made that clear as being my position. These accusations are slanderous.”
Ron Paul supporter: “Then Stevie moves the goal posts again. Waaa. He's being censored.”
Steven Argue: “I repeatedly posted a response to the slander that I support Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan, and the response is censored every time. I have no motive to make that up. I mentioned it because I wanted people to see my response. Frankly, I’m quite surprised it is happening. Let’s see if this one goes up.”
That response, as I feared, was also censored. Revealing the reasons behind the Ron Paul censorship at the site, the Ron Paul backers posted the following:
“Get off your sectarianism.
“What you don’t get is that there are only two ways we're going to end the occupation of Iraq:
“1.) A recession, and a bad one.
“2.) Convincing the vast majority of conservative Americans it's wrong. Ron Paul reaches these people. The guy with the Free Mumia shirt selling the "Socialist Worker" doesn't.
“To get anything done in a democracy you're going to have to work with people you don't agree with and people you might not even like. People in grown up countries do this all the time. They're called "coalitions".
“The Labor Party in Israel, for example, makes alliances with the ultra orthodox. The Liberal Democrats have made common cause with the Tories in the UK. The left made common cause with Vicente Fox to get the PRI out of power in Mexico.
“It's only in the puritan USA where everybody thinks you have to like all your political allies and agree with them on everything.”
Besides the fact that the majority of Americans already oppose the war; and besides the fact that these points show a total lack of understanding of the bourgeois nature of the coalitions in the countries mentioned; and besides showing a total lack of understanding of what it will take to end the war (I discuss this at the end of the article); New York City Indymedia’s lack of confidence in the ability of people to change has caused them to build a coalition with a capitalist politician who is a racist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-environmental, bible thumping, sexist, anti-labor, anti-poor, free-market privatization fanatic. On top of that, they censor the left in order to achieve that coalition.
While a Ron Paul presidency would likely end the war, at what price would this come?
Ron Paul uses the term liberty a lot, so let’s take a look at what he means by liberty.
The liberty Ron Paul demands is:
The liberty of the capitalists to exploit without labor laws and environmental protections;
The "state’s right” to prevent Blacks from voting without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against its renewal in Congress);
The "states right" to ban abortions without the interference of Roe v Wade;
The freedom of the government to deny same-sex rights (was an original sponsor of the "Marriage Protection Act");
The freedom of children not to attend schools (would abolish public education);
The freedom of the elderly and disabled to starve (would abolish Social Security);
The freedom of the sick to die (would abolish Medicare);
The freedom of the U.S. to destroy the planet without even the most basic limits on carbon emissions (opposes signing on to Kyoto and all other carbon limitations);
This is, in short, the liberty of a wealthy minority to make their money from the exploitation of labor and the environment with zero interference from labor laws, environmental laws, and the IRS. While his program is liberty for a minority of rich white heterosexual males, it is slavery for the majority.
Simply put, Ron Paul’s promises to end the war are not enough when one looks at the fact that he would eliminate two centuries of hard fought social progress in the United States.
Some of the anti-war backers of Ron Paul argue that we don’t have to worry about these things because Ron Paul will never be elected. They think that backing his campaign is a way to win over his supporters. What is clear is that such arguments could only come from people who are utterly lost and rudderless, which leaves unclear the question of what they are winning Ron Paul supporters over to. They are supporting a candidate whose program is George Wallace on crack cocaine! Yet, the ultimate absurdity is the fact that they are backing a candidate whose most reassuring feature is that he won’t get elected! Is this point lost on these people? And is the chance that their support may help him get elected a chance they really want to take? Nobody thought that third party candidate Jesse (the body) Ventura would get elected in Minnesota either, but he was, and as soon as he was elected he discarded his libertarian values on drug legalization and prostitution and instead proceeded to carrying out attacks on labor and carrying out disastrous cuts in education and other social spending.
Others argue that if Ron Paul is elected, he will easily be able to pull the troops out of Iraq, but congress will block him on the other issues. There is no doubt that they would block parts of Ron Paul’s program in order to prevent the social unrest such measures would cause, but with the ruling class’s desire to step up the exploitation of labor and the environment through eliminating regulation and through privatization, there can be little doubt that if he is able to maintain his presidency without being shot, aspects of Ron Paul’s domestic program would be implemented.
Today, in the United States we have two rightwing capitalist parties that rule. The activists who run New York Indymedia are floating around utterly lost and rudderless. On the one hand, their anarchist philosophy prohibits them from putting forward their own leadership or supporting socialist candidates; and on the other hand, they are stuck in the “real politic” of supporting “lesser evil” capitalist politicians. It is these characteristics that made them susceptible to being swept up on the Ron Paul band wagon. Despite their “libertarian” values of “freedom”, they have now taken this to the point where they are even willing to censor critics of Ron Paul on their website.
While Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate opposed to the war, is not worth supporting, the front running Democrats are also very bad. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, are all pro-war. Both Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Obama supporters claim that Obama never supported the war. While Obama was not yet in the Senate at the time of the Iraq war vote, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have all voted for war appropriations. This puts them all in the position of having supported the war. Over a million Iraqis are dead due to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and billions of dollars have been squandered. Obama, by helping pay for the war, has his hands in this mass murder just as Clinton and Edwards do.
Obama’s Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 supposedly would have begun troop withdrawal in May 2007. Yet, it didn't call for full nor immediate withdrawal. In addition, under the bill, the withdrawal could be halted if the Iraqi government met a number of criteria laid out by the Bush administration. These included a broad number of things such as changes in the use of oil revenue, government reforms, an end to sectarian violence, and other economic and reconstruction criteria. In Obama’s bill we have a crystal ball into the future. The excuses laid out in the bill will be heard once again as Obama, Clinton, or Edwards explain why they are keeping the troops in Iraq for their entire presidency; that is unless other actions are taken by the people to stop the war.
This brings us to the fundamental question of how to stop the war. If we are to listen to the Ron Paul censors / supporters at NYC Indymedia the only thing we can do to stop the war is support Ron Paul or hope for (pray for?) economic collapse. Yet, this ignores other less damaging possibilities. These include the troops refusing to fight, a general strike, strikes against the movement of war materials, or socialist revolution.
1. The troops refusing to fight. This worked in the struggle to end the U.S. aggression against Vietnam. It was the socialist movement who were the primary organizers of the anti-Vietnam War movement. That movement, immediately after the government’s murders at Kent State in May 1970 had 8 million students out on strike, and some Universities, such a Berkley, were taken over by students and faculty as anti-war universities. After May 1970, the majority of those drafted were already opposed to the war before they got to Vietnam. Refusal to fight was widespread, and the fragging of pro-war officers was common. Nixon could not continue to wage a war with soldiers who refused to fight. This, along with the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese, brought an end to the war in Vietnam.
Troops refusing to fight also helped bring an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, and helped bring down two pro-war governments in 1917.
2. A general strike or strikes against the movement of war materials. Strikes with such political demands have a long history of success. France has many good social programs because the workers there were willing to shut down their country to achieve them; and they are still willing to do the same to protect those hard fought gains.
3. Socialist revolution. The October Russian Revolution achieved an end to Russian involvement in the First World War. This was a good thing, despite the undemocratic nature of the revolution. Learning from those lessons, Liberation News opposes the dictatorial system of one party rule and raises the banner of revolutionary democratic socialism, while at the same time learning from many of the revolutionary strategies of Lenin and Trotsky.
Protests, pickets, information distribution, building a socialist movement, and answering pro-Ron Paul and pro-Obama-Clinton-Edwards propaganda all help towards building the momentum needed in achieving the kinds of actions that can end the war. Putting support behind Ron Paul only helps an extreme rightwing movement achieve the mantel of leadership for an anti-war sentiment that already represents majority public opinion. In addition, backing a guy like Ron Paul who just crossed a picket line to appear on Jay Lenno’s “Tonight Show” destroys the anti-war strategy of reaching out to the working class, as does backing a racist candidate like Ron Paul hurt the ability to reach out to the multi-racial working class.
No to the Democrats and Republicans!
U.S. Out of Iraq Now!
No to Insurance Company Healthcare, For Socialized Medicine!
Save the Planet, Curb Carbon Emissions Now!
Vote Socialist, Build the Labor Movement, Build the Anti-War Movement, Build the Socialist Movement.
[Note, small changes were made to the response that was censored at NYC Indymedia to make it more readable within the format of this article. Those wishing to see the original version will be given it upon request.]
This is an article of Liberation News, a low volume newsletter, Subscribe free!
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
By STEVEN ARGUE
Claiming that only an alliance with Ron Paul conservatives can end the war, New York City Indymedia volunteers have allowed blatant slander against Liberation News and have censored attempts to respond to those lies. Among the slanders posted were accusations that Liberation News is opposed to Ron Paul because we support Hillary Clinton and her healthcare program. I tried posting the following response, but it was censored on the site:
Ron Paul supporter: “it's pointed out that yes Ron Paul is a racist but Stevies candidate Hillary is even worse.”
Steven Argue: “I don’t support Hillary Clinton. Never have, but you don’t listen. This is pure slander.”
They then repeat their slander that I support Hillary Clinton for her healthcare plan saying, “It's pointed out that Stevie is willing to sacrifice liberty for a bogus health care plan”
Steven Argue: “Hillary Clinton opposes both socialized medicine and single payer healthcare. She supports insurance company healthcare, the kind that is killing untold millions in the United States. This is one of many reasons I oppose her.”
“And no, I don't see Clinton as a first step towards socialized medicine. Her promise to force people to buy insurance has nothing in common with socialized medicine, nor partially socialized medicine (i.e. single payer). I’m clear about this in my article:
The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It, By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php
“As for Ron Paul, he wants to privatize everything, including public education, Social Security, and Medicare, eliminate the Voting Rights Act and Roe V Wade in the name of "states rights", signed on to the "Marriage Protection Act", would eliminate every environmental and labor protection, etc. etc. etc. This is a prescription for the slavery of the majority to protect the “liberty” of a tiny handful of capitalists to exploit.
“I oppose both Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. But I’ve already made that clear as being my position. These accusations are slanderous.”
Ron Paul supporter: “Then Stevie moves the goal posts again. Waaa. He's being censored.”
Steven Argue: “I repeatedly posted a response to the slander that I support Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan, and the response is censored every time. I have no motive to make that up. I mentioned it because I wanted people to see my response. Frankly, I’m quite surprised it is happening. Let’s see if this one goes up.”
That response, as I feared, was also censored. Revealing the reasons behind the Ron Paul censorship at the site, the Ron Paul backers posted the following:
“Get off your sectarianism.
“What you don’t get is that there are only two ways we're going to end the occupation of Iraq:
“1.) A recession, and a bad one.
“2.) Convincing the vast majority of conservative Americans it's wrong. Ron Paul reaches these people. The guy with the Free Mumia shirt selling the "Socialist Worker" doesn't.
“To get anything done in a democracy you're going to have to work with people you don't agree with and people you might not even like. People in grown up countries do this all the time. They're called "coalitions".
“The Labor Party in Israel, for example, makes alliances with the ultra orthodox. The Liberal Democrats have made common cause with the Tories in the UK. The left made common cause with Vicente Fox to get the PRI out of power in Mexico.
“It's only in the puritan USA where everybody thinks you have to like all your political allies and agree with them on everything.”
Besides the fact that the majority of Americans already oppose the war; and besides the fact that these points show a total lack of understanding of the bourgeois nature of the coalitions in the countries mentioned; and besides showing a total lack of understanding of what it will take to end the war (I discuss this at the end of the article); New York City Indymedia’s lack of confidence in the ability of people to change has caused them to build a coalition with a capitalist politician who is a racist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-environmental, bible thumping, sexist, anti-labor, anti-poor, free-market privatization fanatic. On top of that, they censor the left in order to achieve that coalition.
While a Ron Paul presidency would likely end the war, at what price would this come?
Ron Paul uses the term liberty a lot, so let’s take a look at what he means by liberty.
The liberty Ron Paul demands is:
The liberty of the capitalists to exploit without labor laws and environmental protections;
The "state’s right” to prevent Blacks from voting without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against its renewal in Congress);
The "states right" to ban abortions without the interference of Roe v Wade;
The freedom of the government to deny same-sex rights (was an original sponsor of the "Marriage Protection Act");
The freedom of children not to attend schools (would abolish public education);
The freedom of the elderly and disabled to starve (would abolish Social Security);
The freedom of the sick to die (would abolish Medicare);
The freedom of the U.S. to destroy the planet without even the most basic limits on carbon emissions (opposes signing on to Kyoto and all other carbon limitations);
This is, in short, the liberty of a wealthy minority to make their money from the exploitation of labor and the environment with zero interference from labor laws, environmental laws, and the IRS. While his program is liberty for a minority of rich white heterosexual males, it is slavery for the majority.
Simply put, Ron Paul’s promises to end the war are not enough when one looks at the fact that he would eliminate two centuries of hard fought social progress in the United States.
Some of the anti-war backers of Ron Paul argue that we don’t have to worry about these things because Ron Paul will never be elected. They think that backing his campaign is a way to win over his supporters. What is clear is that such arguments could only come from people who are utterly lost and rudderless, which leaves unclear the question of what they are winning Ron Paul supporters over to. They are supporting a candidate whose program is George Wallace on crack cocaine! Yet, the ultimate absurdity is the fact that they are backing a candidate whose most reassuring feature is that he won’t get elected! Is this point lost on these people? And is the chance that their support may help him get elected a chance they really want to take? Nobody thought that third party candidate Jesse (the body) Ventura would get elected in Minnesota either, but he was, and as soon as he was elected he discarded his libertarian values on drug legalization and prostitution and instead proceeded to carrying out attacks on labor and carrying out disastrous cuts in education and other social spending.
Others argue that if Ron Paul is elected, he will easily be able to pull the troops out of Iraq, but congress will block him on the other issues. There is no doubt that they would block parts of Ron Paul’s program in order to prevent the social unrest such measures would cause, but with the ruling class’s desire to step up the exploitation of labor and the environment through eliminating regulation and through privatization, there can be little doubt that if he is able to maintain his presidency without being shot, aspects of Ron Paul’s domestic program would be implemented.
Today, in the United States we have two rightwing capitalist parties that rule. The activists who run New York Indymedia are floating around utterly lost and rudderless. On the one hand, their anarchist philosophy prohibits them from putting forward their own leadership or supporting socialist candidates; and on the other hand, they are stuck in the “real politic” of supporting “lesser evil” capitalist politicians. It is these characteristics that made them susceptible to being swept up on the Ron Paul band wagon. Despite their “libertarian” values of “freedom”, they have now taken this to the point where they are even willing to censor critics of Ron Paul on their website.
While Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate opposed to the war, is not worth supporting, the front running Democrats are also very bad. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, are all pro-war. Both Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Obama supporters claim that Obama never supported the war. While Obama was not yet in the Senate at the time of the Iraq war vote, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have all voted for war appropriations. This puts them all in the position of having supported the war. Over a million Iraqis are dead due to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and billions of dollars have been squandered. Obama, by helping pay for the war, has his hands in this mass murder just as Clinton and Edwards do.
Obama’s Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 supposedly would have begun troop withdrawal in May 2007. Yet, it didn't call for full nor immediate withdrawal. In addition, under the bill, the withdrawal could be halted if the Iraqi government met a number of criteria laid out by the Bush administration. These included a broad number of things such as changes in the use of oil revenue, government reforms, an end to sectarian violence, and other economic and reconstruction criteria. In Obama’s bill we have a crystal ball into the future. The excuses laid out in the bill will be heard once again as Obama, Clinton, or Edwards explain why they are keeping the troops in Iraq for their entire presidency; that is unless other actions are taken by the people to stop the war.
This brings us to the fundamental question of how to stop the war. If we are to listen to the Ron Paul censors / supporters at NYC Indymedia the only thing we can do to stop the war is support Ron Paul or hope for (pray for?) economic collapse. Yet, this ignores other less damaging possibilities. These include the troops refusing to fight, a general strike, strikes against the movement of war materials, or socialist revolution.
1. The troops refusing to fight. This worked in the struggle to end the U.S. aggression against Vietnam. It was the socialist movement who were the primary organizers of the anti-Vietnam War movement. That movement, immediately after the government’s murders at Kent State in May 1970 had 8 million students out on strike, and some Universities, such a Berkley, were taken over by students and faculty as anti-war universities. After May 1970, the majority of those drafted were already opposed to the war before they got to Vietnam. Refusal to fight was widespread, and the fragging of pro-war officers was common. Nixon could not continue to wage a war with soldiers who refused to fight. This, along with the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese, brought an end to the war in Vietnam.
Troops refusing to fight also helped bring an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, and helped bring down two pro-war governments in 1917.
2. A general strike or strikes against the movement of war materials. Strikes with such political demands have a long history of success. France has many good social programs because the workers there were willing to shut down their country to achieve them; and they are still willing to do the same to protect those hard fought gains.
3. Socialist revolution. The October Russian Revolution achieved an end to Russian involvement in the First World War. This was a good thing, despite the undemocratic nature of the revolution. Learning from those lessons, Liberation News opposes the dictatorial system of one party rule and raises the banner of revolutionary democratic socialism, while at the same time learning from many of the revolutionary strategies of Lenin and Trotsky.
Protests, pickets, information distribution, building a socialist movement, and answering pro-Ron Paul and pro-Obama-Clinton-Edwards propaganda all help towards building the momentum needed in achieving the kinds of actions that can end the war. Putting support behind Ron Paul only helps an extreme rightwing movement achieve the mantel of leadership for an anti-war sentiment that already represents majority public opinion. In addition, backing a guy like Ron Paul who just crossed a picket line to appear on Jay Lenno’s “Tonight Show” destroys the anti-war strategy of reaching out to the working class, as does backing a racist candidate like Ron Paul hurt the ability to reach out to the multi-racial working class.
No to the Democrats and Republicans!
U.S. Out of Iraq Now!
No to Insurance Company Healthcare, For Socialized Medicine!
Save the Planet, Curb Carbon Emissions Now!
Vote Socialist, Build the Labor Movement, Build the Anti-War Movement, Build the Socialist Movement.
[Note, small changes were made to the response that was censored at NYC Indymedia to make it more readable within the format of this article. Those wishing to see the original version will be given it upon request.]
This is an article of Liberation News, a low volume newsletter, Subscribe free!
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Add Your Comments
Comments (Hide Comments)
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 3:34 AM
Rank Speculation' - Disinformation and the Taboo Against 9/11 Truth
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18118/index.php
NYC editorial remarks:
"I don't care to single any particular wingnut outfit out for ridicule, but moderating this site has made me something of an expert on various 911 groups and raps. They are virtually all hysterical."
Long time San Francisco area activist Carol Broulliet posted a story about an art contest for 9/11 truth and received the following response from nyc.indymedia editor ‘Chris’ after her post was removed from the front page:
"nice contest, but links to sites babbling about controlled demolitions, 'Israeli saboteurs,' etc."
A look at the nyc editorial listserve showed what the discussion on these decisions was. It was disturbing to see that the threads included demeaning postings from editors such as this:
“Speaking personally, I have no interest in this discussion. I saw the planes, I was at Ground Zero, my roomate was working in the towers. I'm familiar with the arguments the conspiracy theorists make and the issue is their paranoid method, the underlying anti-Semitism that is rife in that circuit, and their general lack of interest in our common, shared reality.”
The only articles allowed to remain on the newswire about 9/11/01 were the ones following the line of the official story from the Bush Administration. Even wikipedia, a CIA protecting site, allowed more on 9/11/01 than nyc or dc indymedia did.
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18118/index.php
NYC editorial remarks:
"I don't care to single any particular wingnut outfit out for ridicule, but moderating this site has made me something of an expert on various 911 groups and raps. They are virtually all hysterical."
Long time San Francisco area activist Carol Broulliet posted a story about an art contest for 9/11 truth and received the following response from nyc.indymedia editor ‘Chris’ after her post was removed from the front page:
"nice contest, but links to sites babbling about controlled demolitions, 'Israeli saboteurs,' etc."
A look at the nyc editorial listserve showed what the discussion on these decisions was. It was disturbing to see that the threads included demeaning postings from editors such as this:
“Speaking personally, I have no interest in this discussion. I saw the planes, I was at Ground Zero, my roomate was working in the towers. I'm familiar with the arguments the conspiracy theorists make and the issue is their paranoid method, the underlying anti-Semitism that is rife in that circuit, and their general lack of interest in our common, shared reality.”
The only articles allowed to remain on the newswire about 9/11/01 were the ones following the line of the official story from the Bush Administration. Even wikipedia, a CIA protecting site, allowed more on 9/11/01 than nyc or dc indymedia did.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 10:45 AM
While Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate opposed to the war, is not worth supporting,
"Vote Socialist, Build the Labor Movement, Build the Anti-War Movement, Build the Socialist Movement."
Good luck with that. If you are successful, are you going to put the gulag in Alaska? I'm sure you could also fit some re-education camps into the midwest. Have you thought of any good names and three letter acronyms for the secret police agency?
"Vote Socialist, Build the Labor Movement, Build the Anti-War Movement, Build the Socialist Movement."
Good luck with that. If you are successful, are you going to put the gulag in Alaska? I'm sure you could also fit some re-education camps into the midwest. Have you thought of any good names and three letter acronyms for the secret police agency?
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 10:49 AM
Fantastic piece! Wonderful strategy!
Lets dump Ron Paul - the closest thing to an anarchist either party has had in its nomination process in the last 200 years - and instead bombard the American public with a torrent of vintage Bolshevik rhetoric circa 1917!
Surely the war-weary, over-taxed and surveillance-leery church-going middle-class libertarians who currently support Ron Paul will be persuaded overnight by this stunning essay to leave their comfort zones, abandon support for someone who is able to cogently present a platform based on something they all understand and perceive as patriotic (i.e., the Constitution) , and instead transform overnight into ideologically pure adherents of the exotic foreign doctrine of early 20th communism!
Onward, comarades! Free Mumia! Solidarity with the Peruvian peasants! etc, etc.... blah blah blah...
Lets dump Ron Paul - the closest thing to an anarchist either party has had in its nomination process in the last 200 years - and instead bombard the American public with a torrent of vintage Bolshevik rhetoric circa 1917!
Surely the war-weary, over-taxed and surveillance-leery church-going middle-class libertarians who currently support Ron Paul will be persuaded overnight by this stunning essay to leave their comfort zones, abandon support for someone who is able to cogently present a platform based on something they all understand and perceive as patriotic (i.e., the Constitution) , and instead transform overnight into ideologically pure adherents of the exotic foreign doctrine of early 20th communism!
Onward, comarades! Free Mumia! Solidarity with the Peruvian peasants! etc, etc.... blah blah blah...
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 10:50 AM
"U.S. Out of Iraq Now! "
Ron Paul wants us out of Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Germany, and the rest of the world. Why do you only care about Iraq? Is it because it's a very topical and popular theme of the moment? Or it is based upon principle? If so, what's the principle?
And while you are at it, what's the principle behind socialism again?
Ron Paul wants us out of Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Germany, and the rest of the world. Why do you only care about Iraq? Is it because it's a very topical and popular theme of the moment? Or it is based upon principle? If so, what's the principle?
And while you are at it, what's the principle behind socialism again?
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 10:55 AM
“And no, I don't see Clinton as a first step towards socialized medicine. Her promise to force people to buy insurance has nothing in common with socialized medicine, nor partially socialized medicine (i.e. single payer). "
Actually, there is a very common theme to both Clinton's plan and socialized medicine. Both involve using the government to point a gun at people and force them to comply with whatever health care plan and decisions the government desires.
An umbrella term to cover both socialized medicine and mandatory insurance is: 9mm healthcare.
That is what you advocate - 9mm healthcare. You can argue all you want about the details of how the health care plan should work, but you agree with Hilary that you can order men with guns to force people to comply with your plan to "help" them.
Actually, there is a very common theme to both Clinton's plan and socialized medicine. Both involve using the government to point a gun at people and force them to comply with whatever health care plan and decisions the government desires.
An umbrella term to cover both socialized medicine and mandatory insurance is: 9mm healthcare.
That is what you advocate - 9mm healthcare. You can argue all you want about the details of how the health care plan should work, but you agree with Hilary that you can order men with guns to force people to comply with your plan to "help" them.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:06 AM
wow, you are missing the point along with a lot of americans. i notice on the internet many non american's around the world get the Ron Paul message. but somehow americans appear less informed or educated on american history, living a spoonfed life in pampers as children wanting the federal government to bottle feed them. the Ron Paul message is called the United States Constitution, period.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:21 AM
This article is confusing and difficult to follow. You might want to do some editing. The reader is bored and the words seem jumbled. I still dont exactly know what point you are trying to drive home.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:34 AM
Ron didn't write those words. No point with arguing with a Marxist though. Every socialist society in the world has failed, or is failing miserably. The further left we Americans go, the worse our lives get. Being a financial slave, be it to a master, the majority, or to the government is a form of slavery. Why isn't there any room for freedom in your plans...no "opt out" clause?
Too bad you don't have any candidates who actually want to end the war. Enjoy the draft!
Too bad you don't have any candidates who actually want to end the war. Enjoy the draft!
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:48 AM
"No point with arguing with a Marxist though."
this kind of statement is not helpful for the discussion. Blanket insults are not really a very nice way to have a political argument, are they? (sometimes i feel like a kindergarten teacher)
i also found this one puzzling:
"Too bad you don't have any candidates who actually want to end the war. Enjoy the draft!"
I guess I (or maybe all of us) need to read up a bit more about the peace and freedom party, socialist party, and the green party and see if any candidates such as cynthia mckinney might want to end the war.
this kind of statement is not helpful for the discussion. Blanket insults are not really a very nice way to have a political argument, are they? (sometimes i feel like a kindergarten teacher)
i also found this one puzzling:
"Too bad you don't have any candidates who actually want to end the war. Enjoy the draft!"
I guess I (or maybe all of us) need to read up a bit more about the peace and freedom party, socialist party, and the green party and see if any candidates such as cynthia mckinney might want to end the war.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:50 AM
An important character witness has come forward. You've already judged Ron Paul guilty without giving him a fair trial. If you have any decency, you will read this:
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2...d-for-ron.html
Paul has stated many times that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were heroes to him. Of course black people would still be allowed to vote. You are being ridiculous.
Also, Paul will not abolish social security. He has stated many times that his policies are the only ones that will keep the funds from being pilfered. He wants to allow young people to opt out of it; so it would be a gradual abolition if he got his way. He would not abolish public education. He would abolish the federal department of education which institutes programs like "No Child Left Behind," which it doesn't fund properly and teachers are FURIOUS over! He wants marriage to be left up to the Churches, but it will probably stay left up to the States as it now currently is.
India and China are going to be producing many, many times the carbon emissions of the US soon enough... just watch.
You have no idea of the corruption of government or how it creates monopolies; subsidies don't allow the "little guy" to enter the market and get a fair shot. And you know very well that the democrats will never allow the economy to become a free market one anyway.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who will get us out of Iraq. He is the only candidate who will restore our civil liberties (look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006); the only candidate who will reduce our military presence around the world preventing further blowback; the only candidate who will balance the budget; the only candidate who will curb currently skyrocketing inflation; and the only candidate who won't allow the federal government, and specifically the presidency, to seize more and more power, little by little. In short, the only candidate who will preserve our liberty. Don't doom our country.
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2...d-for-ron.html
Paul has stated many times that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were heroes to him. Of course black people would still be allowed to vote. You are being ridiculous.
Also, Paul will not abolish social security. He has stated many times that his policies are the only ones that will keep the funds from being pilfered. He wants to allow young people to opt out of it; so it would be a gradual abolition if he got his way. He would not abolish public education. He would abolish the federal department of education which institutes programs like "No Child Left Behind," which it doesn't fund properly and teachers are FURIOUS over! He wants marriage to be left up to the Churches, but it will probably stay left up to the States as it now currently is.
India and China are going to be producing many, many times the carbon emissions of the US soon enough... just watch.
You have no idea of the corruption of government or how it creates monopolies; subsidies don't allow the "little guy" to enter the market and get a fair shot. And you know very well that the democrats will never allow the economy to become a free market one anyway.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who will get us out of Iraq. He is the only candidate who will restore our civil liberties (look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006); the only candidate who will reduce our military presence around the world preventing further blowback; the only candidate who will balance the budget; the only candidate who will curb currently skyrocketing inflation; and the only candidate who won't allow the federal government, and specifically the presidency, to seize more and more power, little by little. In short, the only candidate who will preserve our liberty. Don't doom our country.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:59 AM
While a Ron Paul presidency would likely end the war, at what price would this come?
> Depends on what you hope to achieve both personally and as a nation
Ron Paul uses the term liberty a lot, so let’s take a look at what he means by liberty.
The liberty Ron Paul demands is:
The liberty of the capitalists to exploit without labor laws and environmental protections;
> Unless amended in the Constitution; labor laws at a federal level are unconstitutional on either the environment or labor >laws. Labor laws could be a states' right issue since industries vary from one part of the country to the other. I believe Paul >wants to treat environmental pollution issues as property rights issues (which are typically dealt at state or lower levels) -- >in which you can take a company to court and penalties are issued if pollution is found due to corporate negligence. The >current laws provide credits that companies pay for to pollute. That seems utterly rediculous.
The "state’s right” to prevent Blacks from voting without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against its renewal in Congress);
>I highly-doubt states would prevent black people from voting any moreso than they would women or other minorities. I >don't believe I have heard anything like that in the last decade. Racism is never justified; but neither is segregating a community or forcing race-related standards (or in some cases double-standards) on a society.
The "states right" to ban abortions without the interference of Roe v Wade;
>Roe v. Wade was something that should have never gone to court. I agree that states' rights would be a reasonable >solution, but that is merely a matter of opinion. My support for states' rights in this issue is most criminal offenses are >carried at the state level; so it should be dealt at that level
The freedom of the government to deny same-sex rights (was an original sponsor of the "Marriage Protection Act");
>Paul doesn't oppose same-sex unions; but neither does he endorse them at the federal government level. He believes it is a religious function. The marriage protection act basically says the courts can't redefine marriage. The courts are however free to define civil unions at a state level.
The freedom of children not to attend schools (would abolish public education);
> I have never heard of that quite frankly, about children not attending schools. I have of Paul's desire to rid of the federal education agency. A majority of education decisions are made at a state or local level, so I don't see how this is a bad thing. The federal government really doesn't have much of a role in education.
The freedom of the elderly and disabled to starve (would abolish Social Security);
> Medicare and Social Security were never actually created to live on originally, although that is primarily what they are >viewed at. Regardless; both programs are bankrupt. Paul desires an interim plan to still support these programs for the >middle-aged and elderly, but allow young people the option out. These programs have already shown to be unsustainable, >so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to decided what I want to do with my money.
The freedom of the sick to die (would abolish Medicare);
> See comments above. It is not the responsibility of the government to support the people unless amended to the >Constitution. Grover Cleveland once stated, "... though the people support the Government, the Government should not >support the people.
The freedom of the U.S. to destroy the planet without even the most basic limits on carbon emissions (opposes signing on to Kyoto and all other carbon limitations);
> I really have no opinion on this. Some of my opinions above were based on opinion and some are based on authorization of the Constitution.
Just my 2 cents...
> Depends on what you hope to achieve both personally and as a nation
Ron Paul uses the term liberty a lot, so let’s take a look at what he means by liberty.
The liberty Ron Paul demands is:
The liberty of the capitalists to exploit without labor laws and environmental protections;
> Unless amended in the Constitution; labor laws at a federal level are unconstitutional on either the environment or labor >laws. Labor laws could be a states' right issue since industries vary from one part of the country to the other. I believe Paul >wants to treat environmental pollution issues as property rights issues (which are typically dealt at state or lower levels) -- >in which you can take a company to court and penalties are issued if pollution is found due to corporate negligence. The >current laws provide credits that companies pay for to pollute. That seems utterly rediculous.
The "state’s right” to prevent Blacks from voting without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against its renewal in Congress);
>I highly-doubt states would prevent black people from voting any moreso than they would women or other minorities. I >don't believe I have heard anything like that in the last decade. Racism is never justified; but neither is segregating a community or forcing race-related standards (or in some cases double-standards) on a society.
The "states right" to ban abortions without the interference of Roe v Wade;
>Roe v. Wade was something that should have never gone to court. I agree that states' rights would be a reasonable >solution, but that is merely a matter of opinion. My support for states' rights in this issue is most criminal offenses are >carried at the state level; so it should be dealt at that level
The freedom of the government to deny same-sex rights (was an original sponsor of the "Marriage Protection Act");
>Paul doesn't oppose same-sex unions; but neither does he endorse them at the federal government level. He believes it is a religious function. The marriage protection act basically says the courts can't redefine marriage. The courts are however free to define civil unions at a state level.
The freedom of children not to attend schools (would abolish public education);
> I have never heard of that quite frankly, about children not attending schools. I have of Paul's desire to rid of the federal education agency. A majority of education decisions are made at a state or local level, so I don't see how this is a bad thing. The federal government really doesn't have much of a role in education.
The freedom of the elderly and disabled to starve (would abolish Social Security);
> Medicare and Social Security were never actually created to live on originally, although that is primarily what they are >viewed at. Regardless; both programs are bankrupt. Paul desires an interim plan to still support these programs for the >middle-aged and elderly, but allow young people the option out. These programs have already shown to be unsustainable, >so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to decided what I want to do with my money.
The freedom of the sick to die (would abolish Medicare);
> See comments above. It is not the responsibility of the government to support the people unless amended to the >Constitution. Grover Cleveland once stated, "... though the people support the Government, the Government should not >support the people.
The freedom of the U.S. to destroy the planet without even the most basic limits on carbon emissions (opposes signing on to Kyoto and all other carbon limitations);
> I really have no opinion on this. Some of my opinions above were based on opinion and some are based on authorization of the Constitution.
Just my 2 cents...
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:06 PM
Socalism is nothing more than centralized control of all issues. This is not returning power to the people, it is removing it from them even further. All done under the spin of good. You take the control away from the individual, and give it to those in charge, then complain about the person in charge not doing it your way.
Lets talk about what the media really doesn't want you to hear. Listen closesly, re-read if you need to. I'm sure you mean well, so I'm going to take the time to explain this, as I'm confident you want whats in your best interests.
Most socialist see things in duality, the same as those they point fingers at. Meaning, you feel the issues are still black and white, all the while claiming to be "open minded". Couldn't be further from the truth. You'll say Ron Paul doesn't believe in public education, doesn't believe in public healthcare, etc. But this couldn't be further from the truth. What Ron Paul stands for is not having these things centralized, and putting the power with the people.
First and foremost, lets talk about the constitution. The constitution doesn't tell the government what it can't do, such would be a government of limited rights(which we have today). Instead the constitution tells the federal government what it has to do, what it's job is. Social programs are done with a loophole in Article 1, Section 8, otherwise known as the welfare clause. However, in the preamble to the constitution, it defines the general welfare as the amendments themselves - which can be added to. As well, an amendment is by default applied to all citizens equally(thus you would have universal healthcare by default). Any program which abused the general welfare clause is by default special rights for special interest groups, or vote getting issues. So first and foremost, you should be looking for constitutional answers, there is a logical way of doing it. Abusing the general welfare clause is what has given us so much corruption, as anything which can be spun as being "for the good" is allowed in it. Nobody wants to close it, because doing so gets rid of their corruption - big problem. Ron Paul does want to close it.
So, I just gave you a constitutional way to have universal healthcare. Just add it as an amendment. But let me explain why centralized programs are a bad idea, and the real beauty of how our government is supposed to work.
There are multiple levels of government. There is the federal government, state governments and local governments(and individual choice). By default, the lower and more local the government, the more power the people have. This is easy to see based on the number of votes. You have 1 vote, you have 100 people voting, you have 1% of the vote. Thats a big % and alot of individual power on the issue. You have 1 vote in 300 million, not so much power huh? And thus we get stuck with dumbsticks like GWB for 8 years, and whatever power he has to control the issues(bad bad bad). So, the more local the vote, the more power you have. Federal government gives you the least amount of control, state next, and the local communities and person choice gives you the most. This is how you return power to the people.
But even beyond who gets the power, there are other benefits to local levels of government. Rather than having a 1 program for the entire country, which you get stuck with people like GWB for 8 years and their crappy programs, you have atleast 50 programs if done on a state level, and 1000's if done on local levels. This allows the programs to try the most ideas in the shortest amounts of time. So, if 1 program tries something new, and it works well, then every other program can easily add to theirs. Likewise, if some idiot like GWB makes a stupid mistake, it's only the people who elected him that suffer, and the other programs don't pick it up. And to help recover from such idiocracy from such elected people, the other programs will be there to provide quick answers to fix things. Local elections happen more often, so you can make changes easier and quicker as well. And on the local level, you get to have more input on the ideas and things done.
So now, with this system we have the power with the people, rather than centralized and very few people in control, and we have multiple programs actively searching for the best answers, which will obviously bring the fastest and best progress. And in the process we have returned the federal government to it's proper size, and what we elect the president on is foriegn policy, and we can stop being a nation divided on social issues, and unite for the peace the majority of Americans want.
This is why I support Ron Paul. This is what the media doesn't want you to know, and why they have had to resort to calling him a racist in attempts to quiet him down. Because the truth above is getting out, and for obvious reasons people like it. Afterall, socialism is really based on the community, not an entire nation. And we all want these social programs on a local level because we want the best for our families and the community. But there is no reason to keep these things centralized and in the hands of people like those in power now. It's time to remove that power that brings the corruption and return the choices back to the people.
Btw, small note: On the racism article, the base of the article is fact and was pointing out how unfair social crimes are to minorities. Whoever wrote the article was fired after, and I'm guessing if any approval by Ron Paul was given it was because he thought it was talking about the unfair social crimes, which he often does talk about. It wasn't written by him, is no where near what he has talked about for many years and is completely contrary to his real position. It's been pushed out as an attack in hopes that people wouldn't look into it further, and that people won't look at the real issue like what I pointed out above, and of course what he says in foreign policy that you likely agree with.
It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Lets not blow it by buying into swift boat type attacks ok?
Lets talk about what the media really doesn't want you to hear. Listen closesly, re-read if you need to. I'm sure you mean well, so I'm going to take the time to explain this, as I'm confident you want whats in your best interests.
Most socialist see things in duality, the same as those they point fingers at. Meaning, you feel the issues are still black and white, all the while claiming to be "open minded". Couldn't be further from the truth. You'll say Ron Paul doesn't believe in public education, doesn't believe in public healthcare, etc. But this couldn't be further from the truth. What Ron Paul stands for is not having these things centralized, and putting the power with the people.
First and foremost, lets talk about the constitution. The constitution doesn't tell the government what it can't do, such would be a government of limited rights(which we have today). Instead the constitution tells the federal government what it has to do, what it's job is. Social programs are done with a loophole in Article 1, Section 8, otherwise known as the welfare clause. However, in the preamble to the constitution, it defines the general welfare as the amendments themselves - which can be added to. As well, an amendment is by default applied to all citizens equally(thus you would have universal healthcare by default). Any program which abused the general welfare clause is by default special rights for special interest groups, or vote getting issues. So first and foremost, you should be looking for constitutional answers, there is a logical way of doing it. Abusing the general welfare clause is what has given us so much corruption, as anything which can be spun as being "for the good" is allowed in it. Nobody wants to close it, because doing so gets rid of their corruption - big problem. Ron Paul does want to close it.
So, I just gave you a constitutional way to have universal healthcare. Just add it as an amendment. But let me explain why centralized programs are a bad idea, and the real beauty of how our government is supposed to work.
There are multiple levels of government. There is the federal government, state governments and local governments(and individual choice). By default, the lower and more local the government, the more power the people have. This is easy to see based on the number of votes. You have 1 vote, you have 100 people voting, you have 1% of the vote. Thats a big % and alot of individual power on the issue. You have 1 vote in 300 million, not so much power huh? And thus we get stuck with dumbsticks like GWB for 8 years, and whatever power he has to control the issues(bad bad bad). So, the more local the vote, the more power you have. Federal government gives you the least amount of control, state next, and the local communities and person choice gives you the most. This is how you return power to the people.
But even beyond who gets the power, there are other benefits to local levels of government. Rather than having a 1 program for the entire country, which you get stuck with people like GWB for 8 years and their crappy programs, you have atleast 50 programs if done on a state level, and 1000's if done on local levels. This allows the programs to try the most ideas in the shortest amounts of time. So, if 1 program tries something new, and it works well, then every other program can easily add to theirs. Likewise, if some idiot like GWB makes a stupid mistake, it's only the people who elected him that suffer, and the other programs don't pick it up. And to help recover from such idiocracy from such elected people, the other programs will be there to provide quick answers to fix things. Local elections happen more often, so you can make changes easier and quicker as well. And on the local level, you get to have more input on the ideas and things done.
So now, with this system we have the power with the people, rather than centralized and very few people in control, and we have multiple programs actively searching for the best answers, which will obviously bring the fastest and best progress. And in the process we have returned the federal government to it's proper size, and what we elect the president on is foriegn policy, and we can stop being a nation divided on social issues, and unite for the peace the majority of Americans want.
This is why I support Ron Paul. This is what the media doesn't want you to know, and why they have had to resort to calling him a racist in attempts to quiet him down. Because the truth above is getting out, and for obvious reasons people like it. Afterall, socialism is really based on the community, not an entire nation. And we all want these social programs on a local level because we want the best for our families and the community. But there is no reason to keep these things centralized and in the hands of people like those in power now. It's time to remove that power that brings the corruption and return the choices back to the people.
Btw, small note: On the racism article, the base of the article is fact and was pointing out how unfair social crimes are to minorities. Whoever wrote the article was fired after, and I'm guessing if any approval by Ron Paul was given it was because he thought it was talking about the unfair social crimes, which he often does talk about. It wasn't written by him, is no where near what he has talked about for many years and is completely contrary to his real position. It's been pushed out as an attack in hopes that people wouldn't look into it further, and that people won't look at the real issue like what I pointed out above, and of course what he says in foreign policy that you likely agree with.
It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Lets not blow it by buying into swift boat type attacks ok?
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:16 PM
"this kind of statement is not helpful for the discussion. Blanket insults are not really a very nice way to have a political argument, are they? (sometimes i feel like a kindergarten teacher)"
The poster had a valid point. There is no point in arguing with a Marxist/socialist/call it what you will. One who advocates such has already surrendered their ability to reason in favor of what feels "good" to them. Logic, facts, and discourse no matter how rational and reasonable are irrelevant to such people. There also was no insult stated or implied or insinuated in that post, only an accurate assessment of the futility of arguing with Marxists and their ilk.
I liked socialism when I was 13. It looked so great on paper. I looked to the real world and saw it hadn't and that it couldn't work in reality. I wasn't sure what would be great in paper and in real life until I discovered libertarian constitutional republicanism later in life. Even at 13 years of age though it was pretty obvious that this was a great sounding theory it was absolutely impractical and impossible.
When one prefers ideology over reality there can be no political discussion. I post in response to socialists for my own benefit (exercising my ability to reason and write) and for the benefit of readers who still think on their own. And no, socialists don't think on their own. I'm not insulting you, merely commenting upon the observable rule I haven't seen an exception to yet. When you abandon your individuality to become a member of the collective you surrender your ability to reason. And or when you surrender your ability to reason you become a member of the collective.
The poster had a valid point. There is no point in arguing with a Marxist/socialist/call it what you will. One who advocates such has already surrendered their ability to reason in favor of what feels "good" to them. Logic, facts, and discourse no matter how rational and reasonable are irrelevant to such people. There also was no insult stated or implied or insinuated in that post, only an accurate assessment of the futility of arguing with Marxists and their ilk.
I liked socialism when I was 13. It looked so great on paper. I looked to the real world and saw it hadn't and that it couldn't work in reality. I wasn't sure what would be great in paper and in real life until I discovered libertarian constitutional republicanism later in life. Even at 13 years of age though it was pretty obvious that this was a great sounding theory it was absolutely impractical and impossible.
When one prefers ideology over reality there can be no political discussion. I post in response to socialists for my own benefit (exercising my ability to reason and write) and for the benefit of readers who still think on their own. And no, socialists don't think on their own. I'm not insulting you, merely commenting upon the observable rule I haven't seen an exception to yet. When you abandon your individuality to become a member of the collective you surrender your ability to reason. And or when you surrender your ability to reason you become a member of the collective.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:33 PM
As usual and regardless of party......
There are those who feel that the "rule of law" is for those outside their immediate peer group.
Some, such as this author, are perfectly willing to violate the constitution as long as THEY agree with the agenda. There is a term for those who promote incitement or resistance to lawful authority (the constitution). Look it up in a dictionary.
Additionally...the "civil rights act" did not give suffrage to African Americans. That "act" was called the XV'th amendment. It would appear that your "education" was substandard. Study history before you doom yourself to repeat the mistakes previously made.
There are those who feel that the "rule of law" is for those outside their immediate peer group.
Some, such as this author, are perfectly willing to violate the constitution as long as THEY agree with the agenda. There is a term for those who promote incitement or resistance to lawful authority (the constitution). Look it up in a dictionary.
Additionally...the "civil rights act" did not give suffrage to African Americans. That "act" was called the XV'th amendment. It would appear that your "education" was substandard. Study history before you doom yourself to repeat the mistakes previously made.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:56 PM
This is a strange article. Please work on your writing skills.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:57 PM
Ron Paul didn't ever say anything racist. EVERYTHING being attributed to him as racist, he didn't write.
Anyway... You're going to vote for someone who supported the War, before they realized their public didn't? Sorry, I mean "realized they were wrong." Obama doesn't want to leave until the next decade. Hilary voted for the war... it's part her war just like Bush's. We could say, the Hilary/Gore/Bush war since they're who sold us on it.
But Ron Paul now... nicest man in the world, and one of the smartest. He voted against the war, patriot act and everything that sucks. Obama voted for the Patriot Act... as in, he likes the Patriot Act. Hilary probably wrote it! jk
But Ron Paul's da man. And he's end the War on Drugs, which is policy more racist than the KKK.
Anyway... You're going to vote for someone who supported the War, before they realized their public didn't? Sorry, I mean "realized they were wrong." Obama doesn't want to leave until the next decade. Hilary voted for the war... it's part her war just like Bush's. We could say, the Hilary/Gore/Bush war since they're who sold us on it.
But Ron Paul now... nicest man in the world, and one of the smartest. He voted against the war, patriot act and everything that sucks. Obama voted for the Patriot Act... as in, he likes the Patriot Act. Hilary probably wrote it! jk
But Ron Paul's da man. And he's end the War on Drugs, which is policy more racist than the KKK.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:58 PM
Here we go again, another deluge of ignorant attacks on an article that shows the problems with the Ron Paul campaign.
One person rants, "the 'civil rights act' did not give suffrage to African Americans. That 'act' was called the XV'th amendment. It would appear that your 'education' was substandard. Study history before you doom yourself to repeat the mistakes previously made."
But I didn't say anything about the Civil Rights act of 1964, I specifically mentioned the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ron Paul opposes both. What I said, however, is:
"Ron Paul uses the term liberty a lot, so let’s take a look at what he means by liberty. The liberty Ron Paul demands is: [.....] The "state’s right” to prevent Blacks from voting without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against its renewal in Congress); [....]
And yes, the Voting Rights Act did give Blacks, who were being denied the right to vote, the right to vote in 1965. Even the following government site confirms that fact:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm
One person rants, "the 'civil rights act' did not give suffrage to African Americans. That 'act' was called the XV'th amendment. It would appear that your 'education' was substandard. Study history before you doom yourself to repeat the mistakes previously made."
But I didn't say anything about the Civil Rights act of 1964, I specifically mentioned the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ron Paul opposes both. What I said, however, is:
"Ron Paul uses the term liberty a lot, so let’s take a look at what he means by liberty. The liberty Ron Paul demands is: [.....] The "state’s right” to prevent Blacks from voting without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against its renewal in Congress); [....]
And yes, the Voting Rights Act did give Blacks, who were being denied the right to vote, the right to vote in 1965. Even the following government site confirms that fact:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 1:28 PM
Ron Paul is running to end the racist wars, the racist war on drugs, the racist US foreign policy of making puppets in third world countries and allows elitest white men rooted in WTO, Un rule over the native majority which is a minority to the NWO elitiests.
You might want to look up Agenda 21 and not allow yourself to be a useful idiot.
I don't believe in God, but I do believe Ron Paul has the solution at this time. The US Constitution protects ALL citizens rights, not some.
You might want to look up Agenda 21 and not allow yourself to be a useful idiot.
I don't believe in God, but I do believe Ron Paul has the solution at this time. The US Constitution protects ALL citizens rights, not some.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 1:42 PM
Hey, not to put to fine a point on it here, but from my POV, here's the thing you A.N.S.W.E.R. types never seem to "get":
1) "Revolution," "solidarity," "proletariat" etc just aren't part of the AMerican political vernacular. Sorry! You may wish otheriwse, but thats the cold hgard truth - you will get a blank stare from most people talking about that crap. We don'tt have an oppressed "peasant class" here - we have a middle class, that is slowly and systematically being turned into a lower class - thats hwo you need to talk to, not other undergrad Poli-sci wanna-be marxists. Know your audience!
2) Focus. While lewreockwell.com was hammering away all day, every day, against the Iraq War, against Bush, and against the ptriot act, you people were making asses of yourself with your complete inability to focus on one issue for more than a couple of seocnds at a time and tactics that seem designed to cause maximum alienation and disgust in the avergae maerican. By all means, protest the iraq war - and throw animal rights, veganism, street theater, free mumia, solidairty with china, purple dreadlocks, and noserings in for good measure - but don't be suyrprised when you still only reach .001% of the audience Ron Paul has in mere months. It may feel good to act like children throwing tantrums but that isn't serious mevement building, its catharsis, nothing more.
3) The POINT is not to get "1 million votes" for Euegen Debs in friggin' JAIL but to get a MAJORITY OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES for Ron Paul in a MODERN DAY ELECTION. This isn't the US in the early part of this century with the Haymarket riots its, its not the Mensheviks vs. the Bolsheviks , it friggin 2008!!!
Wake up! The AMeican people aren't now and never will back a Socialist Revolution! Its just not going to happen. Its not part of our political discourse, its not part of our history, and its certainly not part of our national character. I can understand the appeal of fantasy and nostalgia but if you're going to get anywhere with your goals you need to deal MR. ARGUE with the reality of the country we're in now, not what you imagine it to be over a cigarette in your favorite east village coffee shop.
Myself, I'm a two issue voter: end the war on drugs, end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is the only one within STRIKING DISTANCE of even halfway realistically acheiving those goals. Is he a racist? Is he a republican? Is he an old white man from Texas?
Honestly, he could be a MARTIAN for all I care, at this late stage in the game we need to go with what actually has a chance of actually working, and leave ideological purity for the late-nite bong-fuelled consciousness-rasiing rap sessions where they belong.
1) "Revolution," "solidarity," "proletariat" etc just aren't part of the AMerican political vernacular. Sorry! You may wish otheriwse, but thats the cold hgard truth - you will get a blank stare from most people talking about that crap. We don'tt have an oppressed "peasant class" here - we have a middle class, that is slowly and systematically being turned into a lower class - thats hwo you need to talk to, not other undergrad Poli-sci wanna-be marxists. Know your audience!
2) Focus. While lewreockwell.com was hammering away all day, every day, against the Iraq War, against Bush, and against the ptriot act, you people were making asses of yourself with your complete inability to focus on one issue for more than a couple of seocnds at a time and tactics that seem designed to cause maximum alienation and disgust in the avergae maerican. By all means, protest the iraq war - and throw animal rights, veganism, street theater, free mumia, solidairty with china, purple dreadlocks, and noserings in for good measure - but don't be suyrprised when you still only reach .001% of the audience Ron Paul has in mere months. It may feel good to act like children throwing tantrums but that isn't serious mevement building, its catharsis, nothing more.
3) The POINT is not to get "1 million votes" for Euegen Debs in friggin' JAIL but to get a MAJORITY OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES for Ron Paul in a MODERN DAY ELECTION. This isn't the US in the early part of this century with the Haymarket riots its, its not the Mensheviks vs. the Bolsheviks , it friggin 2008!!!
Wake up! The AMeican people aren't now and never will back a Socialist Revolution! Its just not going to happen. Its not part of our political discourse, its not part of our history, and its certainly not part of our national character. I can understand the appeal of fantasy and nostalgia but if you're going to get anywhere with your goals you need to deal MR. ARGUE with the reality of the country we're in now, not what you imagine it to be over a cigarette in your favorite east village coffee shop.
Myself, I'm a two issue voter: end the war on drugs, end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is the only one within STRIKING DISTANCE of even halfway realistically acheiving those goals. Is he a racist? Is he a republican? Is he an old white man from Texas?
Honestly, he could be a MARTIAN for all I care, at this late stage in the game we need to go with what actually has a chance of actually working, and leave ideological purity for the late-nite bong-fuelled consciousness-rasiing rap sessions where they belong.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 1:51 PM
What you stated was:
"wrote Ron Paul, who voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in Congress, the act that gave Blacks the right to vote, quote from his “Ron Paul Newsletter”.
This act did not give blacks the "right to vote." Get your facts straight.
Additionally, as a former resident of CCCPalifornia, to believe that the south is somehow more bigoted than the left coast is inane. Again...you are perfectly willing to violate the constitution as long as you agree with the agenda. That is an immoral position and exposes your intent.
To single out southern states (and Alaska) as opposed to requiring all states and jurisdictions to comply by the same standards violates the equal protection clause. Of course the "rule of law" only extends to those outside your immediate peer group...right?
You have proven my point.
"wrote Ron Paul, who voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in Congress, the act that gave Blacks the right to vote, quote from his “Ron Paul Newsletter”.
This act did not give blacks the "right to vote." Get your facts straight.
Additionally, as a former resident of CCCPalifornia, to believe that the south is somehow more bigoted than the left coast is inane. Again...you are perfectly willing to violate the constitution as long as you agree with the agenda. That is an immoral position and exposes your intent.
To single out southern states (and Alaska) as opposed to requiring all states and jurisdictions to comply by the same standards violates the equal protection clause. Of course the "rule of law" only extends to those outside your immediate peer group...right?
You have proven my point.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 3:33 PM
>> Ron Paul supporter: “it's pointed out that yes Ron Paul is a racist but Stevies candidate Hillary is even worse.” <<
I stopped reading after this so-called "source"
No "real" Ron Paul supporter believes that Dr Paul is a racist. Nothing Dr Paul stated both before or after those newsletters looks or sounds anything like what was written in both content and style. Even when this was brought up almost two decades ago, it was stated by all parties that no one believed that Dr Paul actually wrote those statements. The only issue is how they got printed in the first place and by whom.
However, it is consistent to Dr Paul that these would be unknown ... Afterall the self-named Revolution is acting in Ron Paul’s name and I bet you that Dr Paul has very little idea of what people are doing in his name.
There is no evidence provided by anyone that Dr Paul is racist and this false so-called journalism is nothing but slander/gossip.
I stopped reading after this so-called "source"
No "real" Ron Paul supporter believes that Dr Paul is a racist. Nothing Dr Paul stated both before or after those newsletters looks or sounds anything like what was written in both content and style. Even when this was brought up almost two decades ago, it was stated by all parties that no one believed that Dr Paul actually wrote those statements. The only issue is how they got printed in the first place and by whom.
However, it is consistent to Dr Paul that these would be unknown ... Afterall the self-named Revolution is acting in Ron Paul’s name and I bet you that Dr Paul has very little idea of what people are doing in his name.
There is no evidence provided by anyone that Dr Paul is racist and this false so-called journalism is nothing but slander/gossip.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 3:56 PM
"While a Ron Paul presidency would likely end the war, at what price would this come?"
Democrats were voted in a couple years ago to end the way. Democrats control Congress and continue to fund the war.
Democrats - your party lied to you.
Republicans - your part has changed.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the 2-party system with the track record to allow us to believe what he says.
Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Libertarians, undeclared, and everyone else, please choose your issue. There were 900 American military deaths in Iraq in 2007. If you don't work for Ron Paul, then you work for more war.
Democrats were voted in a couple years ago to end the way. Democrats control Congress and continue to fund the war.
Democrats - your party lied to you.
Republicans - your part has changed.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the 2-party system with the track record to allow us to believe what he says.
Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Libertarians, undeclared, and everyone else, please choose your issue. There were 900 American military deaths in Iraq in 2007. If you don't work for Ron Paul, then you work for more war.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 4:20 PM
The following two comments were not by me, and I ask the Indy editors to remove them:
No to RightistRon Paul, Better strategies for ending the war
by Steven Argue
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 1:17 PM
The idea of Ron Paul being a racist is complete nonsense (I don t know what kind of a Ron Paul supporter you were talking to).
The best way to end any war is if one party (ideally the initial aggressor) withdraws wich is exactly what Ron Paul will do.
If you think that a free market allows some to exploit many you are thoroughly mistaken. Read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard and you will understand what I am talking about.
Exploitation of many by few is exactly what we have today and what will become worse with an increasing degree of a socialist state.
For the same reason socialized medicine would completely destroy the already heavily damaged American health care system.
It seems that your ideas are just as bad as Hillary's. Please educate yourself on the subject matter before you write about it.
Edits
by Steven Argue
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 2:37 PM
Ron Paul is an excellent candidate worth supporting. Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination as an Anti-War, Anti-Bush, Pro-civil rights, Pro-civil liberties candidate, that wants all of us to live free. He also did not say nor such a comment. just as Steven Argue did not write this comment.
Ron Paul Revolution.
No to RightistRon Paul, Better strategies for ending the war
by Steven Argue
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 1:17 PM
The idea of Ron Paul being a racist is complete nonsense (I don t know what kind of a Ron Paul supporter you were talking to).
The best way to end any war is if one party (ideally the initial aggressor) withdraws wich is exactly what Ron Paul will do.
If you think that a free market allows some to exploit many you are thoroughly mistaken. Read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard and you will understand what I am talking about.
Exploitation of many by few is exactly what we have today and what will become worse with an increasing degree of a socialist state.
For the same reason socialized medicine would completely destroy the already heavily damaged American health care system.
It seems that your ideas are just as bad as Hillary's. Please educate yourself on the subject matter before you write about it.
Edits
by Steven Argue
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 2:37 PM
Ron Paul is an excellent candidate worth supporting. Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination as an Anti-War, Anti-Bush, Pro-civil rights, Pro-civil liberties candidate, that wants all of us to live free. He also did not say nor such a comment. just as Steven Argue did not write this comment.
Ron Paul Revolution.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 4:39 PM
You know, I love how the socialists solution to everything is just to get the government to do it. Government LOVES you, and really, it wants to take care of you, it has your best interests at heart, and would NEVER do anything to abuse it's power. No way, as long as it's a socialist agenda, it's PERFECT! Especially the federal government, oh boy, the bigger the better! Let's give government ALL the social power! Yes! I'm sure they know exactly what is best for me and my family! They have to, it's a socialist government program, they are always right! How about I give up 70% of my paycheck, I think that's fair, I didn't really need that money anyway! I love squandering money away into programs that do nothing for me whatsoever! But the government says it's for the greater good, so I believe them. Here, take my car too, I'm sure someone else deserves it more than me, here, take this computer, I bet the government needs it too. I love my new socialist government! It knows what is better for me than I do! I don't have to take any more responsibility for anything I do for the rest of my life!
You know, I am so far beyond sick and more than a little angry with so called progressives. I used to call myself one, but that's it. Ron Paul has exposed us for being the closet racist, big government loving, communists that we are, and it's time to give it up. You REALLY want to help poor people, women, and minorities, socialists??????? SET THEM FREE!!!!!!
RON PAUL 2008
You know, I am so far beyond sick and more than a little angry with so called progressives. I used to call myself one, but that's it. Ron Paul has exposed us for being the closet racist, big government loving, communists that we are, and it's time to give it up. You REALLY want to help poor people, women, and minorities, socialists??????? SET THEM FREE!!!!!!
RON PAUL 2008
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 4:51 PM
Ron Paul liar says, "Democrats - your party lied to you."
I don't support the Democrats, never have. This is slander.
WARNING, Political joke:
How did the American ruling class get the left to vote for Mussolini? They ran him against Hitler and called him the lesser evil.
The following two wars make clear that I do not support the Democrats, as did this one:
Pro-War Democrats Battle for the Presidency
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/06/18425448.php
The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php
I don't support the Democrats, never have. This is slander.
WARNING, Political joke:
How did the American ruling class get the left to vote for Mussolini? They ran him against Hitler and called him the lesser evil.
The following two wars make clear that I do not support the Democrats, as did this one:
Pro-War Democrats Battle for the Presidency
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/06/18425448.php
The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 4:54 PM
Oops, typos in my last response, this is what I meant:
Ron Paul liar says, "Democrats - your party lied to you."
I don't support the Democrats, never have. This is slander.
WARNING, Political joke:
How did the American ruling class get the left to vote for Mussolini? They ran him against Hitler and called him the lesser evil.
The following two articles make clear that I do not support the Democrats:
Pro-War Democrats Battle for the Presidency
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/06/18425448.php
The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php
Ron Paul liar says, "Democrats - your party lied to you."
I don't support the Democrats, never have. This is slander.
WARNING, Political joke:
How did the American ruling class get the left to vote for Mussolini? They ran him against Hitler and called him the lesser evil.
The following two articles make clear that I do not support the Democrats:
Pro-War Democrats Battle for the Presidency
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/06/18425448.php
The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 5:22 PM
I admit I am a bias commenter as I support Ron Paul. I empathize with a Hillary Clinton supporter who wants her health care program which Hillary is sincere about but is wise enough to recognize Hillary will keep us in Iraq spending trillions past 2013 to show us how tough she is.
As a pacifist but a conservative, I've been stuck like that for years. That is until Ron Paul. My solution was to vote 3rd party. This isn't a horse race. You don't win by picking the winner. You win by sending a message.
As a pacifist but a conservative, I've been stuck like that for years. That is until Ron Paul. My solution was to vote 3rd party. This isn't a horse race. You don't win by picking the winner. You win by sending a message.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 5:32 PM
I can't decide if the author to this article is either stupid or simply hoping to put out lots of disinformation about Ron Paul in the hopes that some people will believe what is written here. Almost none of it is true. I also love how the term capitalist is used like a 4 letter word by the author. Quite entertaining and I needed a good laugh, even if it was one that was scary and extremely deceitful from beginning to end. I'm not sure I could find a shred of truth that wasn't also a lie by omission.
It scares me that people like the author can get 1 single person to believe what they wrote.
It scares me that people like the author can get 1 single person to believe what they wrote.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 6:27 PM
Ron Paul didn't ever say anything racist. EVERYTHING being attributed to him as racist, he didn't write.
Anyway... You're going to vote for someone who supported the War, before they realized their public didn't? Sorry, I mean "realized they were wrong." Obama doesn't want to leave until the next decade. Hilary voted for the war... it's part her war just like Bush's. We could say, the Hilary/Gore/Bush war since they're who sold us on it.
But Ron Paul now... nicest man in the world, and one of the smartest. He voted against the war, patriot act and everything that sucks. Obama voted for the Patriot Act... as in, he likes the Patriot Act. Hilary probably wrote it! jk
But Ron Paul's da man. And he's end the War on Drugs, which is policy more racist than the KKK.
Anyway... You're going to vote for someone who supported the War, before they realized their public didn't? Sorry, I mean "realized they were wrong." Obama doesn't want to leave until the next decade. Hilary voted for the war... it's part her war just like Bush's. We could say, the Hilary/Gore/Bush war since they're who sold us on it.
But Ron Paul now... nicest man in the world, and one of the smartest. He voted against the war, patriot act and everything that sucks. Obama voted for the Patriot Act... as in, he likes the Patriot Act. Hilary probably wrote it! jk
But Ron Paul's da man. And he's end the War on Drugs, which is policy more racist than the KKK.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 8:04 PM
Steve seems to think that advocating states rights can be used to deprive minorities of civil liberties. However, states cannot violate either the Constitution or legal precedent, and so this is a red herring. The reality is that the anti-war Right and Left must unite in order to have enough of an impact on the status quo powers that be. In fact, the origins of socialism were divided into two camps: statists and anarchists. Those are the two camps today- although they go by libertarians and liberals. Both are against force and authority- but have different ideas of how best to accomplish this. Nonetheless, unless we are willing to join despite our differences (our entire agenda doesn't need to be held in common) we will remain divided and ultimately defeated.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 8:35 PM
Austin NAACP President: 'Ron Paul is not a Racist'
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html
CNN Interview: Ron Paul repudiates racist newsletter smear
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/10/blitzer.ron.paul.interview.cnn
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html
CNN Interview: Ron Paul repudiates racist newsletter smear
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/10/blitzer.ron.paul.interview.cnn
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:24 PM
Ron Paul on Civil Rights
Republican Representative (TX-14)
Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action.
Paul scores 38% by the HRC on gay rights
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm
Republican Representative (TX-14)
Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action.
Paul scores 38% by the HRC on gay rights
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 1:12 AM
The facts are simple 50 years of trading places between Dems and GOP and what do we have? A 15 Trillion debt, yes it is not 9 trillion. We could lose our Tripe A bond rating this year too! DO you know what the HEALTHCARE option the Dems want to push on us will add each year?
300 billion more each year. So you do not care? This fact will slowly push the entire middle class into a lower class. The Government will have to raise taxes to 70% like they did in Europe after the end of World War II. We bailed out Europe and there is no one to bail us out!
On the war, Starting with Carter we moved more troops overseas each year until 2/3 of our forces are overseas. This means every dollar we pay in taxes is going into the pockets of a businesses in another country! We need to close 500 to 600 bases and move 200 back to the North America. By ding this we reduce spending over 1 Trillion per year and mover over 1,000,000 jobs back to the USA. Yes you local Walmart will be busier on the weekend too!
The only person that has a track record of voting against spending and adhering to the constitution is Ron Paul. THe Civil liberty issue is VERY serious. WE Need to fix this fast!
Good luck with you logic, it is this type of thinking that DEMs or GOP will give use more that leads to poorer services, lousy travel restrictions, devalued money and a prison population approaching 1 million.
Paul
300 billion more each year. So you do not care? This fact will slowly push the entire middle class into a lower class. The Government will have to raise taxes to 70% like they did in Europe after the end of World War II. We bailed out Europe and there is no one to bail us out!
On the war, Starting with Carter we moved more troops overseas each year until 2/3 of our forces are overseas. This means every dollar we pay in taxes is going into the pockets of a businesses in another country! We need to close 500 to 600 bases and move 200 back to the North America. By ding this we reduce spending over 1 Trillion per year and mover over 1,000,000 jobs back to the USA. Yes you local Walmart will be busier on the weekend too!
The only person that has a track record of voting against spending and adhering to the constitution is Ron Paul. THe Civil liberty issue is VERY serious. WE Need to fix this fast!
Good luck with you logic, it is this type of thinking that DEMs or GOP will give use more that leads to poorer services, lousy travel restrictions, devalued money and a prison population approaching 1 million.
Paul
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 3:17 AM
Vote Socialist? Wouldn't that give this uncontrollable, despotic, lying Federal government MORE power? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would, wouldn't it?
Don't you realize yet that the Federal government just takes the money you give them, ignores the fact that they are supposed to represent you, and goes to war with the cash and makes KBR rich? Don't you see this yet?
Don't you realize yet that the Federal government just takes the money you give them, ignores the fact that they are supposed to represent you, and goes to war with the cash and makes KBR rich? Don't you see this yet?
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 5:40 AM
The Ron Paul supporter says, "Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years."
Besides voting against the Voting Rights Act, opposing the Civil Rights Act, and accepting donations from the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, this is what Ron Paul had to say about Dr. King in his Ron Paul Newsletter:
“Martin Luther King: Socialist. St. Martin was a world class philanderer who beat up his paramours (“non-violence” didn’t apply in all spheres I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.”
Besides voting against the Voting Rights Act, opposing the Civil Rights Act, and accepting donations from the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, this is what Ron Paul had to say about Dr. King in his Ron Paul Newsletter:
“Martin Luther King: Socialist. St. Martin was a world class philanderer who beat up his paramours (“non-violence” didn’t apply in all spheres I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.”
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 6:23 AM
Thanks. Steven
I've been concerned about all the folks who have been lured to Ron Paul. It seems to be based entirely on opposition to
the conquest of Iraq. His other views are absolutely repellant.
He supports drilling in ANWR. He believes that health-care costs should be purely market driven. He supports abolishing Medicare. He opposes universal healthcare coverage. He opposed implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. He opposes higher fuel efficiency standards. He supports the abolition of the Dept of Education. He wants "massive tax cuts", which really means maybe $50/month more in
your paycheck, and the loss of a buttload of services.
He toes the Libertarian Party line, which is great if you're wealthy.
He's horrid.
I've been concerned about all the folks who have been lured to Ron Paul. It seems to be based entirely on opposition to
the conquest of Iraq. His other views are absolutely repellant.
He supports drilling in ANWR. He believes that health-care costs should be purely market driven. He supports abolishing Medicare. He opposes universal healthcare coverage. He opposed implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. He opposes higher fuel efficiency standards. He supports the abolition of the Dept of Education. He wants "massive tax cuts", which really means maybe $50/month more in
your paycheck, and the loss of a buttload of services.
He toes the Libertarian Party line, which is great if you're wealthy.
He's horrid.
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 10:41 AM
"And yes, the Voting Rights Act did give Blacks, who were being denied the right to vote, the right to vote in 1965. "
Government doesn't and can't and has never given any rights to people. The vast majority of people including the government do not have an inkling what a right is.
Government doesn't and can't and has never given any rights to people. The vast majority of people including the government do not have an inkling what a right is.
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 10:41 AM
"And yes, the Voting Rights Act did give Blacks, who were being denied the right to vote, the right to vote in 1965. "
Government doesn't and can't and has never given any rights to people. The vast majority of people including the government do not have an inkling what a right is. There are only three rights - life, liberty, and property. Voting falls under the right of "liberty" within the bounds of the social contract.
Government doesn't and can't and has never given any rights to people. The vast majority of people including the government do not have an inkling what a right is. There are only three rights - life, liberty, and property. Voting falls under the right of "liberty" within the bounds of the social contract.
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 5:48 PM
You have every right to praise socialist totalitarianism and condemn a capitalist democratic republic all you want, but to do it by calling one of the most honest and principled people our government has left a "racist" is pretty pathetic.
As is your lie that Ron Paul himself wrote the statements you cited. The NY Times has admitted he did not write them in a retraction. He has said he did not write them and had staffers editing and writing the newsletter at the time since he was back in his medical practice. Nearly everyone who knows him or has asked him about the statements has acknowledged that these are things they have never heard him say and setniments they have never heard him voice in 30 years of politics. The president of the NAACP who has known Ron for over 20 years has come out on Paul's behalf to affirm that the man is by no means a racist.
By the way, why hasnt anyone asked Hillary Clinton (who is supposed to be a "mainstream...legitimate candidate" and who is adored by the media ANYWAY) why she felt compelled to throw former Grand Cyclops of the KKK Senator Robert Byrd a birthday party in the historic former home of Frederick Douglass back in 2005?
As is your lie that Ron Paul himself wrote the statements you cited. The NY Times has admitted he did not write them in a retraction. He has said he did not write them and had staffers editing and writing the newsletter at the time since he was back in his medical practice. Nearly everyone who knows him or has asked him about the statements has acknowledged that these are things they have never heard him say and setniments they have never heard him voice in 30 years of politics. The president of the NAACP who has known Ron for over 20 years has come out on Paul's behalf to affirm that the man is by no means a racist.
By the way, why hasnt anyone asked Hillary Clinton (who is supposed to be a "mainstream...legitimate candidate" and who is adored by the media ANYWAY) why she felt compelled to throw former Grand Cyclops of the KKK Senator Robert Byrd a birthday party in the historic former home of Frederick Douglass back in 2005?
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 7:52 AM
Ron Paul and the Paulistas: Populism and the Paranoid Style in American Politics
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/ron-paul-and-the-paulistas-populism-and-the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
"The Paulistas are out there and they’re angry. They’re mad about “corporatist” governance, the Federal Reserve and the war in Iraq. More than a few are truthers and they are quick to spring into action when Paul is mentioned in a a negative light. A few bloggers have experimented by posting entries with titles like “Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul” to see what would happen and, sure enough, the Paulistas come out of the woodwork.
Paul’s policy proposals and certainly his style, are paranoid populist rather than libertarian. After all, what’s libertarian about restricting women’s reproductive rights and not allowing GLBT folks to serve openly? What’s libertarian about militarizing the border? Paul’s voting record on trade is not incredibly libertarian either.
In fact, when you strip away the libertarian polish, Paul emerges as an economic and political isolationist. Likewise, most of Paul’s supporters—the people who will actually vote for him—are right-wing populists."
Ron Paul and the Paulistas, Part II: Virtual Reality Versus Political Reality
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/ron-paul-and-the-paulistas-part-ii-virtual-reality-versus-political-reality/
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/ron-paul-and-the-paulistas-populism-and-the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
"The Paulistas are out there and they’re angry. They’re mad about “corporatist” governance, the Federal Reserve and the war in Iraq. More than a few are truthers and they are quick to spring into action when Paul is mentioned in a a negative light. A few bloggers have experimented by posting entries with titles like “Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul” to see what would happen and, sure enough, the Paulistas come out of the woodwork.
Paul’s policy proposals and certainly his style, are paranoid populist rather than libertarian. After all, what’s libertarian about restricting women’s reproductive rights and not allowing GLBT folks to serve openly? What’s libertarian about militarizing the border? Paul’s voting record on trade is not incredibly libertarian either.
In fact, when you strip away the libertarian polish, Paul emerges as an economic and political isolationist. Likewise, most of Paul’s supporters—the people who will actually vote for him—are right-wing populists."
Ron Paul and the Paulistas, Part II: Virtual Reality Versus Political Reality
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/ron-paul-and-the-paulistas-part-ii-virtual-reality-versus-political-reality/
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 7:57 AM
"There are only three rights - life, liberty, and property. Voting falls under the right of "liberty" within the bounds of the social contract..."
You must have not read our Declaration of Independence. Property was replaced with "the pursuit of Happiness." You may define happiness as property acquisition and ownership but many Americans do not. I personally consider the right to own property under the right to Liberty. I think most of the framers would agree.
You must have not read our Declaration of Independence. Property was replaced with "the pursuit of Happiness." You may define happiness as property acquisition and ownership but many Americans do not. I personally consider the right to own property under the right to Liberty. I think most of the framers would agree.
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 8:29 AM
All you anti-war bottom-liners miss the point: war is the system. The war never ends. There's always another war-- they must have it, to justify the military-industrial machine dominating US Govt spending.
Maybe you should go do some reading on the old <a>America First movement, and get back to us on how "progressive" old-school isolationism is. Or, do you condemn those who went to fight fascism in Spain?
DO NOT TRADE LIBERTIES FOR "SECURITY"-- and that includes "stop the war." Really, we should transform that into "stop all war" or "end armed aggression" or something.
That's why the left-Dems actually make some sense this time around. They're talking about (in effect) starving the war machine in favor of other social priorities, like socialized healthcare, green energy development, and education.
The rights of women and queers aside (since you insist those don't really matter, somehow), what do you think Ron Paul is going to do for the environment or healthcare? Or do you not care about any of that either?
Good thing the (R)s didn't realize you'd give up on over 100 years of progressive struggle so easily. They might never have ended WWI. (Ahh, but they had to, because of the Bolsheviks. Not to digress.... bwahahaha...)
Maybe you should go do some reading on the old <a>America First movement, and get back to us on how "progressive" old-school isolationism is. Or, do you condemn those who went to fight fascism in Spain?
DO NOT TRADE LIBERTIES FOR "SECURITY"-- and that includes "stop the war." Really, we should transform that into "stop all war" or "end armed aggression" or something.
That's why the left-Dems actually make some sense this time around. They're talking about (in effect) starving the war machine in favor of other social priorities, like socialized healthcare, green energy development, and education.
The rights of women and queers aside (since you insist those don't really matter, somehow), what do you think Ron Paul is going to do for the environment or healthcare? Or do you not care about any of that either?
Good thing the (R)s didn't realize you'd give up on over 100 years of progressive struggle so easily. They might never have ended WWI. (Ahh, but they had to, because of the Bolsheviks. Not to digress.... bwahahaha...)
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 9:01 AM
I am mystified as to why anyone would take Ron Paul's denials seriously when he doesn't name the allegedly guilty party, so we can get their side of the story.
According to the Paul camp, the author of these pieces took advantage of Ron Paul's good name to spread vile and reprehensible opinions, effectively traducing and defaming Dr. Paul. And yet Paul continues to shield the author. So how is Paul distancing himself?
According to the Paul camp, the author of these pieces took advantage of Ron Paul's good name to spread vile and reprehensible opinions, effectively traducing and defaming Dr. Paul. And yet Paul continues to shield the author. So how is Paul distancing himself?
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 9:19 AM
I encourage Ron Paul supports to respond to the concerns raised in Julian Sanchez and David Weigel's article "Why Paul Needs to Grapple with His Own Paleo-Past--Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?" at http://www.counterpunch.org/sanchez01162008.html .
The article, originally published in the Libertarian monthly Reason, concludes:
"But perhaps the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon. The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, "humble foreign policy," and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: "I don't want to run your life," "I don't want to run the economy," and "I don't want to run the world."
He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers, and the largest rallies he's ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.
Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists--and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past--acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life."
I also repeat the questions I asked on my radio show some weeks back:
1. How does Ron Paul stand on local laws the criminalize homelessness?
2. Who are Paul's chief advisers? (Since that's often the best indicator of what course a Paul presidency would take)
3. Would Paul be willing to vote and urge his supporters to vote for a true "Out Now!" anti-war candidate (whether Libertarian, Democrat, Green, or Socialist) if the Republican Party proceeds (as it will) to nominate a hawkish mastodon?
The article, originally published in the Libertarian monthly Reason, concludes:
"But perhaps the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon. The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, "humble foreign policy," and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: "I don't want to run your life," "I don't want to run the economy," and "I don't want to run the world."
He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers, and the largest rallies he's ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.
Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists--and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past--acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life."
I also repeat the questions I asked on my radio show some weeks back:
1. How does Ron Paul stand on local laws the criminalize homelessness?
2. Who are Paul's chief advisers? (Since that's often the best indicator of what course a Paul presidency would take)
3. Would Paul be willing to vote and urge his supporters to vote for a true "Out Now!" anti-war candidate (whether Libertarian, Democrat, Green, or Socialist) if the Republican Party proceeds (as it will) to nominate a hawkish mastodon?
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 1:39 PM
Robert Norse asks, "How does Ron Paul stand on local laws that criminalize homelessness?"
I don't know if the guy has ever opened his mouth on the issue.
But, a little common sense would go a long way here.
Local politicians are wrong to make sleep for the homeless illegal. Ron Paul's Libertarian positions suggest that he would oppose human rights for the homeless since he is a rightwing libertarian who has also actively voted and signed on to initiatives against individual liberties like same-sex marriage, the Black right to vote, and abortion.
As a pro-capitalist “libertarian”, Ron Paul has made it very clear that he would do everything in his power to abolish every social program. Many homeless people get some temporary relief from food programs for the homeless that are funded in part by the federal government. They also get some help from Social Security and Medicare. Ron Paul has promised to abolish all such programs, and the IRS, as part of his crusade to let the rich keep their pile of cash.
While Ron Paul may not succeed in dismantling every public service and privatizing everything, as president and as a dangerous ideologue he would have some successes, and I'm not willing to put him in power to give him a chance at any of it. I don't see how an advocate for the homeless can't see what a truly frightening prospect Ron Paul power is.
In addition, no improvements, not even moderate improvements under capitalism, such as single payer or socialized medicine, nor mass public work and housing programs, would ever happen under a Ron Paul presidency.
Ron Paul would abolish labor protections and eliminate the minimum wage. Many homeless people are workers, and with Ron Paul many more workers will likely become homeless.
In addition, while dismantling everything useful about this system, Ron Paul would maintain the current police system to protect the property of the capitalists.
On the plus side, Ron Paul would likely end the war. By ending the war, there would be fewer people made homeless by the combinations of mental illness, addiction, and poverty caused by war. This is the only sizeable potential plus I can see. Yet the negatives far outweigh this promise. Ron Paul would dismantle 200 years of social progress in the United States.
Many of the homeless have children; Ron Paul’s efforts to destroy and eliminate all public education would have disastrous results on homeless children.
Many homeless people are Black, immigrants, women, and/or homosexual. Thus common sense says that they would be hurt by Ron Paul’s racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, and homophobic positions.
Homeless people live, breath, and eat on this planet. Ron Paul would do his best to eliminate environmental protections, endangering human health and the health of wildlife. In addition, Ron Paul would let the catastrophe of human caused global warming, an irrefutable scientific fact, spiral out of control towards the planets oblivion. This is something that has been happening under the moderate Democrat and Republican regimes as well, but Ron Paul opposes all environmental protections and curbs to carbon emissions.
U.S. imperialism is taking a beating for Iraq. Why on earth would you consider jeopardizing ALL of the labor and environmental protections and other social services won over 200 years of hard fought battles of the working class to end a war where the imperialists may well have to admit defeat and go home anyway?
There is nobody worth supporting in the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-poor, and capitalist Republican Party. Never has been, never will be. Get over it. Ron Paul is a more evil version of Schwarzenegger. Remember when certain liberals in town were throwing parties for Schwarzenegger thinking the guy was going to legalize pot? Remember my warnings then? And we’ve all seen what a disaster Schwarzenegger has been. Ron Paul and his movement are a million times worse.
There are candidates to the left of the Democrats and Republicans worth supporting. They oppose the war and are the only candidates that even come close to supporting the full spectrum of human rights for the homeless.
I don't know if the guy has ever opened his mouth on the issue.
But, a little common sense would go a long way here.
Local politicians are wrong to make sleep for the homeless illegal. Ron Paul's Libertarian positions suggest that he would oppose human rights for the homeless since he is a rightwing libertarian who has also actively voted and signed on to initiatives against individual liberties like same-sex marriage, the Black right to vote, and abortion.
As a pro-capitalist “libertarian”, Ron Paul has made it very clear that he would do everything in his power to abolish every social program. Many homeless people get some temporary relief from food programs for the homeless that are funded in part by the federal government. They also get some help from Social Security and Medicare. Ron Paul has promised to abolish all such programs, and the IRS, as part of his crusade to let the rich keep their pile of cash.
While Ron Paul may not succeed in dismantling every public service and privatizing everything, as president and as a dangerous ideologue he would have some successes, and I'm not willing to put him in power to give him a chance at any of it. I don't see how an advocate for the homeless can't see what a truly frightening prospect Ron Paul power is.
In addition, no improvements, not even moderate improvements under capitalism, such as single payer or socialized medicine, nor mass public work and housing programs, would ever happen under a Ron Paul presidency.
Ron Paul would abolish labor protections and eliminate the minimum wage. Many homeless people are workers, and with Ron Paul many more workers will likely become homeless.
In addition, while dismantling everything useful about this system, Ron Paul would maintain the current police system to protect the property of the capitalists.
On the plus side, Ron Paul would likely end the war. By ending the war, there would be fewer people made homeless by the combinations of mental illness, addiction, and poverty caused by war. This is the only sizeable potential plus I can see. Yet the negatives far outweigh this promise. Ron Paul would dismantle 200 years of social progress in the United States.
Many of the homeless have children; Ron Paul’s efforts to destroy and eliminate all public education would have disastrous results on homeless children.
Many homeless people are Black, immigrants, women, and/or homosexual. Thus common sense says that they would be hurt by Ron Paul’s racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, and homophobic positions.
Homeless people live, breath, and eat on this planet. Ron Paul would do his best to eliminate environmental protections, endangering human health and the health of wildlife. In addition, Ron Paul would let the catastrophe of human caused global warming, an irrefutable scientific fact, spiral out of control towards the planets oblivion. This is something that has been happening under the moderate Democrat and Republican regimes as well, but Ron Paul opposes all environmental protections and curbs to carbon emissions.
U.S. imperialism is taking a beating for Iraq. Why on earth would you consider jeopardizing ALL of the labor and environmental protections and other social services won over 200 years of hard fought battles of the working class to end a war where the imperialists may well have to admit defeat and go home anyway?
There is nobody worth supporting in the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-poor, and capitalist Republican Party. Never has been, never will be. Get over it. Ron Paul is a more evil version of Schwarzenegger. Remember when certain liberals in town were throwing parties for Schwarzenegger thinking the guy was going to legalize pot? Remember my warnings then? And we’ve all seen what a disaster Schwarzenegger has been. Ron Paul and his movement are a million times worse.
There are candidates to the left of the Democrats and Republicans worth supporting. They oppose the war and are the only candidates that even come close to supporting the full spectrum of human rights for the homeless.
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 2:21 PM
Change doesn't happen by supporting the people and proposals that are against us. It happens by seeing what needs to be done and understanding we have a long struggle ahead of us. Nothing good will come out of the coming elections. What I am trying to do is help people see that there are long term perspectives, programs (such as single payer), political parties, and candidates that are anti-war and worth supporting. Fighting for those ideas at a time when all of the major candidates are against us is critical, or we'll never get even the smallest reform.
"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it." Socialist Anti-war Candidate Eugene Debs (who garnered nearly a million votes while he sat in prison for opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I).
"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it." Socialist Anti-war Candidate Eugene Debs (who garnered nearly a million votes while he sat in prison for opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I).
Wednesday Jan 30th, 2008 9:19 PM
from http://www.counterpunch.org today:
"...Among both Republicans and Democrats Ron Paul is the only one who talks with any passion about defending the Constitution and ending the war. It's true he should have been more vocal, denouncing those racist newsletters that went out over his letterhead, but one the other hand there's his forthright statement to Wolf Blitzer on CNN on January 10:
"I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. In all wars minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidate will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes. And this is where the real discrimination is. if you want to look for discrimination, it's the judicial system. So I am the antiracist because I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who [wants to] protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."
Did anyone on the left, flailing away Paul, ever hold Dennis Kucinich's feet to the fire for all those years attacking choice, before his presidential ambitions prompted to jump the fence and change his views? Not for Kucinich the rigorous adherence to principle that prompted Paul to launch a nutty attack on social security to a mostly elderly audience in Florida. Small wonder he ended up arm wrestling Fred Thompson for fifth place. Still, even Giuliani, in his strange farewell address, confessed that "Ron Paul won every debate."
So we advise Paul to quit wasting his money in the Republican money and instead to launch off as an independent or libertarian, denouncing the war and going to the inner cities on a redemption tour to talk about racism and the judicial process --which got significantly worse in Clinton time. The left keeps laboring the obvious, that Paul is not a leftist and has some bad positions. His posture on immigration is awful. But the Clinton record is substantively far, far worse, in terms of the terrible harvest reaped by NAFTA and the WTO and by Bill Clinton's own record on immigration and the treatment of Hispanics in the drug war...
"...Among both Republicans and Democrats Ron Paul is the only one who talks with any passion about defending the Constitution and ending the war. It's true he should have been more vocal, denouncing those racist newsletters that went out over his letterhead, but one the other hand there's his forthright statement to Wolf Blitzer on CNN on January 10:
"I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. In all wars minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidate will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes. And this is where the real discrimination is. if you want to look for discrimination, it's the judicial system. So I am the antiracist because I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who [wants to] protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."
Did anyone on the left, flailing away Paul, ever hold Dennis Kucinich's feet to the fire for all those years attacking choice, before his presidential ambitions prompted to jump the fence and change his views? Not for Kucinich the rigorous adherence to principle that prompted Paul to launch a nutty attack on social security to a mostly elderly audience in Florida. Small wonder he ended up arm wrestling Fred Thompson for fifth place. Still, even Giuliani, in his strange farewell address, confessed that "Ron Paul won every debate."
So we advise Paul to quit wasting his money in the Republican money and instead to launch off as an independent or libertarian, denouncing the war and going to the inner cities on a redemption tour to talk about racism and the judicial process --which got significantly worse in Clinton time. The left keeps laboring the obvious, that Paul is not a leftist and has some bad positions. His posture on immigration is awful. But the Clinton record is substantively far, far worse, in terms of the terrible harvest reaped by NAFTA and the WTO and by Bill Clinton's own record on immigration and the treatment of Hispanics in the drug war...
Thursday Jan 31st, 2008 1:04 AM
from http://www.counterpunch.org today:
"...Among both Republicans and Democrats Ron Paul is the only one who talks with any passion about defending the Constitution and ending the war. It's true he should have been more vocal, denouncing those racist newsletters that went out over his letterhead, but one the other hand there's his forthright statement to Wolf Blitzer on CNN on January 10:
"I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. In all wars minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidate will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes. And this is where the real discrimination is. if you want to look for discrimination, it's the judicial system. So I am the antiracist because I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who [wants to] protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."
Did anyone on the left, flailing away Paul, ever hold Dennis Kucinich's feet to the fire for all those years attacking choice, before his presidential ambitions prompted to jump the fence and change his views? Not for Kucinich the rigorous adherence to principle that prompted Paul to launch a nutty attack on social security to a mostly elderly audience in Florida. Small wonder he ended up arm wrestling Fred Thompson for fifth place. Still, even Giuliani, in his strange farewell address, confessed that "Ron Paul won every debate."
So we advise Paul to quit wasting his money in the Republican money and instead to launch off as an independent or libertarian, denouncing the war and going to the inner cities on a redemption tour to talk about racism and the judicial process --which got significantly worse in Clinton time. The left keeps laboring the obvious, that Paul is not a leftist and has some bad positions. His posture on immigration is awful. But the Clinton record is substantively far, far worse, in terms of the terrible harvest reaped by NAFTA and the WTO and by Bill Clinton's own record on immigration and the treatment of Hispanics in the drug war...
"...Among both Republicans and Democrats Ron Paul is the only one who talks with any passion about defending the Constitution and ending the war. It's true he should have been more vocal, denouncing those racist newsletters that went out over his letterhead, but one the other hand there's his forthright statement to Wolf Blitzer on CNN on January 10:
"I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. In all wars minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidate will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes. And this is where the real discrimination is. if you want to look for discrimination, it's the judicial system. So I am the antiracist because I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who [wants to] protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."
Did anyone on the left, flailing away Paul, ever hold Dennis Kucinich's feet to the fire for all those years attacking choice, before his presidential ambitions prompted to jump the fence and change his views? Not for Kucinich the rigorous adherence to principle that prompted Paul to launch a nutty attack on social security to a mostly elderly audience in Florida. Small wonder he ended up arm wrestling Fred Thompson for fifth place. Still, even Giuliani, in his strange farewell address, confessed that "Ron Paul won every debate."
So we advise Paul to quit wasting his money in the Republican money and instead to launch off as an independent or libertarian, denouncing the war and going to the inner cities on a redemption tour to talk about racism and the judicial process --which got significantly worse in Clinton time. The left keeps laboring the obvious, that Paul is not a leftist and has some bad positions. His posture on immigration is awful. But the Clinton record is substantively far, far worse, in terms of the terrible harvest reaped by NAFTA and the WTO and by Bill Clinton's own record on immigration and the treatment of Hispanics in the drug war...
Thursday Jan 31st, 2008 11:27 AM
Cockburn's arguments are just another "lesser evil" argument to get the left to back evil capitalist politicians. Yet the typical argument for supporting a "lesser evil" here is missing because Ron Paul will not win.
If you want to support a candidate opposed to the war, why not back Stewart Alexander and Brian Moore in the Peace and Freedom Party and Socialist Party? I have my differences with them as well, but by backing them with critical support, I am promoting the anti-war, people's, and environmental agenda that they are putting forward. In addition, with such candidates, unlike Ron Paul, there is no chance that they'd be backed by Nazi Stormfront, David Duke, and Don Black. There are good reasons for this. Ron Paul is a racist-sexist-homophobe, and the program of Stewart Alexander and Brian Moore is anti-racist, anti-sexist, and pro-GLBT.
Likewise, there is no threat of the extreme rightwing Libertarian Party, a party that proposes unfettered capitalist exploitation of labor and the environment, ever backing the pro-labor and pro-environment candidacies of Stewart Alexander and Brian Moore. Cockburn and St Clair, in promoting the possibility of Ron Paul running as a Libertarian, discredit themselves.
Likewise, Robert Norse seems to have a sick fascination with the far right. I realize this is because he has no confidence in the left, but it is high time people like Robert Norse, Jeffrey St Clair, and Alexander Cockburn stop backing candidates of the two rightwing capitalist parties that rule America, and recognize that it is only the movements and parties of the left that can solve our problems. There has been no better time in recent history to build the left and our popular movements, but people like Robert Norse, Alexander Cockburn, and Jeffrey St Clair, with their propensity to fall for rightwing snake-oil salesmen instead of leading, all presently stand as obstacles to spreading real awareness of what needs to be done.
Stewart Alexander for President
http://vote-socialist.org/p08/questionnaires/alexander.html
Brian Moore for President
http://www.votebrianmoore.com/
If you want to support a candidate opposed to the war, why not back Stewart Alexander and Brian Moore in the Peace and Freedom Party and Socialist Party? I have my differences with them as well, but by backing them with critical support, I am promoting the anti-war, people's, and environmental agenda that they are putting forward. In addition, with such candidates, unlike Ron Paul, there is no chance that they'd be backed by Nazi Stormfront, David Duke, and Don Black. There are good reasons for this. Ron Paul is a racist-sexist-homophobe, and the program of Stewart Alexander and Brian Moore is anti-racist, anti-sexist, and pro-GLBT.
Likewise, there is no threat of the extreme rightwing Libertarian Party, a party that proposes unfettered capitalist exploitation of labor and the environment, ever backing the pro-labor and pro-environment candidacies of Stewart Alexander and Brian Moore. Cockburn and St Clair, in promoting the possibility of Ron Paul running as a Libertarian, discredit themselves.
Likewise, Robert Norse seems to have a sick fascination with the far right. I realize this is because he has no confidence in the left, but it is high time people like Robert Norse, Jeffrey St Clair, and Alexander Cockburn stop backing candidates of the two rightwing capitalist parties that rule America, and recognize that it is only the movements and parties of the left that can solve our problems. There has been no better time in recent history to build the left and our popular movements, but people like Robert Norse, Alexander Cockburn, and Jeffrey St Clair, with their propensity to fall for rightwing snake-oil salesmen instead of leading, all presently stand as obstacles to spreading real awareness of what needs to be done.
Stewart Alexander for President
http://vote-socialist.org/p08/questionnaires/alexander.html
Brian Moore for President
http://www.votebrianmoore.com/
Thursday Jan 31st, 2008 4:18 PM
Actually I wasn't endorsing Ron Paul, nor were Cockburn and St. Clair. They were pointing out some important considerations.
Is Steve suggesting that Ron Paul-ists should be excluded from a large coalition demanding U.S. Out of Iraq (and foreign bases around the globe)? Do Paulists have to endorse all the left positions to be credited with taking the right (no pun intended!) stand on the war and repressive national laws?
Is Paul to be given any kind of credit for the persistence and integrity he's shown on the anti-war issue? Certainly similar regard should to go Green, Socialist, and other candidates. But to deny (or worse, attempt to discredit) the support he's getting--because of his anti-war and anti-fascistic positions--is unwise in my view.
I find Cockburn's final paragraph on Paul in the primaries particularly interesting: "So we advise Paul to quit wasting his money in the Republican money and instead to launch off as an independent or libertarian, denouncing the war and going to the inner cities on a redemption tour to talk about racism and the judicial process --which got significantly worse in Clinton time. The left keeps laboring the obvious, that Paul is not a leftist and has some bad positions. His posture on immigration is awful. But the Clinton record is substantively far, far worse, in terms of the terrible harvest reaped by NAFTA and the WTO and by Bill Clinton's own record on immigration and the treatment of Hispanics in the drug war."
What do others think?
Is Steve suggesting that Ron Paul-ists should be excluded from a large coalition demanding U.S. Out of Iraq (and foreign bases around the globe)? Do Paulists have to endorse all the left positions to be credited with taking the right (no pun intended!) stand on the war and repressive national laws?
Is Paul to be given any kind of credit for the persistence and integrity he's shown on the anti-war issue? Certainly similar regard should to go Green, Socialist, and other candidates. But to deny (or worse, attempt to discredit) the support he's getting--because of his anti-war and anti-fascistic positions--is unwise in my view.
I find Cockburn's final paragraph on Paul in the primaries particularly interesting: "So we advise Paul to quit wasting his money in the Republican money and instead to launch off as an independent or libertarian, denouncing the war and going to the inner cities on a redemption tour to talk about racism and the judicial process --which got significantly worse in Clinton time. The left keeps laboring the obvious, that Paul is not a leftist and has some bad positions. His posture on immigration is awful. But the Clinton record is substantively far, far worse, in terms of the terrible harvest reaped by NAFTA and the WTO and by Bill Clinton's own record on immigration and the treatment of Hispanics in the drug war."
What do others think?
Friday Feb 1st, 2008 12:34 PM
Robert asks, “Is Steve suggesting that Ron Paul-ists should be excluded from a large coalition demanding U.S. Out of Iraq (and foreign bases around the globe)?”
If they actually showed-up, this would be an interesting question. If certain Ron Paul supporters like David Duke and Don Black and other members of Nazi Stormfront and the Minutemen showed up to a coalition meeting, I’d argue that they were a security threat to everyone, especially people of color, GLBT people, and immigrants of color, and I would argue for their exclusion.
Robert also states, “Actually I wasn't endorsing Ron Paul, nor were Cockburn and St. Clair. They were pointing out some important considerations.”
Robert, you keep posting every crappy article you can find from the left that legitimizes a campaign full of ideas that should instead be marginalized.
And while Cockburn and St. Clair are letting their Libertarian colors fly, saying he should run as a Libertarian, Robert seems to think they make a good argument. Unlike Cockburn and St. Clair, I see the Libertarian Party, like Ron Paul’s base, are a party of small angry capitalists that are pissed off at labor and environmental protections as well as government social programs.
Government regulation is essential, especially on the biggest question facing humanity, global warming. Yet when Ron Paul is asked about global warming, he says property rights (without government regulation) come first. In congress, Ron Paul’s voting record on this issue has been consistently bad. And while Alexander Cockburn not only supports the racist-sexist-homophobic and anti-environmental campaign of Ron Paul, he has written a dip-shit article claiming that human caused global-warming is a myth. EVERY scientific academy of the industrialized world knows that human caused global warming is a fact, yet Cockburn is up to bat for big oil helping create the impression that there is debate on an issue where there is scientific consensus.
As to the arguments on which would be worse, Clinton or Paul, like I said, this is just the same old lesser evil bullshit argument for getting the left to back one of the two rightwing corporate parties who rule America. They both suck and neither should be supported.
Joke:
Q: How did the American ruling class get Robert Norse to vote for Mussolini?
A: They ran him against Hitler and told Robert that Mussolini was the lesser of the two evils.
If they actually showed-up, this would be an interesting question. If certain Ron Paul supporters like David Duke and Don Black and other members of Nazi Stormfront and the Minutemen showed up to a coalition meeting, I’d argue that they were a security threat to everyone, especially people of color, GLBT people, and immigrants of color, and I would argue for their exclusion.
Robert also states, “Actually I wasn't endorsing Ron Paul, nor were Cockburn and St. Clair. They were pointing out some important considerations.”
Robert, you keep posting every crappy article you can find from the left that legitimizes a campaign full of ideas that should instead be marginalized.
And while Cockburn and St. Clair are letting their Libertarian colors fly, saying he should run as a Libertarian, Robert seems to think they make a good argument. Unlike Cockburn and St. Clair, I see the Libertarian Party, like Ron Paul’s base, are a party of small angry capitalists that are pissed off at labor and environmental protections as well as government social programs.
Government regulation is essential, especially on the biggest question facing humanity, global warming. Yet when Ron Paul is asked about global warming, he says property rights (without government regulation) come first. In congress, Ron Paul’s voting record on this issue has been consistently bad. And while Alexander Cockburn not only supports the racist-sexist-homophobic and anti-environmental campaign of Ron Paul, he has written a dip-shit article claiming that human caused global-warming is a myth. EVERY scientific academy of the industrialized world knows that human caused global warming is a fact, yet Cockburn is up to bat for big oil helping create the impression that there is debate on an issue where there is scientific consensus.
As to the arguments on which would be worse, Clinton or Paul, like I said, this is just the same old lesser evil bullshit argument for getting the left to back one of the two rightwing corporate parties who rule America. They both suck and neither should be supported.
Joke:
Q: How did the American ruling class get Robert Norse to vote for Mussolini?
A: They ran him against Hitler and told Robert that Mussolini was the lesser of the two evils.
Friday Feb 1st, 2008 3:14 PM
In reading Robert's post also noticed he said, "Certainly similar regard should to go Green, Socialist, and other candidates."
Good point Robert. So when are you going to start? How about having Stewart Alexander and / or Brian Moore on your show?
Good point Robert. So when are you going to start? How about having Stewart Alexander and / or Brian Moore on your show?
Friday Feb 1st, 2008 11:13 PM
Sounds good. Send out an invitation, and I'll schedule 'em
Friday Feb 1st, 2008 11:54 PM
Will do. Let's set up times by e-mail.
Tuesday Feb 12th, 2008 10:47 AM
Sensible sounding stuff in the article below. Any thoughts from indybay readers?
from http://www.counterpunch.org
February 12, 2008
Shame On Us All
Antiwarriors: Divided and Conquered
By JOHN V. WALSH
There is an enormous antiwar majority in this country--upwards of 70%. And yet the war goes on and on and on. Who is to blame? We could blame the denizens of the two war parties in Congress. The leading Republican and Democrat presidential candidates have a record - and without exception it is a prowar record. McCain froths at the mouth at the prospect of more war. Hillary was there from the beginning and has voted yea on every prowar resolution in the Senate--from authorizing the war to voting for the trillions that have been used to fund the damned thing.
Comparing the votes of Edwards and Obama is especially instructive. When Edwards had a vote in the Senate, his votes declared him prowar. Once without a vote, he said he was against the war - but there was no voting record to show it. He was for it before he was against it. Obama's record is even less defensible. He said he was against the war until he had a Senate vote. Then he voted for each and every prowar appropriation. Hence, Obama was against it before he was for it. In every case, give them a vote and they vote to kill.
But what about the rest of us? We know that the world is bristling with nuclear weapons; and wars and a war mentality threaten us with their use. Nuclear winter threatens all higher life with extinction, and nuclear winter is still all too possible. In fact nuclear winter would make global warming look like a kiddy sandbox.
And beyond the threat to our very survival, empire and the wars that spring from it threaten our civil and political liberties, without which no change, no progress is possible. The Libertarians especially have raised the point that, once empire crowds out a republic, then the days of liberty are gone. The paleoconservatives agree. And the progressives also agree, recognizing as well that valued social programs cannot be funded with enormous wealth plowed into our empire of 757 foreign military bases and 969 domestic bases, none designed for defense but instead for offense to "project power" throughout the empire.
With such strong and varied antiwar sentiment, is it not remarkable that the antiwar movement has come to nothing? Our country is now embroiled in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in countries on Russia's perimeter, in Iran, in many parts of Africa and elsewhere. And the war parties, Democrat and Republican, are itching for a fight with China. Altogether the situation is pretty miserable.
So why the great gap between popular sentiment and effective antiwar action? I submit that the war parties, Democrat and Republican, very effectively use a divide and conquer tactic--and the antiwar forces play into it, usually quite eagerly. So when some on the left have good things to say about Ron Paul, the sterile lefty ideologues quickly change the subject. If that does not work, those who speak favorably of Paul are excoriated for being right wingers in our innermost thoughts, which we ourselves cannot plumb, we are told, although the psychoanalysts of the left can. And if that does not work, the thought nannies tell us that Ron Paul is a Nazi, another Hitler, who is to be opposed at all costs. That kind of stuff emanates especially strongly from the precincts of the New Republic, which has been calling for Paul's head ever since he dared say "AIPAC" in public. In so doing the asps at TNR are merely repeating the hate campaign against Pat Buchanan whom they and their allies at the National Review labeled an anti-Semite. And so the antiwar left is manipulated into avoiding alliances, which might actually make some headway. Thus we have the spectacle of progressives who eschew alliances that might make--well, progress.
The same is true on the other side. The Paleos and to a lesser degree the Libertarians cannot put aside differences with Greens and other leftists long enough to make headway against war and empire. As soon as common cause begins to be made, then the specter of increased social spending is raised by the Libertarians and of creeping secularism by the Paleos. Because everyone wants only allies that are in complete agreement, no alliances are made. And presto, the ruling war parties have divided and conquered.
Such behavior on the part of the antiwar movement is childish in the extreme. For the sake of ideological purity, we give up on making common cause with others who agree with us only in part. For an impossibly long shot at gaining everything, we sacrifice gaining the most important thing at the moment--an end to war and empire. That is not politics. That is theology--or perhaps more accurately the behavior of spoiled kids. Or perhaps even more accurately behavior unencumbered by the thought process. And it is boring to boot. The crowd one hangs with has all the answers to every question; and no matter how much reality shifts, as with the end of the Cold War, the answers remain the same.
So what is to be done? It is time for the various antiwar groupings and ideologies to get together and to do so in a way that can have an effect on the '08 elections. First we have to begin a conversation to decide on a course of action. And we must do it soon. So far the only places that seem willing to host such a conversation are CounterPunch.com, Antiwar.com and The American Conservative (TAC). There are also lots of smaller grass roots groups like AntiwarLeague.com and the Second Vermont Republic, which have made strides at unifying the various antiwar factions. It is clear, however, that UFPJ, ANSWER, "P"DA, The Nation and others will never serve this function. They will put loyalty to the Democrat Party over all else. Nor will the DemoGreens or the inside the beltway Libertarians ensconced in their high-priced digs at Cato act to break down barriers. They too put party, whether Democrat or Republican, first.
Perhaps with more debate revolving around the question of how we, the antiwar majority, are effectively marginalized, we can move forward. But to do so we all have to suspend some of our ideological certainties and stereotypes of the other and concede that there are more things in heaven and earth than we have dreamed of--or at least embraced in our theories. And we may find we have more in common than we thought. Why not do this? We have nothing to lose and much to gain. So let us hope that this discussion can begin in earnest. And let's move fast; 2008 is slipping away.
John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar [at] gmail.com
from http://www.counterpunch.org
February 12, 2008
Shame On Us All
Antiwarriors: Divided and Conquered
By JOHN V. WALSH
There is an enormous antiwar majority in this country--upwards of 70%. And yet the war goes on and on and on. Who is to blame? We could blame the denizens of the two war parties in Congress. The leading Republican and Democrat presidential candidates have a record - and without exception it is a prowar record. McCain froths at the mouth at the prospect of more war. Hillary was there from the beginning and has voted yea on every prowar resolution in the Senate--from authorizing the war to voting for the trillions that have been used to fund the damned thing.
Comparing the votes of Edwards and Obama is especially instructive. When Edwards had a vote in the Senate, his votes declared him prowar. Once without a vote, he said he was against the war - but there was no voting record to show it. He was for it before he was against it. Obama's record is even less defensible. He said he was against the war until he had a Senate vote. Then he voted for each and every prowar appropriation. Hence, Obama was against it before he was for it. In every case, give them a vote and they vote to kill.
But what about the rest of us? We know that the world is bristling with nuclear weapons; and wars and a war mentality threaten us with their use. Nuclear winter threatens all higher life with extinction, and nuclear winter is still all too possible. In fact nuclear winter would make global warming look like a kiddy sandbox.
And beyond the threat to our very survival, empire and the wars that spring from it threaten our civil and political liberties, without which no change, no progress is possible. The Libertarians especially have raised the point that, once empire crowds out a republic, then the days of liberty are gone. The paleoconservatives agree. And the progressives also agree, recognizing as well that valued social programs cannot be funded with enormous wealth plowed into our empire of 757 foreign military bases and 969 domestic bases, none designed for defense but instead for offense to "project power" throughout the empire.
With such strong and varied antiwar sentiment, is it not remarkable that the antiwar movement has come to nothing? Our country is now embroiled in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in countries on Russia's perimeter, in Iran, in many parts of Africa and elsewhere. And the war parties, Democrat and Republican, are itching for a fight with China. Altogether the situation is pretty miserable.
So why the great gap between popular sentiment and effective antiwar action? I submit that the war parties, Democrat and Republican, very effectively use a divide and conquer tactic--and the antiwar forces play into it, usually quite eagerly. So when some on the left have good things to say about Ron Paul, the sterile lefty ideologues quickly change the subject. If that does not work, those who speak favorably of Paul are excoriated for being right wingers in our innermost thoughts, which we ourselves cannot plumb, we are told, although the psychoanalysts of the left can. And if that does not work, the thought nannies tell us that Ron Paul is a Nazi, another Hitler, who is to be opposed at all costs. That kind of stuff emanates especially strongly from the precincts of the New Republic, which has been calling for Paul's head ever since he dared say "AIPAC" in public. In so doing the asps at TNR are merely repeating the hate campaign against Pat Buchanan whom they and their allies at the National Review labeled an anti-Semite. And so the antiwar left is manipulated into avoiding alliances, which might actually make some headway. Thus we have the spectacle of progressives who eschew alliances that might make--well, progress.
The same is true on the other side. The Paleos and to a lesser degree the Libertarians cannot put aside differences with Greens and other leftists long enough to make headway against war and empire. As soon as common cause begins to be made, then the specter of increased social spending is raised by the Libertarians and of creeping secularism by the Paleos. Because everyone wants only allies that are in complete agreement, no alliances are made. And presto, the ruling war parties have divided and conquered.
Such behavior on the part of the antiwar movement is childish in the extreme. For the sake of ideological purity, we give up on making common cause with others who agree with us only in part. For an impossibly long shot at gaining everything, we sacrifice gaining the most important thing at the moment--an end to war and empire. That is not politics. That is theology--or perhaps more accurately the behavior of spoiled kids. Or perhaps even more accurately behavior unencumbered by the thought process. And it is boring to boot. The crowd one hangs with has all the answers to every question; and no matter how much reality shifts, as with the end of the Cold War, the answers remain the same.
So what is to be done? It is time for the various antiwar groupings and ideologies to get together and to do so in a way that can have an effect on the '08 elections. First we have to begin a conversation to decide on a course of action. And we must do it soon. So far the only places that seem willing to host such a conversation are CounterPunch.com, Antiwar.com and The American Conservative (TAC). There are also lots of smaller grass roots groups like AntiwarLeague.com and the Second Vermont Republic, which have made strides at unifying the various antiwar factions. It is clear, however, that UFPJ, ANSWER, "P"DA, The Nation and others will never serve this function. They will put loyalty to the Democrat Party over all else. Nor will the DemoGreens or the inside the beltway Libertarians ensconced in their high-priced digs at Cato act to break down barriers. They too put party, whether Democrat or Republican, first.
Perhaps with more debate revolving around the question of how we, the antiwar majority, are effectively marginalized, we can move forward. But to do so we all have to suspend some of our ideological certainties and stereotypes of the other and concede that there are more things in heaven and earth than we have dreamed of--or at least embraced in our theories. And we may find we have more in common than we thought. Why not do this? We have nothing to lose and much to gain. So let us hope that this discussion can begin in earnest. And let's move fast; 2008 is slipping away.
John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar [at] gmail.com
Tuesday Feb 12th, 2008 3:14 PM
this racist bullshit isn't over yet?
get a life....
ron paul is about as racist as george bush is an intellectual... just furthers the point, that either you vote for ron paul or you're fucking retarded...
and don't get me wrong, not voting is a great option too, but if you vote, and you vote against ron paul, than you're just furthering the problem. I say make a stand and let the counts come in that we don't want the whore of babylon... cause she's been selected already... and all this bullshit about picking your team players is ludicrous.
Its not a political issue, because there are no other candidates. mike gravel and huckabee are just goats stealing votes from truth...
make no mistake its ron paul or guns... cause I know voting is worthless, and isn't really counted for anything, and that the only real answer is a violent militant guerilla revolution, but I said vote for ron paul because everything he'd do would in an ideal world make war unnecessary...
but its not. and he won't win, and she's been selected, make no mistake, hillary is the whore of babylon.
so get your guns....
get a life....
ron paul is about as racist as george bush is an intellectual... just furthers the point, that either you vote for ron paul or you're fucking retarded...
and don't get me wrong, not voting is a great option too, but if you vote, and you vote against ron paul, than you're just furthering the problem. I say make a stand and let the counts come in that we don't want the whore of babylon... cause she's been selected already... and all this bullshit about picking your team players is ludicrous.
Its not a political issue, because there are no other candidates. mike gravel and huckabee are just goats stealing votes from truth...
make no mistake its ron paul or guns... cause I know voting is worthless, and isn't really counted for anything, and that the only real answer is a violent militant guerilla revolution, but I said vote for ron paul because everything he'd do would in an ideal world make war unnecessary...
but its not. and he won't win, and she's been selected, make no mistake, hillary is the whore of babylon.
so get your guns....
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$ 100.00 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