As usual, this just turns into a witch hunt on someone's character. Didn't we go through this with Obama, too? Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, the birth certificate kerfluffle. We're debating associations, not anything the man specifically did or said. If you don't agree with Ron Paul's policies, don't vote for the guy. But if you fall into the typical trap of tossing a bunch of muck to see what sticks, you're contributing to the problem. Stick to actual issues that will actually get our country back on track vs. pretending to take some sort of moral stand.
As usual, this just turns into a witch hunt on someone's character. Didn't we go through this with Obama, too? Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, the birth certificate kerfluffle. We're debating associations, not anything the man specifically did or said. If you don't agree with Ron Paul's policies, don't vote for the guy. But if you fall into the typical trap of tossing a bunch of muck to see what sticks, you're contributing to the problem. Stick to actual issues that will actually get our country back on track vs. pretending to take some sort of moral stand.
I just posted a link that outlined how backwards Ron Paul is on is voting stances, but I also stand by the idea that he's a racist homophobe. Further, there's a difference between being a racist homophobic d-bag, and hanging out with a bunch of marxists. Put differently, I have republican friends who love the shit out of Ron Paul, and also adhere to his racist and homophobic beliefs and views...just because I hang out with them doesn't make me agree with their views. Conversely, they are racist and homophobic.
As usual, this just turns into a witch hunt on someone's character. Didn't we go through this with Obama, too? Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, the birth certificate kerfluffle. We're debating associations, not anything the man specifically did or said. If you don't agree with Ron Paul's policies, don't vote for the guy. But if you fall into the typical trap of tossing a bunch of muck to see what sticks, you're contributing to the problem. Stick to actual issues that will actually get our country back on track vs. pretending to take some sort of moral stand.
I just posted a link that outlined how backwards Ron Paul is on is voting stances, but I also stand by the idea that he's a racist homophobe. Further, there's a difference between being a racist homophobic d-bag, and hanging out with a bunch of marxists. Put differently, I have republican friends who love the shit out of Ron Paul, and also adhere to his racist and homophobic beliefs and views...just because I hang out with them doesn't make me agree with their views. Conversely, they are racist and homophobic.
While our country plunges further into debt and sets up military installations across the globe, I can sleep easy knowing there are people committed to detecting when folks have hate in their hearts. Perhaps you can dig up Joseph McCarthy's corpse and do this witch hunt up proper.
No one accused Jeremiah Wright of being a "Marxist." However....
Your thoughts? After all, this was Obama's spiritual advisor and baptized his children. I wouldn't hold this to Obama any more than I would hold the secondhand controversies you outlined to Paul, but I'm curious how this holds up to your keen eye.
Can we get this thread back on topic? Clearly, RW is not part of MT consensus on this issue, which is fine. He's pointed out repetitively that he thinks Ron Paul is a racist and is a homophobe. OK. We get it that he thinks that, now let's move on to discuss actual issues. To me, this discussion has kinda swerved into a "birther movement style" discussion, rather than a discussion on the vision that is Ron Paul. Why is that? Hmmm...
Can we get this thread back on topic? Clearly, RW is not part of MT consensus on this issue, which is fine. He's pointed out repetitively that he thinks Ron Paul is a racist and is a homophobe. OK. We get it that he thinks that, now let's move on to discuss actual issues. To me, this discussion has kinda swerved into a "birther movement style" discussion, rather than a discussion on the vision that is Ron Paul. Why is that? Hmmm...
I've said it before, but "the vision that is Ron Paul" is theory based fantasy at the root of it. Sure, some particular policies make sense and I would support, but the whole of it has no reality test to it. But despite this, supporters of him seem so sold on every aspect of his ideas bringing progress.
This is my point when repeatedly bringing this stuff up. I have said before he makes some sense with his policy, but the dude is going to implement policies at home that are infused with racism and homophobia (see: his voting record that demonstrates that he's pretty regressive when it comes to various public policies).
Can we get this thread back on topic? Clearly, RW is not part of MT consensus on this issue, which is fine. He's pointed out repetitively that he thinks Ron Paul is a racist and is a homophobe. OK. We get it that he thinks that, now let's move on to discuss actual issues. To me, this discussion has kinda swerved into a "birther movement style" discussion, rather than a discussion on the vision that is Ron Paul. Why is that? Hmmm...
I've said it before, but "the vision that is Ron Paul" is theory based fantasy at the root of it. Sure, some particular policies make sense and I would support, but the whole of it has no reality test to it. But despite this, supporters of him seem so sold on every aspect of his ideas bringing progress.
Ok. Was this point of view in 2002 based on theory or fantasy? It seem like this is pretty much an accurate account of what happened to me... in other words it seems like it passes the "reality test":
This is my point when repeatedly bringing this stuff up. I have said before he makes some sense with his policy, but the dude is going to implement policies at home that are infused with racism and homophobia (see: his voting record that demonstrates that he's pretty regressive when it comes to various public policies).
I'd simply ask you this question:
What policies would he implement that are "racist" or "homophobic"? I know of no such policies. In fact, I think one could easily could the current President is much more "racist" and/or "homophobic". For example, look at how the African American unemployment rate skyrocketed under this President. Were they pro-black policies? The data says "nope"... they were anything but "pro-black".
Do I think Obama is racist because his policies resulted in horrible trends in African American unemployment? No, I don't. But, my point is there's more data to back up Obama's policies being racist than Ron Paul's. Yet, neither are racist in my opinion. It's simply they have different views on what works and what doesn't.
To me, the people who are racist are the people who continue to focus on the race issue over and over. That seems to be done by one individual over and over in this thread, not naming names or anything, but it does seem to be the sole focus one person....
This is my point when repeatedly bringing this stuff up. I have said before he makes some sense with his policy, but the dude is going to implement policies at home that are infused with racism and homophobia (see: his voting record that demonstrates that he's pretty regressive when it comes to various public policies).
I don't want a link to what others have gathered. I want, in your words, what ron paul has done to promote racism in the public arena...apparently it should be pretty easy for you to find and then turn into your own words...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This is my point when repeatedly bringing this stuff up. I have said before he makes some sense with his policy, but the dude is going to implement policies at home that are infused with racism and homophobia (see: his voting record that demonstrates that he's pretty regressive when it comes to various public policies).
I don't want a link to what others have gathered. I want, in your words, what ron paul has done to promote racism in the public arena...apparently it should be pretty easy for you to find and then turn into your own words...
Some people want change by force, some people want change by choice. Ironically, progressives are the ones who are most in favor of using the government to force a way of life on everyone else. When are people going to realize that you cannot legislate a bad idea out of being, but you CAN force a bad idea (racism or other) down everyone's throats and institutionalize it through law? If anything, that idea is far more "regressive" than "progressive" to me-- especially considering that going to war and writing laws practically happen by decree these days (abuse of executive orders) or by blind cooperation from a totally complicit Congress who sold their souls a long time ago. That's reminiscent of monarchy and/or dictatorship.
There's all this outrage about Ron Paul's newsletters. The man missed about 60 paragraphs at most in about 12 years, and has written at least half a dozen other books in which their content speak to the contrary. That's funny-- he's also voted against every piece of legislation that he didn't / wasn't able to read! Where's the outrage against all of the people in Congress who approved of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES that actually affect race relations, wealth transfer, international relations, and the lives of the entire American citizenry that THEY DIDN'T READ? Those words become POLICY. They become LAW. They become heavy fines and jail time for those who don't follow them, and they may not necessarily always deal directly with race and religion, but almost always deal with financial / social class. Sure, most of them appear to be titled to serve the interests of the lower and middle class but whose actual content always benefit the upper-upper class. No one is saying what is written in the newsletters isn't horrible-- Paul said it too. But let's get real for a second, what's worse? Not reading and taking responsibility for a handful of insensitive statements against whole groups of people from a person who has never actually legislated against those people, or not reading and not taking responsibility thousands of pages that become the force of law and have the ability to destroy lives in one way or another?
Sadly, I believe that most people who don't like Ron Paul just don't want to like him. In the end, it has everything to do with the [R] next to his name-- speaking of people who like to collectivize whole groups of people instead of evaluating others on their individual merit...
The whole thing is worth a read, it is a little long, but I'll post some of the more glaring points about why certain progressives, NOT ALL, hate on Paul so much:
"As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.
The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones , cluster bombs and other forms of attack . He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA , far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever."
"It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?)."
Really, I've already copied and pasted most of the article. Just read the whole thing.
3rd place is just not good enough in Iowa (where Ron Paul is right now with 88% reporting). He needed a 1st place here to establish himself.
I think I understand what your saying, as a first place showing would have made him impossible to ignore but it is still a strong showing as he is at 21% to romney's and santorum's 24%. Caucuses are weird anyway. Santorum may win it for crying out loud. That guy has been at 2% dam the entire campaign.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
The fact that Santorum could win any state just shows how fucked up the United States is. Religious nutjobs winning elections...Kind of reminds me of Iran. That's all America really is, a western civilization Iran. Just wrapped up in a prettier package.
The fact that Santorum could win any state just shows how fucked up the United States is. Religious nutjobs winning elections...Kind of reminds me of Iran. That's all America really is, a western civilization Iran. Just wrapped up in a prettier package.
"Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time the authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for “really bad people” or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware."
What the fuck would Obama do something like this for? Paul is right, we should BEWARE. :evil:
I'll feel so bad for all the americans who did vote for Paul but for those who didnt, just fuck why Santorum and Romney?? whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy???????? O,O
America really going the road for another time? the same damnnn loooooong painfull road???...
The peace is just right infront of the american people and they fucking vote for Santorum & another obama? WTFFFFFFFFFFFF....
I'll feel so bad for all the americans who did vote for Paul but for those who didnt, just fuck why Santorum and Romney?? whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy???????? O,O
America really going the road for another time? the same damnnn loooooong painfull road???...
The peace is just right infront of the american people and they fucking vote for Santorum & another obama? WTFFFFFFFFFFFF....
america has a very weak democracy ... many people are apathetic and disengaged ... they are easily indoctrinated ... just the way the establishment wants them ...
anyhoo - having said that ... it's just iowa here ... shouldn't read too much into last night's results outside of Romney is the leading candidate ... always has been ...
I'll feel so bad for all the americans who did vote for Paul but for those who didnt, just fuck why Santorum and Romney?? whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy???????? O,O
America really going the road for another time? the same damnnn loooooong painfull road???...
The peace is just right infront of the american people and they fucking vote for Santorum & another obama? WTFFFFFFFFFFFF....
america has a very weak democracy ... many people are apathetic and disengaged ... they are easily indoctrinated ... just the way the establishment wants them ...
anyhoo - having said that ... it's just iowa here ... shouldn't read too much into last night's results outside of Romney is the leading candidate ... always has been ...
Easily indoctrinated?
You canadians are so superior it's hilarious. You know everything about the USA.
I'll feel so bad for all the americans who did vote for Paul but for those who didnt, just fuck why Santorum and Romney?? whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy???????? O,O
America really going the road for another time? the same damnnn loooooong painfull road???...
The peace is just right infront of the american people and they fucking vote for Santorum & another obama? WTFFFFFFFFFFFF....
america has a very weak democracy ... many people are apathetic and disengaged ... they are easily indoctrinated ... just the way the establishment wants them ...
anyhoo - having said that ... it's just iowa here ... shouldn't read too much into last night's results outside of Romney is the leading candidate ... always has been ...
Easily indoctrinated?
You canadians are so superior it's hilarious. You know everything about the USA.
I've been to canada quite a few times to many places and the only differance between US citizens and canadian citizens is that half the ones I met wanted to be citizens of the United States of America, not knocking anybody but the only Americans I know that wanted to be canadians were draft dodgers and criminals serious, we are all the same and want the same things out of life it's our government that throws a wrench into the works......did I say that out loud..
Not in their beer prices. A case of Kokanee was $36 and you get shorted a beer since bottles are 11.5 ounces.
Also, somewhere around the 43rd parallel I've found that you start travelling back in time the further north you go. This is applicable to American towns as well. For instance, Superior, WI is currently in the year 1971. I've been to Canadian towns where the guy running the filling pump didn't know their are different octanes of gasoline ... they must have not existed in the 1950's.
Not in their beer prices. A case of Kokanee was $36 and you get shorted a beer since bottles are 11.5 ounces.
Also, somewhere around the 43rd parallel I've found that you start travelling back in time the further north you go. This is applicable to American towns as well. For instance, Superior, WI is currently in the year 1971. I've been to Canadian towns where the guy running the filling pump didn't know their are different octanes of gasoline ... they must have not existed in the 1950's.
The fact that Santorum could win any state just shows how fucked up the United States is. Religious nutjobs winning elections...Kind of reminds me of Iran. That's all America really is, a western civilization Iran. Just wrapped up in a prettier package.
Really? That bad huh?
My statement really isn't that crazy. Both countries have some progressive thinkers that want to move this world closer to a peaceful one where everyone minds their own business. But both countries have religious leaders running their governments pushing us towards more war.
How do you think it looks to Iranians and others around the world when a candidate flat out says he wants to bomb Iran and then nearly wins a states vote to be leader of one of the two main parties in the US??? Can you imagine the uproar in the US if an Iranian leader was calling for the bombing of the United States??
Progressive thinking peaceful minded Americans need to take the country back from from the religious nutjobs. But sadly that is tough to do when the evangelicals are so fanatical and get so involved in the decision making.
Comments
I just posted a link that outlined how backwards Ron Paul is on is voting stances, but I also stand by the idea that he's a racist homophobe. Further, there's a difference between being a racist homophobic d-bag, and hanging out with a bunch of marxists. Put differently, I have republican friends who love the shit out of Ron Paul, and also adhere to his racist and homophobic beliefs and views...just because I hang out with them doesn't make me agree with their views. Conversely, they are racist and homophobic.
While our country plunges further into debt and sets up military installations across the globe, I can sleep easy knowing there are people committed to detecting when folks have hate in their hearts. Perhaps you can dig up Joseph McCarthy's corpse and do this witch hunt up proper.
No one accused Jeremiah Wright of being a "Marxist." However....
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local ... 3283.story
Your thoughts? After all, this was Obama's spiritual advisor and baptized his children. I wouldn't hold this to Obama any more than I would hold the secondhand controversies you outlined to Paul, but I'm curious how this holds up to your keen eye.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I've said it before, but "the vision that is Ron Paul" is theory based fantasy at the root of it. Sure, some particular policies make sense and I would support, but the whole of it has no reality test to it. But despite this, supporters of him seem so sold on every aspect of his ideas bringing progress.
Ok. Was this point of view in 2002 based on theory or fantasy? It seem like this is pretty much an accurate account of what happened to me... in other words it seems like it passes the "reality test":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-RPJ7fk ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8XYF0L ... =endscreen
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'd simply ask you this question:
What policies would he implement that are "racist" or "homophobic"? I know of no such policies. In fact, I think one could easily could the current President is much more "racist" and/or "homophobic". For example, look at how the African American unemployment rate skyrocketed under this President. Were they pro-black policies? The data says "nope"... they were anything but "pro-black".
Do I think Obama is racist because his policies resulted in horrible trends in African American unemployment? No, I don't. But, my point is there's more data to back up Obama's policies being racist than Ron Paul's. Yet, neither are racist in my opinion. It's simply they have different views on what works and what doesn't.
To me, the people who are racist are the people who continue to focus on the race issue over and over. That seems to be done by one individual over and over in this thread, not naming names or anything, but it does seem to be the sole focus one person....
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I don't want a link to what others have gathered. I want, in your words, what ron paul has done to promote racism in the public arena...apparently it should be pretty easy for you to find and then turn into your own words...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Some people want change by force, some people want change by choice. Ironically, progressives are the ones who are most in favor of using the government to force a way of life on everyone else. When are people going to realize that you cannot legislate a bad idea out of being, but you CAN force a bad idea (racism or other) down everyone's throats and institutionalize it through law? If anything, that idea is far more "regressive" than "progressive" to me-- especially considering that going to war and writing laws practically happen by decree these days (abuse of executive orders) or by blind cooperation from a totally complicit Congress who sold their souls a long time ago. That's reminiscent of monarchy and/or dictatorship.
There's all this outrage about Ron Paul's newsletters. The man missed about 60 paragraphs at most in about 12 years, and has written at least half a dozen other books in which their content speak to the contrary. That's funny-- he's also voted against every piece of legislation that he didn't / wasn't able to read! Where's the outrage against all of the people in Congress who approved of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES that actually affect race relations, wealth transfer, international relations, and the lives of the entire American citizenry that THEY DIDN'T READ? Those words become POLICY. They become LAW. They become heavy fines and jail time for those who don't follow them, and they may not necessarily always deal directly with race and religion, but almost always deal with financial / social class. Sure, most of them appear to be titled to serve the interests of the lower and middle class but whose actual content always benefit the upper-upper class. No one is saying what is written in the newsletters isn't horrible-- Paul said it too. But let's get real for a second, what's worse? Not reading and taking responsibility for a handful of insensitive statements against whole groups of people from a person who has never actually legislated against those people, or not reading and not taking responsibility thousands of pages that become the force of law and have the ability to destroy lives in one way or another?
Sadly, I believe that most people who don't like Ron Paul just don't want to like him. In the end, it has everything to do with the [R] next to his name-- speaking of people who like to collectivize whole groups of people instead of evaluating others on their individual merit...
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... singleton/
The whole thing is worth a read, it is a little long, but I'll post some of the more glaring points about why certain progressives, NOT ALL, hate on Paul so much:
"As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.
The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones , cluster bombs and other forms of attack . He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA , far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever."
"It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?)."
Really, I've already copied and pasted most of the article. Just read the whole thing.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"With our thoughts we make the world"
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Really? That bad huh?
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/1 ... re-rights/
"Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time the authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for “really bad people” or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware."
What the fuck would Obama do something like this for? Paul is right, we should BEWARE. :evil:
America really going the road for another time? the same damnnn loooooong painfull road???...
The peace is just right infront of the american people and they fucking vote for Santorum & another obama? WTFFFFFFFFFFFF....
america has a very weak democracy ... many people are apathetic and disengaged ... they are easily indoctrinated ... just the way the establishment wants them ...
anyhoo - having said that ... it's just iowa here ... shouldn't read too much into last night's results outside of Romney is the leading candidate ... always has been ...
Easily indoctrinated?
You canadians are so superior it's hilarious. You know everything about the USA.
Have you been there? They are superior.
like i've been saying all these years ... you guys get so bent out of shape and defensive - you don't see what is so evident in front of your eyes ...
although i'm confused as to how you can gripe about all canadians based on my comment or a few people on this board ...
Godfather.
Also, somewhere around the 43rd parallel I've found that you start travelling back in time the further north you go. This is applicable to American towns as well. For instance, Superior, WI is currently in the year 1971. I've been to Canadian towns where the guy running the filling pump didn't know their are different octanes of gasoline ... they must have not existed in the 1950's.
but we make it up in alcohol content!
My statement really isn't that crazy. Both countries have some progressive thinkers that want to move this world closer to a peaceful one where everyone minds their own business. But both countries have religious leaders running their governments pushing us towards more war.
How do you think it looks to Iranians and others around the world when a candidate flat out says he wants to bomb Iran and then nearly wins a states vote to be leader of one of the two main parties in the US??? Can you imagine the uproar in the US if an Iranian leader was calling for the bombing of the United States??
Progressive thinking peaceful minded Americans need to take the country back from from the religious nutjobs. But sadly that is tough to do when the evangelicals are so fanatical and get so involved in the decision making.
This is a good point. Taken.
Yep, I've been there. Not very many places, but some nice ones like Toronto. I had to step over homeless people at each crosswalk.