Fuck Ron Paul

[11:11]

Several months may be more like it. BushCo has a deadline.

[MASONIC PLOT]

By the way, I'm in almost full agreement with everything that you've said in this thread, Masonic

Thank you, Banta. I appreciate the nod. I may not be articulating some of my points well enough for all to see, but I do think some of the things I mentioned about Ron Paul bringing ideas like limited federal govt and privatization to the forefront of mainstream political thought will show to be true in the long run. There is no doubt in my mind that the corporate neo fascists who control this country want to make the final step and take over most of the governments traditional responsibilities, including military and local, state and federal law enforcement (homeland security included). It seems ironic to me that Ron Paul is getting everyone into a frenzy over these exact ideas at the very time the government and corporations are ready to take that very step. There is more to the Ron Paul phenom than meets the eye and I think people would be wise to consider what I am trying to point out here.

The fact that Ron Paul is being rejected by the mainstream parties and given a cold shoulder by the media only makes things that much clearer. The people are desperate for a fresh outsider voice, the more the media rejects him the more people will listen to his ideas, again, those ideas are the same ideas on many levels as those of the neo fascist corporate police state goons who are working behind the scenes to turn America into the 4th Reich.

[medicis]

re: MP's comment. That is a possible scenario.... but, and this is a big bottomed girl, Ron Paul claims to be a strict constitutionalist. If that is the case. And if it is enacted..... I may be able to live with that result for a time. I know full well that I cannot live with the alternative scheduled by the elites.

Futher, regarding a previous issue. I do not view it as optimist vs pessimist. I am a pessimist. I think serfdom is on its way. I see chaos and despair. I see many many people dead. Me too. Because I will fight. If Ron Paul acts as a strict constitutionalist (if he were president) at least some of the Republic might be restored. Whether he would act in accord with his stated intentions I have no clue. But I know damn well not one.. not one of the other cadidates even pretends to care about it except K and G.

I am a realist. I believe that some corporatist like Obama or Clinton etc. will win. The only real hope that a new attempt at a 1000 year Riech will fail is the hope that the whole damn thing will collapse. But if it does not, then you or your progeny will be chipped and the chances for any escape or any otherthrow will be just about zip.

We either do something now (whatever that may mean) or we will be able to do nothing at all.

So yeh, I'd vote for Ron Paul. At least for the chance. Because, as I have said tediously (I know), if we don't get our rights and the Republic back we will have nothing. And the other issues some are legitmately concerned about will not even be on the table. But am I an optimist? No.

[stickdog99]

Ron Paul has never impressed me as anything other than the best of an extremely bad lot of Repukes, but he must be doing something right to rile up nomo so horribly.

[Spoonerian]

Its interesting that nobody has complained about the way that Ron Paul panders to the right and left wing populists when he promises to "control the borders" which means beefing up "people control" and the War on Mexicans. This war--loved by the bigotted right and the wage protectionist left alike--is a perfect example of how self described libertarians and constitutionalists can be duped into begging government mafia goons to imprison themselves in a police state grid in order to protect themselves from monsters.

For some righty "libertarians", all it takes is FOX news to tell them that Muslims are going to get them in order for them to throw the constitution and the non-aggression principle out the window and excuse a police state. For other libertarians, it takes the spector of swarms of brown and yellow people moving into their neighborhoods. It kind of makes one appreciate the honesty of conservatives and liberals who proudly admit that their brutal government warfare state is well worth the goodies they perceive they get in return from the government welfare state.

Nowadays, you have to look far and wide to find a real libertarian who celebrates the un-stamped, un-taxed, un-chipped, un-controlled status of the free illegal immigrant. We all know that the major tier candidates will soon have all of these Mexicans chipped like the rest of us. But as this is done, the lower tier "libertarian" fringe will be allowed to beg for and get more Berlin walls, internal checkpoints, business-to-business raids by troops trained in Iraq--you know, the standing government armies in our midst that the 2nd amendment and article 1 section 8 of the constitution were supposed to prohibit.

* * *

MP, I believe your theory about Ron Paul being used as a dupe of neo fascist corporate goons is much less true in his case than it is for a lot of other "libertarians". Some "libertarians" like the Reason Foundation use the word "privatization" to mean the government's stealing or printing 1/2 trillion dollars per year and then doling it out to corporations like Halliburton. But from what I've seen, Ron Paul usually agrees with the standard and true libertarian position which is to end the stealing of the 1/2 trillion dollars per year and respecting the rights of the money's rightful owners to decide how they want to spend it.

Now as for "the governments traditional responsibilities, including military and local, state and federal law enforcement (homeland security included)", the U.S. constitution and nearly all of the state constitutions are supposed to protect the people from the creation of any such armed gangs of government or tax-funded goons.

Again, you have to look far and wide for a real libertarian or constitutionalist with balls to call for enforcement of the constitutions' prohibitions against permanent government armies. Ron Paul has to pander to all those modern day conservatives who get a trickle down welfare check from Halliburton or directly from the government.

But Thomas Jefferson didn't have to worry when he wrote to Francis Hopkinson in 1789, "a [federal] bill of rights [must] secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, [and] freedom from a permanent military..."

[MASONIC PLOT]

MP, I believe your theory about Ron Paul being used as a dupe of neo fascist corporate goons is much less true in his case than it is for a lot of other "libertarians". Some "libertarians" like the Reason Foundation use the word "privatization" to mean the government's stealing or printing 1/2 trillion dollars per year and then doling it out to corporations like Halliburton. But from what I've seen, Ron Paul usually agrees with the standard and true libertarian position which is to end the stealing of the 1/2 trillion dollars per year and respecting the rights of the money's rightful owners to decide how they want to spend it.

I agree that may be what Ron Paul means and intends. BUT he is still getting the right buzzwords into the mainstream of political thinking at a time when the corporate neo fascists need those buzzwords in the mainstream of political thinking. He may not be doing knowingly, when he says things like privatization he likely means something entirely different than they do. But I think all these polls he is winning by huge margins are being manipulated by the neo fascist goons who want to use him to get their own sinister message programmed into the people's heads.

Privatization, dismantling the federal government, etc. are all things Ron Paul may want for the RIGHT REASONS, but the goons also want those things, albiet for the wrong reasons. He wants to dismantle government because it has become too big and all invasive, they want to dismantle government because they want to empower corporations to take over the government's responsibilities, eliminate oversite, and then continue towards their march to a 4th Reich.

Now as for "the governments traditional responsibilities, including military and local, state and federal law enforcement (homeland security included)", the U.S. constitution and nearly all of the state constitutions are supposed to protect the people from the creation of any such armed gangs of government or tax-funded goons.

But that isnt happening. Those constitutions are not protecting us from the fact that Blackwater is now building its own private air force right here in the US. I see a day very soon when we are told that our local police forces just cannot protect us from the new threats we face and must be replaced by retired special forces officers under the command of Blackwater Incorporated. When they pull you over and find a joint in your ashtray they will haul you off to the local Halliburton civilian camp, since Habeas Corpus has now been suspened. It is all falling in to place and headed in that direction exactly.

[chlamor]

the International Criminal Court:

"...The release referred to H. Res. 416, introduced by Rep. Paul on May 9th, 'Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.' As was the case with the two press releases, the resolution mixes valid concerns about the ICC with more praise for Bush, namely: 'President Bush should be commended for renouncing the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a step toward protecting American service-members and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated prosecutions....'"

Bush, the UN, and the ICC. (The Last Word).(George W. Bush, United Nations and the International Criminal Court)(Brief Article)(Column). Warren Mass.
The New American 18.13 (July 1, 2002): p44(1).
______________

Paul also wants the U.S. to quit the U.N. and UNESCO:

Latest vote to defund U.S. participation in the UN.(Insider Report)(United Nations)(United States)(Brief Article).
The New American 20.16 (August 9, 2004): p8(1).

I trust I don't have to tell you all what "The New American" is.
______________

Paul has had some friends and supporters from the Far Right *besides* David Duke:

SOME REPUBLICANS BACK FOE OF BUSH
KING, WAYNE. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 10, 1988. pg. A.14

Michigan-based supporters of Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential campaign circulated a letter in support of Ron Paul versus George H.W. Bush.

Meanwhile, "Howard Phillips, head of the Washington-based Conservative Caucus, and Richard Viguerie, a major fund-raiser for conservative causes and candidates, met with Mr. Paul in Washington:

"Mr. Phillips said in a telephone interview yesterday that while neither he nor Mr. Viguerie endorsed Mr. Paul, they encouraged his running to dramatize conservative economic issues. Mr. Phillips said he would act as an adviser to Mr. Paul but remain a Bush supporter."

"Mr. Paul was campaigning in Texas yesterday and could not be reached for comment. But he said in a recent interview in The San Diego Union. 'I identify with Robertson and I identify with a lot of the people who follow him.' But he said, 'He's not a libertarian - he's weak on civil liberties and I'm not sure about his foreign policy - but we all know Pat Robertson is not going to go anywhere, so we're the only place they can go afterward.'"


Is that San Diego Union interview worth digging up?

[chlamor]

Give Ron Paul a measly 17 points

Republicans for Environmental Protection's
2006 Congressional Scorecard
(released May 14, 2007)

Click here to download.
Read the press release.

The REP Scorecard rates House and Senate Republicans for their votes on critical energy, public lands, air, and water legislation. The 2006 edition features scores for last year's congressional action and a combined score for the 109th Congress.

The REP Scorecard is unique in several ways:

* It is the only scorecard that rates Republicans only. It compares apples to apples: Republican senators to Republican senators and Republican congressmen to Republican congressmen.
* It sets clear benchmarks for assessing the performance of Republicans on the vital environmental protection and conservation issues facing America.
* It rates lawmakers for the full year of congressional activity, to ensure the fairest, most complete assessment.
* It scores both positive and negative environmental leadership on issues, earning members both credits and demerits.

http://www.repamerica.org/scorecard.html

See scorecard pdf file.

[chlamor]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26365
-------------

Peace, Injustice and Ron Paul
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2007-09-01 02:17. Elections

By David Swanson

If Ron Paul had been president for the past 6 years, a million more Iraqis would be alive, and another 4 million would not be refugees. The world would be a safer place, and Americans would have lost fewer freedoms.

But more Americans would lack decent health care. More American children would lack adequate education. More families in America would struggle in poverty. Immigrant families would face increased threats and abuse. Women would have lost rights. And a growing oligarchy would further dominate American politics, making reversal of any admirable Paul policies likely.

Paul arrives at some admirable positions for some unexpected reasons. And his principles lead him to many reprehensible positions as well. He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.

Paul is brave enough to say what he thinks and stand by it. While there are Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee, who have that same quality, the Democratic Party as a whole has an established reputation of not standing and fighting for anything, and least of all peace.

So, it's not completely surprising that a lot of opponents of the occupation of Iraq are looking to Paul as the best presidential candidate out there. Many Paul supporters really want peace and want it for the best reasons, but they detest the word "liberal" and loathe "big government." Others are not quite in that camp but consider the war such an overwhelmingly important issue that they don't much care what Paul's other positions are.

But Paul would end the occupation of Iraq and offer the Iraqi people not a dime to help rebuild the nation we've destroyed. In fact, he would cut the pittance we give in foreign aid around the world. But Paul has never, to my knowledge, said he would cut a single dollar from the biggest big government expense there is, much bigger than any war: the yearly budget of the Pentagon. And if he thinks he can keep funding that and NOT launch new wars, he hasn't thought about the workings of our government quite enough.

So, a Paul government would be stingy, extravagant, war-prone despite itself, and in debt. Would Paul solve that problem be reinstating progressive taxation for the super wealthy and corporations? No, he'd cut taxes. Of course, taxes SHOULD be cut for most people. But unless they're raised for the wealthy and corporations, we will have even more debt (which Paul says he opposes) or we will have to make massive cuts in what's left of the non-military public sector. And that's exactly what Paul would like to see: "wasteful agencies" and "governments collecting foreign aid" are among his targets. Rather than increasing funding for public schools, his solution for education would be to cut more taxes (the thinking being that this would allow parents to teach their children at home). That works for parents who want to do that and don't have to work. But most parents don't want to do that and do have to work. And with a president Paul allowing the minimum wage to plummet, opposing living wage standards, and doing nothing to restore the right to unionize, parents' work hours would not be shrinking.

<snipped>

[MASONIC PLOT]

"Mr. Paul was campaigning in Texas yesterday and could not be reached for comment. But he said in a recent interview in The San Diego Union. 'I identify with Robertson and I identify with a lot of the people who follow him.'

If he really said that, then yea, FUCK RON PAUL.

[chiggerbit]

I found this in the comment section at reasononline:

Apparently Scientologists love him because of his consistent votes against required psych screening in public schools. A woman I know runs a nonprofit to prevent these tests, and has been getting all kinds of Scientology cred for it.
There's something in the Ron Paul bag for everyone!

[ninakat]

chlamor, thanks for all your postings -- very enlightening, especially the David Swanson article which emphasizes correctly, in my view, the mixed bag of what Ron Paul is all about. I was especially struck by this, which speaks volumes:

He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.

And, the assertion by Swanson that Paul has no intention of cutting the Pentagon budget. I'd like to see that verified, although I don't doubt it.

[ninakat]

I found this in the comment section at reasononline:

Apparently Scientologists love him because of his consistent votes against required psych screening in public schools. A woman I know runs a nonprofit to prevent these tests, and has been getting all kinds of Scientology cred for it.
There's something in the Ron Paul bag for everyone!

Fascinating. Frightening. Perfect example of something that both extremes of the political spectrum can agree upon. That's why I love him and I hate him.

[Spoonerian]

And, the assertion by Swanson that Paul has no intention of cutting the Pentagon budget. I'd like to see that verified, although I don't doubt it.

He's on record calling for a 70% reduction in the military industrial complex's annual budget. That's pretty ballsy in a world where most of the left, right, lower, and middle classes all think they need these warfare state theft programs to survive:

http://www.allronpaul.com/2007/05/trans ... ch-at.html

So why not we do this? If it's at one trillion dollars, lets say that we could have a true national defense for, say, 700 billion dollars, I mean, save 700, spend 300 on defense, save 700, put a lot of that to the deficit, bring it home, deal with our borders, and make sure that the people that are very dependent, take care of them until we can wean them off. (applause)

Note: he had to throw in the "borders" thing to give the militarists something to wage war on. And MP is probably right, somehow the establishment media will spin this 70% reduction in the MIC's budget as handing over power to the corporate fascists.

[11:11]

chlamor, thanks for all your postings -- very enlightening, especially the David Swanson article which emphasizes correctly, in my view, the mixed bag of what Ron Paul is all about. I was especially struck by this, which speaks volumes:

He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.

And, the assertion by Swanson that Paul has no intention of cutting the Pentagon budget. I'd like to see that verified, although I don't doubt it.

Ron Paul said that (praphrase) they don't hate us for our freedoms - they hate us because we've been over there, bombing them (Iraq) for 10 years. That was when Guiliani attacked him for being deluded and weak on the war on terror. Paul blames the emperialist US foreign policy for the ill will toward Americans, and he always has. He has also addressed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying from US sanctions. He's blamed the Iranian revolution on the US overthrowing a democratic regime in the 50's, and installing the brutal Shah. Blowback from a monsterous foreign policy.

My only criticism is that he doesn't believe 9/11 was inside job. He wants a REAL investigation, so maybe he'll come around. (if we ever get it). I don't suppose he has time to hang on line and read the 911/bloggers.

As for the Pentagon budget, it's gonna have a hard time being sustained with ALL US troops pulled out from ALL over the world, and no IRS/federal income tax.

Educating Rudy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

(uh-oh: the support for Israel is mentiond! Must be anti semitic. Well, he is on the ADL/JDL hit list.)

This thread is full of so many lies, so much distoration and bullshit, I can't even bother to invest the energy to pull up the facts to refute it all. It doesn't much matter, though, because the posters who are doing this will never be supporting Ron Paul or the Constitution, anyway.