"Ron Paul, Though Crazy, is CONSISTENTLY Crazy"
sweetpotato
Posts: 1,278
In Defense of Ron Paul*
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on November 29, 2007, Printed on November 29, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/69139/
*Ron Paul's a wingnut, yes, but he's an anti-empire, anti-war wingnut who doesn't believe the president should be king.
Ron Paul has arrived, thanks in large part to the unrivaled intensity of his supporters. In the weeks since his dedicated -- some say obsessive -- online army organized a "money bomb" that delivered over $4 million in a single day to Paul's war chest, his quixotic campaign has gotten a boatload of media attention. It is officially the quirky, nontraditional candidate story of the 2008 race. If the campaign pulls off the $10 million "tea party" planned for Dec. 16, the spotlight on Paul will get hotter still.
With that attention comes a new level of scrutiny, as one would expect. But most of the media's analyses don't put the Paul "sensation" into a larger context. Often missing is the degree to which Paul's popularity is related to Washington's structural inability to handle the issues most important to American voters -- a flaw that extends to the corporate media as well. Lacking that context, the criticism flung at the Paul campaign is superficial and distracting.
Progressive bloggers have started to take notice of the insurgent campaign as well, and there's been a spasm of critical posts slicing and dicing the Ron Paul experience. Unfortunately, too many of them have focused not on Paul's record, his beliefs or why he's become such a phenomenon in the race for the White House, but on his supporters, who include a nasty little assortment of feverish nativists, half-baked ultranationalists, white supremacists, New World Order conspiracy theorists, etc., in addition to the (no doubt far more numerous) ordinary, pissed-off patriotic Americans who are attracted to his candidacy.
So we've recently discovered that Ron Paul is backed by: people minting their own "cuckoo bananas money" and members of an identity theft ring. We've learned that "Paul has the support of David Duke" and Stormfront has a YouTube audio commercial up supporting Paul. Also supporting him are the "Patriot" movement "nutjobs with guns and anti-government leanings" who were made famous by homegrown terrorist Timothy McVeigh. He's loved by the owner of a Nevada whorehouse and has even gotten the nod from Hutton Gibson, Mel's wingnut father and the man who taught him everything he ever needed to know about those damn Jews.
To which I can only say: OK, folks, we get it. If we accept guilt by association as a reasonable political argument, then Paul is as guilty as they come.
But not directly so. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out:
The Paul campaign has a hands-off approach when it comes to supporters' activities and political backgrounds. While grateful for the money, aides insist they aren't responsible for what supporters do online. "We don't know who a lot of these people are," says Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman … "Sometimes Ron Paul supporters get a little overpassionate and maybe a little more shrill than what some might like," Mr. Benton says.
Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and many of the bloggers making hay out of Paul's less savory supporters are happy to slam what the Clintons famously called the "politics of personal destruction" -- the tactic, popular on the right, of turning various public figures who support Democrats into pernicious liberal strawmen whose excesses are supposedly evidence of how out of touch progressives are.
But more than that, the typical analysis misses the fundamental dynamic driving Paul's popularity. His campaign occupies that political space where right- and left-populism intersect, and that space exists only because there are significant areas of national policy where neither of the two parties, nor any of the "mainstream" candidates, have shown any willingness to represent their constituents.
Polls show that a majority of Americans want a withdrawal from Iraq, but none of the leading candidates are calling for a complete pull-out. Three-quarters of Americans oppose a permanent military presence there, yet the same number believe that the United States would not withdraw even if asked by the Iraqi "government." A majority oppose the White House's claim that it can torture whom it likes, but the Democrat-controlled Congress confirmed an attorney general who wouldn't say that water-boarding -- prosecuted as torture by military courts since the Spanish-American War -- is illegal. More Americans think K Street's "trade" deals hurt Americans than believe they help, but among the first acts of the new Congress was to strike a new "grand bargain" with Bush on trade. Voters want to see movement on healthcare, immigration, retirement security and job outsourcing, and on all of these issues the Big Money candidates in both parties, with the possible exception of John Edwards, either stand moot or offer fluffy platitudes about change while ferociously defending the status quo.
Ron Paul is a reactionary, yes, but he speaks to these and other ignored issues -- speaks to voters' growing disenfranchisement and lack of trust in government, to their fears and insecurities about the future -- in a way that the rest of the field won't, and any analysis of the Ron Paul phenomenon that doesn't acknowledge that reality misses the heart of the story.
(con't)
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on November 29, 2007, Printed on November 29, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/69139/
*Ron Paul's a wingnut, yes, but he's an anti-empire, anti-war wingnut who doesn't believe the president should be king.
Ron Paul has arrived, thanks in large part to the unrivaled intensity of his supporters. In the weeks since his dedicated -- some say obsessive -- online army organized a "money bomb" that delivered over $4 million in a single day to Paul's war chest, his quixotic campaign has gotten a boatload of media attention. It is officially the quirky, nontraditional candidate story of the 2008 race. If the campaign pulls off the $10 million "tea party" planned for Dec. 16, the spotlight on Paul will get hotter still.
With that attention comes a new level of scrutiny, as one would expect. But most of the media's analyses don't put the Paul "sensation" into a larger context. Often missing is the degree to which Paul's popularity is related to Washington's structural inability to handle the issues most important to American voters -- a flaw that extends to the corporate media as well. Lacking that context, the criticism flung at the Paul campaign is superficial and distracting.
Progressive bloggers have started to take notice of the insurgent campaign as well, and there's been a spasm of critical posts slicing and dicing the Ron Paul experience. Unfortunately, too many of them have focused not on Paul's record, his beliefs or why he's become such a phenomenon in the race for the White House, but on his supporters, who include a nasty little assortment of feverish nativists, half-baked ultranationalists, white supremacists, New World Order conspiracy theorists, etc., in addition to the (no doubt far more numerous) ordinary, pissed-off patriotic Americans who are attracted to his candidacy.
So we've recently discovered that Ron Paul is backed by: people minting their own "cuckoo bananas money" and members of an identity theft ring. We've learned that "Paul has the support of David Duke" and Stormfront has a YouTube audio commercial up supporting Paul. Also supporting him are the "Patriot" movement "nutjobs with guns and anti-government leanings" who were made famous by homegrown terrorist Timothy McVeigh. He's loved by the owner of a Nevada whorehouse and has even gotten the nod from Hutton Gibson, Mel's wingnut father and the man who taught him everything he ever needed to know about those damn Jews.
To which I can only say: OK, folks, we get it. If we accept guilt by association as a reasonable political argument, then Paul is as guilty as they come.
But not directly so. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out:
The Paul campaign has a hands-off approach when it comes to supporters' activities and political backgrounds. While grateful for the money, aides insist they aren't responsible for what supporters do online. "We don't know who a lot of these people are," says Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman … "Sometimes Ron Paul supporters get a little overpassionate and maybe a little more shrill than what some might like," Mr. Benton says.
Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and many of the bloggers making hay out of Paul's less savory supporters are happy to slam what the Clintons famously called the "politics of personal destruction" -- the tactic, popular on the right, of turning various public figures who support Democrats into pernicious liberal strawmen whose excesses are supposedly evidence of how out of touch progressives are.
But more than that, the typical analysis misses the fundamental dynamic driving Paul's popularity. His campaign occupies that political space where right- and left-populism intersect, and that space exists only because there are significant areas of national policy where neither of the two parties, nor any of the "mainstream" candidates, have shown any willingness to represent their constituents.
Polls show that a majority of Americans want a withdrawal from Iraq, but none of the leading candidates are calling for a complete pull-out. Three-quarters of Americans oppose a permanent military presence there, yet the same number believe that the United States would not withdraw even if asked by the Iraqi "government." A majority oppose the White House's claim that it can torture whom it likes, but the Democrat-controlled Congress confirmed an attorney general who wouldn't say that water-boarding -- prosecuted as torture by military courts since the Spanish-American War -- is illegal. More Americans think K Street's "trade" deals hurt Americans than believe they help, but among the first acts of the new Congress was to strike a new "grand bargain" with Bush on trade. Voters want to see movement on healthcare, immigration, retirement security and job outsourcing, and on all of these issues the Big Money candidates in both parties, with the possible exception of John Edwards, either stand moot or offer fluffy platitudes about change while ferociously defending the status quo.
Ron Paul is a reactionary, yes, but he speaks to these and other ignored issues -- speaks to voters' growing disenfranchisement and lack of trust in government, to their fears and insecurities about the future -- in a way that the rest of the field won't, and any analysis of the Ron Paul phenomenon that doesn't acknowledge that reality misses the heart of the story.
(con't)
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ron Paul is running for president, and I'm not suggesting that he's somehow above criticism -- an idea that Paul's supporters often seem to embrace. His is a brand of politics well outside the American mainstream, and that's revealed, clearly, in his legislative record. That record, and Ron Paul's governing philosophy, provide more than enough grist for the critical mill -- there's no need to indulge in cheap shots.
Paul's libertarian impulses don't appear to extend to the issue of reproductive choice -- he's introduced four bills, including a Constitutional amendment, defining human life as beginning with conception. That doesn't make him a run-of-the-mill, anti-choice conservative; the L.A. Times described the measure as part of an aggressive tactic "which could effectively outlaw all abortions and some birth control methods."
Some activists say they are fed up with incremental steps -- and are not interested in waiting years, or possibly decades, for a more conservative court to revisit Roe. Instead, they are out to change the legal status of embryos in hopes of forcing the Supreme Court to ban abortion.
"The concept that we're going to elect judges who will change everything has failed," said Brian Rohrbough, a former president of Colorado Right to Life. "The logical thing is to start with personhood. … It's the only legitimate tactic that does not involve a compromise."
The Times story noted that "every year since [Roe v. Wade], members of Congress have introduced a bill to [define human life as beginning with conception], but they never got anywhere." On several occasions, that member of Congress was none other than Dr. Ron Paul.
Paul's proposed a number of court-stripping measures, shutting the courthouse door to discrimination suits based on sexual discrimination; he's tried to prohibit the government from mandating a minimum wage; he's tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, which guarantees that workers on federal projects be paid a prevailing wage, and the Copeland Act, which bars kick-backs on federal projects; he has proposed freezing Social Security benefit levels and making the program fully optional, which would effectively destroy it; he has opposed measures that promote more voter participation; he would repeal key parts of American anti-trust law, gutting it; he's tried to deauthorize most federal agencies' regulatory powers; he's tried to eliminate all affirmative action programs; he's proposed altering the 14th Amendment to prohibit the children of immigrants from gaining citizenship; he's proposed eliminating or gutting a variety of environmental legislation; he's tried to kill the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and submitted legislation that would pull the United States out of the United Nations 12 different times; he has tried to eradicate the Department of Education, offered legislation to end federal involvement in educating kids; and he has proposed, at various times, the abolition of most taxes on wealth as well as income and the establishment of a flat tax. All of this is legislation that he not only supported, but proposed or co-sponsored.
There are also legitimate concerns about some ugly racist stereotypes that were included in a newsletter that Paul sent out in the early 1990s. Paul claims he didn't write the words, but they were included in a publication called The Ron Paul Political Report and his supporters' insistence that (a) he knew nothing about the content of The Ron Paul Political Report and (b) he shouldn't be held responsible for the contents of The Ron Paul Political Report ring hollow. (As a New Yorker myself, nobody can convince me that Rudolph Giuliani isn't the really hardcore racist in this race -- he's just a hell of a lot smoother about covering up the fact than are people like Paul.)
Paul says that he'd slash the size of government by 40 percent, a dramatic restructuring by any account. As I've written before, people may respond positively to the idea of limited government in the abstract, but when it comes to specifics most Americans love big government and most (though certainly not all) of what it does. They want a government that will educate their children and put out forest fires and make sure that big chemical companies aren't poisoning their water. They expect cheap student loans and meat inspections and smooth highways, and even the lowest of "low information" voters know they're not going to get that stuff from the private sector.
And it's here where Paul deserves some respect, even from his detractors. He does, after all, have the courage of his convictions. In an era when balanced pandering has become the highest of campaign arts, Paul, unlike the rest of his Republican brethren, is perfectly straightforward about his desire to roll back much of the 20th century. As blogger David Caspian put it: "The reality is: Ron Paul, though crazy, is consistently crazy. He is not trying to hide his batshit ideas, in fact he's running on them. And though they might not understand all of it, people like it."
Some of Paul's supporters insist that his stark, slash-and-burn anti-governmentalism and isolationism don't matter. As president, he'd still have a Congress to deal with, and the burden of actually having to govern would likely inject a note of pragmatism into Paul's ideology. It's a unique argument: Ignore my candidate's more extreme ideas because they'll never get past Congress. The problem is that ideology matters -- it helps guide every decision one makes in office -- and the president of the United States of America is, as most people grasp, a pretty powerful person.
Of course, that's an academic discussion. Regardless of his supporters' passion or his ability to raise funds online, Paul has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2008 as the average gay Mexican pornographer.
And while he's no threat, he's helped disrupt the GOP's nomination process, adding more volatility to the polls and more issues to the debate. Plus he's made things a hell of a lot more interesting on the GOP side.
While I would never suggest reaching out to the white power movement, many of Paul's supporters are simply disenfranchised nonvoters who have been animated, many for the first time in years, by his campaign, and that's not a bad thing in a nominal democracy where complacency rules.
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/69139/
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
It seems to me almost everything Ron Paul has to say is spot on the money, assuming you agree with his premise on where the country is heading and that said bearing is the wrong one.
Why is paying attention to the constitution and its constraints on government (particularly fiscal restraint -- ie gold & silver) a "wingnut" idea,
and if THAT is crazy, WHAT is sane?
:(
other than that,
i think the article is pretty valid in its assertion that fundamentaly what is driving people to Ron Paul is the bullshit that is mainstream politics, and its utter disconnect from popular opinion.
20% approval ratings shows that in a wingnut.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
see purple stuff above.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
yeah.
i saw that after you posted the second section.
I have to say i disagree with the idea of printing a dozen or more assertions about a candidates position -- specificaly mentioning bills without explaining what they actualy entailed -- and then saying its crazy, when the audience is not given access to information that would prove or disprove that what was proposed was indeed "wingnut".
I read and re-read that section and can't find much in there that could not simply be construed as government intervention and red tape creation. Minimum wages and such are nothing more than subsidized labor. Sure many of those ideas are (arguably) based in good-will, but the downside can be immense.
Certainly without things like a national minimum wage, there is the potential for employers to abuse the market, but the market is supposed to be smart enough to simply say "no thanks" and move on to find another job.
If people take jobs at non-living wages, they are not really non-living wages ... by definition someone is living on that wage!
So what is the problem?
You don't think employers\workers and business\consumers cant figure out a way to relate to eachother and transact without government telling them how to deal with eachother?
That is one of a dozen ideas mentioned in that section, but they all run down the same line -- "Ron Paul is crazy because he thinks that, fundamentaly the system and the market can function without massive government regulation" -- an assertion that i reject.
Why is pulling out of the UN crazy?
I thought they were either
a. irrelevant
or
b. not in our best interest. (remember France and Iraq)?
Lol.
Here is a basic truth:
Everytime the government steps in to "correct" a problem (ie. racism, or low wages, or harrassment) they by default create a whole NEW set of problems that often turn out to be just as bad as the original problem, if not worse.
WANT AN EXAMPLE?
Economists Donald Deere, Kevin Murphy and Finis Welch found that minimum wage increases totaling 27 percent in 1990 and 1991 reduced employment for all teenagers by 7.3 percent and for black teenagers by 10 percent. A study of the 1996 and 1997 increases by economists Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch and David Wittenburg also found a 2 to 6 percent decline in employment for each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.
In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Couch translated these conclusions into raw numbers:
At the low end, he estimated at least 90,000 teenage jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 in 1997.
At the high end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997.
Couch estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage today would further reduce teenage employment by at least 145,000 and possibly as many as 436,000 jobs. According to the SBA, even among large firms the probability of a low-wage worker losing his job doubles after a minimum wage hike. -source
Affirmative Action can end up back firing by creating community distrust between races -- "hey, why did HE get in to Whatever University and i got denied? I have a 3.5 gpa, and i KNOW he has a 3.0, but he is whatevercolor". Quotas force institutions, agencies etc to find candidates that are potentialy not fully qualified and then either the approved candidate suffers because they fail at what they were accepted to do (much like subsidized mortgages to "subprime" borrowers backfiring on the borrower when, suprise suprsie, they couldnt pay the loan!) ... or the community suffers when an unqualified candidate is now performing an important function with poor skill.
Again, i'm not saying the intent isnt there with a lot of this stuff,
but RESULTS are everything, and when you deny the market the ability to make its own decisions you quite often end up with something worse than what you had before the legislation was implemented.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The 3rd purple paragraph is bullshit that the author dredged back up. Old news dealt with and dismissed long ago.
The 2nd purple paragraph is exactly why many of us are voting for him. He is the only candidate concerned with individual liberty and returning the federal government to its original mandate.
The 1st purple paragraph is where I part company with Paul. I have no time for that nonsense. But on the bright side, since he doesn't believe that the federal government should be involved in the issue, it would likely be a states rights issue - meaning I can live happily in the more progressive West Coast, and if the bible belt wants regulate it, people down there can either fight it or move.
Not surprised at the anti-Paul slant coming from Alternet. Wouldn't be surprised by the anti-Paul slant coming from The American Spectator on the right either. He's shaking things up. BTW, Kucinich, Gravel and other "2nd Tier" candidates have that same Mexican Porn star shot at office. Does that mean they shouldn't run?
The author is a tool. His "there is no need to indulge in cheap shots" statement rings hollow, since the entire article is a bit of a cheap shot.
Lighten up, fellas. The article actually praises Paul on some things. But it also points out his "out there" tendencies- not just so-called "libertarian" leanings, but some- and I'm sure not all- of his positions on issues that I think would run counter to what MOST Americans want from their President.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
That's because most Americans, wether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, want to be told what to do. They don't want to think for themselves. A candidate like Paul scares them because if his ideas and policies where ever to be enacted all of a sudden they would no longer be able to just sit back and rely on the government to tell them how to live and run their lives.
i lost faith in ron paul last night. the youtube debate was the chance for his supporters to ask him the questions that matter. instead; we got 2 hours of internet idiots wasting our time. when he did talk; he came off as someone who doesn't have a clue.
i'd like nothing more than to have america stay within it's borders but the public cannot and will not make the sacrifices necessary to do that.
He doesn't want to isolate us from the world, he just believes that the US shouldn't use it's military to intervene in another nations internal affairs.
You know.
I grew up (well in to my 20s) with the ideology that abortion was a womans right, and that it is her body.
Increasingly, and particularly after the whole controversy over "partial birth abortions" came in to the media, i am straying from that position.
I know it flies in the face of "personal liberty" (quote, unquote) to think that a woman shouldn't be able to choose what she wants to do with "her" body, and to boot it strikes of sexisim for a man to be involved in the decision ...
... however, i'm starting to think that maybe the pro-lifers are right. Just because a woman doesn't "want" a baby, that is exactly what she HAS. If she didn't want the damn thing, why did she get pregnant? [baring rape and medical necessity, the only excuse is something like the pill failed or the condom broke, but thats the risk you take, right?]
So if you get to that point, where, fundamentaly the only reason for the abortion is that the woman was either promiscuous or not cautious, or possibly that the contraception failed ... you end up at the conclusion that an action was engaged in that entailed a risk -- you had sex, you could get pregnant from it -- and you started to develop what very much is a living organism inside your body.
Is it a human?
come on.
Lets answer something more fundamental.
Is it ALIVE.
Of course it is.
I dunno.
I don't want to beat abortion over the head,
i'm just saying Ron Pauls take on abortion, besides deriving from being an OBGYN and having 1st hand compassion, ALSO seems consistent with his message of personal liberty AND responsibilty ...
If you want freedom to do what you want, you have to do those things with caution and respect for others ...
... that would seem to apply to pregancy as well ... if you wanted to not have a baby, either you should have not had unprotected sex, accepted the risk that protection could fail, or simply abstained if the risks were too great.
Does that make me some sort of sexist pro-life ass hole?
Cause like i said, for the past decade or more i always thought of myself as Pro-Choice, but i think i've already started to sway from that view.
Life IS precious, and i think among many other values and ideals that we have cast off, abortion is indicative of one more that we have left at the curb.
Why is it so much to ask that someone who basicaly "got themselves pregnant" simply be asked to carry the baby to term and at the very least just give it up for adoption?
Would that not eventualy have an impact on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies?
Either way, with states rights as the turning point,
i can't see all that many states making it illegal.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
a. rumours are running around that Dr. Paul is sick, and wasn't phsyicaly in good form last night.
b. i didn't take in the same debate as you, because i'm not sure where he came of as not having a clue.
Give me a specific on what Ron Paul said that was indicative of his "not having a clue".
[Also, the questions were chosen by CNN, just because Ron Paul supporters were censored and not given a question on air, doesn't mean Ron Paul isn't a good candidate]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I gave a coherent argument (with source) that discredited the position you are posting.
All you give back in return is an insult.
Show me where "my" view is wrong.
Why is government interventionism necessary or better than letting the market decide what transaction best suits its needs?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i heard he had a hangnail, and while there was a doctor in the audience who could have helped him with that, turns out the doc works for a government-run hospital, so paul said, "no thanks, no government handouts for MOI."
]
ahh, yes, the old "we weren't allowed to ask the questions that would make him appear brilliant" tack. i'm sure it had nothing to do with the supporters all wearing rainbow clown wigs and brandishing their beloved assault rifles. i mean, ya never know when a deer could run on stage. that's a missed opportunity for good eatin', right there.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
what if we have another 9/11 and he doesn't feel up to it.
the "enemy" has made it clear that they are waiting to follow us home. we can't just "pull out" of iraq. we never lost a battle in vietnam. however; john kerry orchestrated our surrender and the american public, forced it.
as a result; we got thousands of refugees. but we never knew who we got. the vietnamese have one of the strongest organized crime cartels in the us today. the same people that booby-trapped babies with bombs followed us home. so if you support pulling out; you support fighting the war on american soil. the war won't go away. the only way pauls plan would work is if we closed our doors to the refugees. and he didn't say that.
and herein lies the trouble with paultards- once again, this thread ISN'T ABOUT YOU. it's about the candidate. i don't need to show you anything because your stand/take/opinion is meaningless to me. you're not running for president.
or ARE you??
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
FYI.
i reported you.
you are a troll, a mudslinger, and an asshole to boot.
I put "MY" in quotes for a reason you FuckTard.
There, can i say FUCKTARD.
Whats the diff?
Paultard, fucktard.
You are a BLOWHARD.
Try debating the goddamn issues instead of peddling bullshit.
"My" positions that you fail to answer are the reasons Paul proposed that legislation.
Thank the powers that be you are not indicative of anything approaching the majority of the american public.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Your scare tactics are gonna have to be a little more potent than that.
i agree with the theory. i'm saying the theory cannot be put into practice because the american public won't make the sacrifices. i would LOVE to walk out of the un. when these countries that borrowed money and never paid back a penny come crying about needing help; i'd love to tell them we helped them already and they're on their own. it bewilders me why we have to care for the rest of the world. when europe was over-run by a dictator; i would have loved to say if you allowed your citizens to own guns; they could have fought back.
america used to be a rich country. all our riches are distributed around the world now. japan unconditionally surrendered to us; why the hell did we rebuild them and let them trade with us; sending our money there; while japan makes it impossible to trade with them.
when others need us we let them bend us over and when they get what they wanted; we're the bad guys again.
if americans were willing to pay more for everything; i think his theory would work. but americans became selfish and that throws it out the window.
Yeah, the irony in the statement by the fucktard is that the "terrorists" would not be able to "follow us home" if we would just get our own goddamn borders secured!
Either way, i don't see some network of 3rd world jihadists making their way to american soil en masse, and lord help them if they do ...
... and if we are talking about something like sneaking a bomb in ... once again, the fucktard just shot his argument in the foot because all the armies in the world sitting in a dessert in the middle east wont save us if our borders are wide open!
DUH!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Is America saying alternate energy is a total bust, or are the politicians just all about controlling the oil for profit?
Is this about "do the right thing" or "do the most profitable thing"?
You see....people in those regions (Middle East) can see right through it....especially when they are getting shot up and bombed to pieces over it.
But it's supposed to be about fighting an ideology....something invisible.
succumb through the mind willingly...or succumb through death by force. With or against. Live or die.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
funny; the enemy is already here. they attacked us once. remember 9/11? what we have done is diverted their resources. they've proven they don't need to be here en mass to destroy us. the effects of 9/11 haven't been felt yet. when the WTCs fell; they spread toxic waste over miles contaminating millions of people. they are now beginning to detect the cancers and other diseases these people will develope.
you don't need bombs. Ok city federal building was brought down with fertilizer. the WTCs were brought down with planes. if we let anyone who says they're a refugee into the country; how can we control who we're letting in?
they're not my scare tactics. look at history.
thanks, now my computer screen is covered in iced tea
ps... he might get elected on that platform of a gay mexican pornographer... our republican friends seem to find their way into airport stalls and like to snort crank off of male prostitutes co*k :cool: (someone had to say it!
1st paragraph doesn't bother me. i can see both sides of the issue and im tired of talking about it. any resolution is a good one in my eyes. i should point out though, he has offered a constitutional amendment: that would NOT make it a states' rights issue. abortion would be unconstitutional, period.
2nd paragraph im about 50-50 with him. some of his stuff goes a bit too far. you can argue the wisdom of minimum wage and so on and so forth. but such things are not unconstitutional. the constitution gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. fact is, almost all business now is interstate. thus, business and market regulations were written directly into the constitution. the federal government is charged with regulating inter-state commerce. there is no "absolute hands-off free market capitalism" in there. you can debate the wisdom of what it does in pursuit of this regulation, but it is not unconstitutional. im all for a flat tax.
There is nothing wrong with aiding another country or rebuilding that country after a war. The problem with our foreign policy is not that we aid nations in need it is that we intervene in their internal affairs. That is what causes resentment around the globe.
You mentioned in an earlier post that we can not pull out of Iraq because our enemies their have sworn to follow us home. First thing is that they are already here. They where here before we invaded Iraq, while we occupy Iraq, and long after we leave Iraq they will still be here. Secondly, much of the hositility towards us is because of our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. We support oppressive regimes in the region, we orchestrate coups against legitamtely elected governments, and we offer unwavering support of Israel. Now I don't think that we should turn our backs on Israel but there have been, and will continue to be, times when Israel has acted in barbaric manners and while the rest of the world condenms their actions the US sits quietly. Our actions in the past have come home to roost. So instead of continuing the cycle of death and hatred why not take a different approach. That is what Ron Paul offers. Stop fucking with people's lives and they will stop fucking with you.
I think that is a huge overstatement of the powers intended with the commerce clause in Article 1!
That was intended to simply keep states from placing tarrifs on other states goods, and keep all state borders open for trade (not blocking carts and ships entry into any given state).
I can only imagine that the founders would be sickened if they learned that meant that their clause (which, fundamentaly, was meant to provent government restriction on markets) was being perversed to actualy place restrictions on markets with something as convoluted in benefit as wage regluation!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Founder's intent can only take you so far, and the founders realized that. They expected American government to be flexible enough to deal with the needs of the current American society - whatever current we're talking about, be it 1808, 1908, 2008, or 2108. In fact, if you had a time machine and brought one of them into the modern era, I imagine they'd be pretty impressed - once the culture and techno shock wore off, of course.