text:
Why does anyone like Ron Paul?
I've been trying to understand why smart people I know support Ron Paul and I just can't get my head around it. I get the sense that maybe the Ron Paul People I know just don't realize what Ron Paul's all about. That or they just don't care.
The Ron Paul People I know are almost all straight, single, relatively young, non-religious, white men. Available demographics suggest that this is an accurate picture; there are others in Ron Paul's camp, but it's basically youngish white men.
They do not consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans. Some of them hate the idea of rules, many of them hate the idea of having their money taken away in taxes, but none of them are stupid or without the resources to learn more about their candidate. And none seem to care about any of Ron Paul's policies outside of cutting spending, regulations, and taxes.
Every Ron Paul Person I know comes out of the woodwork any time anything negative is said about the guy, no matter how true the statement and no matter how much that individual disagrees with Ron Paul's position or behavior. I get the sense that libertarians are so excited to have someone on the national stage that they don't want to see anything problematic with the guy, but he's transparently a bad deal.
So, why are these people supporting a crazy, racist Christian fundamentalist?
Why People Love Ron Paul:
- He believes in reduced military spending
- Less taxes, less rules, less government
- He wants to end the "War on Drugs"
- He is "philosophically consistent"
That last one seems to be big — people seem to think that Ron Paul offers a coherent philosophy to deal with politics and that's why they like him.
He's very consistent on the whole taxes idea — he wants to get rid of the income tax, which apparently makes us all the property of the government, and his voting record shows this. I can see the appeal, even if I totally disagree.
Ron Paul is Anti-Free Market:
But if we take this libertarian personal freedom thing to its logical conclusion, Paul would also be all for open borders and a completely open labor markets, right? Yeah, but not so much — he's very anti open borders.
The toughest part of showing any compassion or tolerance to the illegal immigrants … is the tremendous encouragement it gives for more immigrants to come illegally and avoid the wait and the bureaucracy.
So, bureaucracy good when it keeps the brown people out? Taxing the insanely rich is slavery! Letting foreign people work in America should be illegal!
He voted for building a fence on the Mexican border, reporting illegal aliens who go to hospitals, and for banning student visas from "terrorist nations". He's all about reducing the military and allowing the free market, except when it comes to this for some reason.
Oh, it's also great that he wants to get rid of the fed, I love this. You know who made the fed what it is today? A guy named Alan Greenspan. You know, Alan Greenspan, the most famous and powerful libertarian ever to work in the US government. He was a disciple of Ayn Rand and was part of the inner circle of her cult. Alan Greenspan almost single-handedly caused this recession. By all means, let's fix the fed, but let us also acknowledge it was a libertarian that got us here!
Ron Paul Doesn't Support Minorities:
He thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you know that whole equality thing, was a violation of people's rights and wouldn't have forced anyone to lift the Jim Crow laws. He called MLKJr day "hate whitey day". According to Ron Paul supporters, this is OK because he wants to legalize drugs and end the death penalty, both of which would disproportionately go to help black men.
I don't even want to go into all of the sketchy things that he's said, I'll just offer you this link and be done with it. Suffice to say, the guy's said some unkind things about minorities.
On top of this, he wants English to be the official language of the US and thinks government shouldn't offer services in any other language. How's that for federal bureaucratic overhead?
A lot of people respect his position on gay marriage, which is that it shouldn't be the federal government's business even though he personally is opposed to it. It may not be the federal government's business, but he's certainly voted to enshrine homophobic behavior in federal law. He voted against including "sexual orientation" as a protected class in ENDA, meaning he thinks it's OK to fire people for being gay, and he voted to ban gay adoptions in DC.
Ron Paul is Against Church/State Separation:
Ron Paul has a 17% rating with the AU, meaning he almost never votes in favor of a bill that would be promoting the separation of church and state.
The guy is crazy fundamentalist, no lie. It informs most of his political positions, including right to life stuff that I'll address in a minute. But it also includes something that maybe some of my libertarian friends agree with. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians in DC willing to say anything negative about Zionism or Israel, and I know a lot of libertarians think that we shouldn't be Israel's protector anymore. But do you know why he doesn't support Israel?
Despite the fact that many Fundies, known as Premillenialists, support Israel because their end-time theology tells them that it is necessary for the return of Jesus, Christian Reconstructionists like Paul have a different view, basically that the Israeli government isn't the right one for the end of days and the right sort of Christians are now the chosen people of Revelations.
"I think of the Israeli government as different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli government doesn't happen to be reflecting God's views. Some of them are atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support… And there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so narrowly defined as only the Jews — that maybe there's a broader definition of that."
He and Sarah Palin can get into a fight over whose Christian end of days attitude towards Israel is the right one!
He often gets accused of being anti-Semitic because he's anti-Zionism, and he may well be, but his position on Israel is all about religion. He's generally isolationist anyway, so it works with the rest of his shtick.
And, while his faith isn't his number one talking point, he sure does have a statement of faith on his website and includes a reference to it in his debates.
And, despite the fact that he thinks the education department should be dismantled, he also thinks that public funds should pay for private Christian educations and supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer. Again, not a libertarian stance at all.
Ron Paul is Rabidly Anti-Choice and Anti-Science:
This goes hand in hand with the crazy religious stuff, it's all related.
This man, who is a doctor, does not believe in evolution.
This man, who is a doctor, believes that life begins at conception.
He has a somewhat complex view on abortion in that he believes that it, like murder, should be tried and controlled at the state level, not the federal one. That said, he has voted repeatedly for national bills that promote the pro-life cause and introduced a bill that would say that life begins at conception.
He voted not to authorize embryonic stem cell research multiple times. He has a 0% by NARAL, meaning he votes 100% against abortion rights. He voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage. Voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available and to provide funding for abstinence only education.
He cosponsored a bill to take funds from a needy family benefit program to go to support non-governmental groups that counsel people not to have abortions.
Again, how is this not federal interference?
Ron Paul Helps Billionaires Not the Poor
This section, I know, is where a lot of libertarians are going to agree with his votes, but I have to say I think they don't reflect well on him.
He is completely against environmental regulation and trying to find alternative energy sources. Despite his claims that he'd rather have unions control the market than a minimum wage, he voted for legalizing union busting more than once. Despite his supposed belief in the free market, he voted to ban shareholders from weighing in on executives' compensation. Extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, expanded them, and undermined Social Security by changing the standards.
Voted against the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act to feed children and voted against a measure to ensure children had health insurance.Voted yes on a measure to prevent federally funded laborers to be paid the prevailing wage of the area, so that people making less than a living wage could be reduced even further into poverty!
Ron Paul is a Hypocrite
He is completely inconsistent, not just philosophically as a libertarian, but also on very specific issues like federal funding to local areas. Which brings us to his response to Katrina. You'd think someone who was so waffley about his own philosophical convictions when it comes to women's rights and immigrants would be willing to waffle a little to save lives, after all he's all sanctity of life, right?
Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?
But at least his congressional district in Texas doesn't rely on tons of federal funding, right? Oh, no, it's one of the top in Texas. Federal government using money to save people's lives is apparently not OK, but him earmarking funds for his district is cool. More important than Katrina victims? Removing a sunken ship from a harbor and sending a few million dollars to Texan shrimp fishermen.
Ron Paul is a Little Nuts
But of course, my favorite part about Ron Paul is that he thinks the executive branch shouldn't have very much power. The problem with that is that if you elect Ron Paul, he can't do anything without violating his own philosophy because he would be the executive branch of the federal government. Ron Paul just doesn't make sense for anyone.
He thinks we should go back to the gold standard, which I think is pretty crazy, but that's hardly the only place he goes a bit weird. On The Daily Show he said the following, I guess suggesting that he's for regulations after he's against them:
The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn't enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can't do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher.
And then there's this:
I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove–perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.
If people know this about Ron Paul and still want to vote for him, that's obviously their choice, but I can't help but feel like the only way you could vote for him would be in ignorance or denial of these facts.
Posted on December 11, 2011, in atheism, Politics, Posts Worth Going Back and Reading, Religion and tagged abortion, anti-semitic, constitution, Gay Rights, immigration, libertarian, racist, Religion, ron paul, separation of church and state. Bookmark the permalink. 644 Comments.
Okay, now what are we going to do about the wars overseas?
What about our multitrillion dollar debt, which threatens to crash the currency?
What about our ruinous drug wars that have killed thousands of people in Mexico and the United States?
What about the impending fiscal implosion that'll occur when baby boomers retire?
Neither Obama nor any other Republican are ready to risk their political careers for the good of the nation; consequently, they flip flop and propose timid policies. People support Ron Paul because he's the only politician who's willing to tackle the big issues in a serious way. You're not going to get everything you want, but you'll get good policy change on the key issues that matter.
And of course, you didn't read the article, since you haven't answered any of the points therein, and just repeated the same old trope. Ron Paul is nuts, period. He couldn't do anything about the things that you list because he is completely inconsistent, and is incapable of getting anyone on his side (mainly because no one wants to be associated with such a nutjob). You don't get anything done alone in Washington, even if you don't believe in Washington. You have to work with the institutions if you want to change them. The alternative is to create your own army and overthrow the government by force (something with which Paul has flirted more than once).
Really? I didn't know that having the same platform for 30 years was inconsistent behavior…..
"Okay, now what are we going to do about the wars overseas?"
Ron's stance on the wars is one of the two that I agree with.
"What about our multitrillion dollar debt, which threatens to crash the currency?"
Not an issue for the time being. Five and seven-year real yield rates are negative as of 12/09/11 according to the treasury website. The ten-year rate is at 0.05 percent as of the same date. Obviously, somebody still thinks the US is a good credit risk. In the long term, the debt will need to be taken care of. However, our immediate problem is slow economic growth. Take care of that, and the debt will take care of itself.
As a side note, a lower value dollar could actually help us out. A weaker dollar will make foreign goods more expansive, so the US will buy fewer of them. At the same time, US goods will be cheaper on foreign markets, giving foreign buyers incentive to purchase them. This will help fix our trade weight issue, shifting us from being an import-dominant economy to an export-dominant economy. This isn't always the best idea, of course, but a little bit of inflation to make our goods more attractive to foreign markets could really kickstart our economy.
"What about our ruinous drug wars that have killed thousands of people in Mexico and the United States?"
Paul's desire to end the drug war is the other policy of his that I like.
"What about the impending fiscal implosion that'll occur when baby boomers retire?"
Getting the economy going and getting the younger generations into the workforce NOW will help minimize the effect of the loss of labor when the baby boomers retire. The shear size of the baby boomer generation will still make this a tough transition, regardless of our economic policy. This assumes, of course, that a large enough number of baby boomers will actually be able to retire. In a 2011 AP survey, 25% reported that they believe they won't be able to retire and 42% are delaying retirement.
"Neither Obama nor any other Republican are ready to risk their political careers for the good of the nation; consequently, they flip flop and propose timid policies. People support Ron Paul because he's the only politician who's willing to tackle the big issues in a serious way. You're not going to get everything you want, but you'll get good policy change on the key issues that matter."
Ron Paul is certainly a breath of fresh air compared to all of the other Republican candidates, but he just does not bring enough good to the table to win my vote.
You are completely deluded about everything economical. We have a debt based currency and you thinking that our currency is okay because "somebody thinks our credit is good?" Seriously?
We have raised the debt ceiling once and the credit rating fell….they are about to vote on doing it again.
The federal is corrupt and tied to the same people who fund big campains like Obama, Bush, and Romney….and every one of them lied during their campaigns just to get in office.
Ron Paul doesn't lie or pander to anyone, especially lobbyists.
This socialist crap that I read barely deserves any comments, but I will comment on some of the more intellectual, yet deluded remarks here.
Guys, seriously this mental midget ashleyfmiller isn't going to understand. Her points have no validity and is basically taking everything RP's said and turning it on its ass with no rational, realistic, thought-provoking evidence. She is a troll, which is evident by her appearance as well as her "points", if you can even call them that. We are wasting our time on our page. Ron Paul has 30 years of consistent service to us and she only has this tiny webpage designed to piss people off, so if you're going to post, just post "Fuck you ashleylmiller" and be on your way. Spread Ron Paul's message because he is the last hope for the American people, and anyone tha disagrees with that can eat shit. The part that upsets me the most is the people that most vehemently protest Ron Paul's popularity will also reap the social and economic benefits Ron Paul will produce if he becomes president.
Wait, you name yourself 'ashleymillaerhasapenis' and claim SHE is the troll? Hahahahah.
Ron Paul would be an absolute disaster for this country – this article sums up why. There will be no social benefits – he's proven time and time again to be right in step with the most ridiculously fundamentalist christian whackjobs in nearly every case. There will be no economic benefits – his proposed economic plan is much more likely to cause a financial implosion than to actually help spur growth.
And all your blind stupid hero worship of a terrible man will not change that.
This is a great example of why it is important to do your own research and NOT take the "word" of someone's article in blind faith, Even if Ashley was correct on some issues its important to cite where the info is from and then go there yourself and make the judgement for yourself. If you will watch some of the debates and then use the 10th ammendment as your guideline you will see that getting rid of "federal" entities will be replaced with "state" entities, and having 50 state entities will give more choice to the people concerning taxation, education, criminalizing (or de-criminalizing) of drug usage (nothing more than a form of prohibition), labor union rules, and jobless benefits etc. So say the state you live in has some mandated education that you do not like, you can move to a state that has more liberal laws such a a voucher program or home school. It sounds like "work" to move, but afterall this will be "change" and change requires effort. States will have to compete with each other to provide the forms of freedom that are appealing to the masses or their population will dwindle and therefor economic activity etc. This is just an example to show you that taking away much of the power from a select few (federal bureaucrat sellouts) and distributing it to the 50 states will greatly reduce corruption and enhance freedom, if not by virtue then by competition. This will have to be phased in of course, and he said that at at least one of the debates. Paraphrased "we cannot just abandon the elderly, who count on a social security check and have no other means to provide for themselves, without a contigency plan first." Have a great day 🙂
Well, of course you don't get why millions of conservative Americans support RP, Ashley. It's because you're a raging left-wing socialist, man-hating femmetard, reverse-racist, pro-distopian, overly-artsy-fartsy, overly-idealistic, anti-logical hollywood retard. Stop trying to understand the policies of Ron Paul, give your brain cells a rest and go back to your laweekly and your bong.
Why is it that the people I ALWAYS see throwing the word "ignorant" around are ALWAYS the most ignorant? This is, by far and large, the biggest, most manipulated pile of nonsense I have ever seen about the doctor. You have lied several times in this article and have not backed up several accusations, your videos are cut off before an explanation is given (a complete one anyway) and you have very little intelligence on sound money, fiscal responsibility, gold and silver or how they work, booms and busts of the economy–NOTHING that Dr. Paul stands for.
The problem here is that YOU don't understand this stuff, refuse to get educated on it and have no clue what is really going on.
Read a book–like End The Fed. The Revolution. Blowback. The Worldly Philosophers. The Law. You really need help and People like you should take serious consideration before going out and actually casting votes or even writing until you do your due diligence first.
Wow I didn't know he was THAT much of a fundie. He doesn't 'accept' the theory of evolution? I wonder if he also doesn't 'accept' the Theory of Gravity (which has way LESS demonstrable and independent evidence that evolution).
That's fucking bullshit. Gravity has less evidence than evolution???!!! Seriously? Did you even take high school physics? Do you know what you're talking about??? I accept evolution, but this is too stupid to be believed.
It isn't, surprisingly. High school physics likely taught you some form of Newtonian physics, which, while a decent approximation, is not exact. Meanwhile, genetics and epigenetics are fairly well understood as well as being currently considered to likely be the fundamental method by which evolution happens. An equivalent to this in physics would be having a unified theory of quantum gravity or something similar.
Glad you accept evolution but you need to educate yourself a bit more. Gravity is very poorly understood. We don't know why objects are attracted to each other. We have no way to manipulate it or use it. Is it a particle as some physicists believe? Or is it part of Space/Time as Einstein theorized?
Evolution on the other hand is supported by multiple lines of evidence and we can make fairly accurate predictions about it. We understand the mechanics and the forces that act upon it.
Wow– now people can't listen…he said, about evolution that it IS a theory…he accepts it as a theory and if you knew ANYTHING about science– it is ALL a theory! Relativity has been replicated MANY times but is STILL A THEORY. Wow people. Read a book some time.
Please learn the scientific definition of the word "theory." It isn't what you think.
Shiran, it's YOU who need to look up the word theory, becaues evolution IS a theory…why? Becaues there has never been discovered a link between neandrathal and man as we know him today….go look it up. For decades everyone accepted that they just havn't "found it yet", but they have fossils for every period in time…if there were links between ape and man why havn't they found it yet? Technology is too good to have missed it….
What's funny is none of you sheeple who spout science as if you are somehow scientific for saying it…..you can't think outside the box for ONE second and maybe…just MAYBE there are more than 2 theories? OMG SHOCK NO WAY! Yes, way. And if you dismiss any of them as "stupid" or "crazy" then you are in no way scientific at all, and do not deserve to discuss the subject.
Who CARES what he believes in religiously? You atheists are all the samek, now that it's cool and popular to be an atheist you all speak up like life depends on your views….if you don't believe in God then stfu about when people do, who CARES? If you're so above that line of thinking, let people alone…it's funny, it's almost like you people are trying to convince yourself there's no God more than anyone else…because if people believed that there are pink elephants at the center of the earth would you actually waste your time trying to educate them? YOu know something they don't…move on and stfu about it, or like I said…maybe you have deeper reasons for wanting to rant about your beliefs…..
Firstly, nice article. You've obviously poured over lots of Ron Paul material and done some good research and made interesting points. I am an avid Ron Paul supporter from Austin, Texas and read your article through a link on a friends Facebook. I know that Ron Paul isn't perfect, and I disagree with him on Abortion, and removing naval bases from trade routes among other things, but he is the only peace president.
You say he wont use the executive branch but he can use it for the things I most want him elected for. As Commander- In- Chief, he can literally end the wars immediately. He can also use the power of presidential pardon to pardon all non-violent drug offenders in the country which he has stated is his intent for a long time.
On his racism, I read his old quotes from his newsletter, and while I cant say they weren't his word, they certainly have a strange tone that doesn't sound like Ron to me.
You touched for a second on the Federal Reserve which is the other huge issue for me. The Fed is the most evil, vile, institution on the face of this planet.
Finally, Ron Paul is not the selfish, cookie cutter, lying, politician. He is the Change that Obama promised before he broke all of our hearts. So before you discount this man because of his personal beliefs that differ from yours, realize that if we don't elect him, the dollar WILL crash, and people in the middle east will continue to DIE. DEATH, not racism, DEATH, not discrimination, MURDER. Congress makes major legislation, Ron Paul cant just repeal all of those things the moment hes in office.
To touch a little more on the pardon issue-
There are over 2 million people in prison in the USA of which about 600,000 are in prison for a drug offense. An additional 5.4 million are on parole, of which about 1,600,000 are drug violators. Now this is both federal and state prisoners, let's assume 20% of these are convicted by federal law AND are only guilty of non-violent drug offenses. That leaves 120,000 federal prisoners in prison and 320,000 federal parolees convicted of federal drug laws only.
Let's assume 3 minutes to sign a pardon, as I don't see Ron Paul signing something without at least scanning through the details. It will take him 360,000 minutes to get through signing those pardons. That translates to 6000 hours. If we assume Ron Paul puts in a 60 hour work week in the Oval Office, it will take him 100 days to free all the drug offenders from prison. IMO, that would be the most productive first 100 days of any president. If you assume a 40 hour work week, it will take 150 days.
Pardoning the parolees is less of a priority but should still be done, that will take 16,000 hours or about 267 more days. That is a full year of work, one and a half years if we go at the more bureaucratic pace.
Bonus points for anyone who can guess which ethnic groups benefit most from this year of labor. Hint: it won't be the young white men.
Yes, there is much work to be done by a President who actually cares about the freedom of American citizens…as opposed to the rest who care about taking more of those freedoms away…all in the name of "protecting" us and making us "safe".
Don't you think there would be more than one person working on it? Think for two seconds.
Says the selfish pothead. How about looking beyond your own agenda.
The racist newsletters weren't written by him… but they figured out who did! Proof – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU
I, being an atheist, disagree with Ron Paul on many social aspects. But his social and personal/ethical ideologies are rather insignificant due to his Libertarian values. He is pro-life, but he stands for the liberty and freedom for Americans. Even though he disagrees with the Roe v. Wade outcome, he will stand by the United States Constitution and allow people to have abortions because he believes in personal freedom.
I would also like to point out that I will be voting for him not because of his personal/moral/ethical perspectives, but for his economic philosophies. My main concern is having a president who can get us out of debt, cut spending, and help boost the U.S. economy.
Again, I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of points, but you can't be picky, there are only a small handful of candidates to choose from. And if I had to choose from the select few, it's going to be Ron Paul.
None of the solutions that you have listed exist in a form that people can actually use at this point. While they are great ideas and may lead to an excellent future for mankind, they aren't real. Abortions will happen with or without the consent of the state. To allow people to do them in a safe environment is the best solution rather than forcing people to go in an alley with a wire coat hanger.
Ha, ha! I think this is as good a motto as any for much of Ron Paul's insane supporters:
"The State could just as easily decide to adopt the children into Artificial wombs and then raise them as super soldiers. "
Of course, Paulist America would fight no wars, so we have to pity these super soldiers for their stalled careers…
Brilliant article, glad I found it on Reddit. So many people I know are saying they like him because he'll help the economy. They don't realize that cutting 1 trillion dollars of government spending in just the first year will destroy the economy. When in a period of slow economic growth, consumer demand is low. Therefore for the economy to grow again, the government has to step in and increase demand; that's what stimulus is supposed to be. If government also cuts spending, demand collapses and the economy tanks. Keynes is rolling over in his grave right now.
I wrestle with the keynes idea in these current times, yes spending DIRECTLY into the economy would probably help, but of the "reported" 700Billion followed by the next 800B how much was directly spent into the economy? I do not have the figures but it looks like most all of it went to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, BOA, and the like, as they now have "more than adequite capitalisation to sustain another downturn in the economy" (the short sellers got whacked in the stock market during Helicopter Ben's printing). So where are the new bridges, roads, civic centers, high speed rail, updated water systems, updated electrical grids? And BTW the true number on the "bailout" was 7.77 Trillion (look it up on Bloomberg News) I don't feel any richer and I dont see any evidence that a stadium full of money has been spent into the economy.
But if you don't cut now and leave the Dems in charge, who refuse to take anything out of their bloated healthcare, we're fucked somewhere between five to twenty years down the road. Inflation will take over and the economy will tank far harder than if we cut the trillion right now. I'm not saying the one trillion should be taken exactly from where RP thinks it should be from (although I do agree it should be mostly from the military funding; it needs to be cut back quite a bit). x_x
The dollar is falling at a disproportional rate. Almost all major currencies are gaining value and power while the dollar is sitting there, vegetating. The yen is the only exception, can anyone guess why? Oh right, big government spending but over there, it is kind of necessary
But let's go back to your point. Yes, demand is low, but that's because over the past three years the dollar lost its spending power (*cough* big government). Yes, a solution is needed but Obama and the rest of the
Dems and the Republicans either don't understand that or that aren't helping us get there.
How do you know what will happen if we cut a trillion from the budget? If you made 50k a year and spent 100k a year what would you do to fix that? Its common sense. People arent spending because they arent confident. I think because the govt is not living within its means. So this makes me feel less confident about spending my money and makes me want to save it. I think fixing the debt will fix confidence and the economy as well.
Wow, what a moronic post. The OP obviously hasn't done any research on Ron Paul and seems only able to post out of context sound bytes.
For those who didn't want to read the whole thing, don't waste your time. This person obviously hasn't read any of Ron Paul's books and is only reposting out of context lies & propaganda from a frightened establishment. Nor does the OP make any case for why any other candidate would be preferred.
She's obviously of the belief that actual research is overrated. Godforbid someone actually had an educated opinion for a change.
The most pathetic part is when an unseasoned individual fails to realize that the debate between Evolution and Creation has waged for many decades and that to "seasoned" debaters in the talk origins debate like Ron Paul it is quite easy and natural to dismiss Evolution as a Theory of Creation while recognizing it as an ongoing natural process as Dr. Paul does.
In the debate, Paul is careful to phrase his wording in a fashion that dismisses the idea that Evolution is a means of Creation. Any member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy would realize these differences but today's amateurs have been deprived a few brain cells.
Evolution is not at odds with Creation, nor is Evolution a theory of Creation. If you want a Scientific Theory of Creation you would go to something like the Big Bang Theory.
Paul dismisses Evolution as a theory of Creation and believes, as he writes in his book, that it is a natural process that does not in any way imply atheism. In fact, in his book "Liberty Defined" Paul dedicated an entire chapter to this very subject.
As far as myself, I adopt the views of panspermia and reject Creationist theories including Evolution in favor of Plasma Redshift Theories which show an infinitely old and infinitely large Universe.
We could go into other details about the Economic plan that would bring social planning down to a State level and allow the State and Federal Government to issue its own currency to finance local creation of departments that would help employment rates by drawing on local statewide support for social initiatives that would be financed by allowing State and local government to issue its own debt-free currency.
In any case, bringing our troops home and ending our role as global policeman is the vital moral imperative of our times. If we do not do that, then the other issues will not matter.
"he also thinks that public funds should pay for private Christian educations and supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer"
I find that extremely hard to believe, considering all the reading I've done on Ron Paul. Please provide a citation or stop spouting lies.
She has none. She is just going to continue to roll out this tripe and expect no one to call her out on her baseless claims. She obviously has read NON of Ron Paul's books and has done little research on what his actual views are. She is pathetic.
NON? really? Is it that hard to go back and READ what you wrote? You come off as an uneducated dipshit when your grammar & spelling are wrong.
Fuck ron Paul & his dickhead teaparty fuckface son.
Wow, thanks, david, for your enlightened views. You make an intelligent and well-reasoned point. Your language makes you sound way more educated than Alexandros.
Please, for the good of the gene pool, do not reproduce.
I know this is an old post, but I couldn't let you slide on this, if only because you have the nerve to call yourself "Skeptic," when you are the exact antithesis of that word.
Ron Paul supports school vouchers, as laid out in http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul132.html, written by Paul himself:
"The fears of these voucher critics was confirmed on the floor of the House of Representatives when the lead sponsor of the DC voucher amendment admitted that under his plan the Department of Education would have to begin accrediting religious schools to ensure that only qualified schools participate in the voucher program because religious schools currently do not need to receive government accreditation. Government accreditation is the first step toward government control."
If this isn't forcing secular people to fund religion, I don't know what is. Perhaps you haven't read the First Amendment?
And here's your information for the school prayer amendment. It took me all of 30 seconds to Google:
"Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, ****including schools****, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion." (Emphasis mine)
Perhaps you should look up the truth before hitting "post." This is why people call Paulbots ridiculous and blind: you never even bothered to look for the facts before criticizing someone else. When did the OP become your personal librarian? Do some research yourself. For someone who calls him/herself "Skeptic," you sure have zero idea of how to debate.
You do know these quotes completely discredit the OP's argument, right? Skeptic was arguing that Ron Paul is not partial to religious organizations, which these sources confirm. As the OP was the one making the claim so the burden of proof was on her, Skeptic had every right to ask for a source. Thanks for the info though.
Thanks, Zach. I used the name skeptic because Ashley made a claim without a citation and I did not believe her. And Zach is right, the burden of proof is on her, not me. This should be obvious to anyone to who knows anything about debate, Krae.
Also, please tell me you read the articles you just cited. The first article you quoted seem to show Ron Paul's displeasure with the voucher program specifically because it meant more government control and "forcing secular people to fund religion", as you so eloquently stated. As for the second article, from what you quoted, it seems to say that people are allowed to worship or pray anywhere they want and that "Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion." That seems very fitting with Ron Paul's message of personal liberty. What was the argument you were trying to make again?
edit: As far as myself, I adopt the views of panspermia and reject Creationist theories including (Big Bang Theory) in favor of Plasma Redshift Theories which show an infinitely old and infinitely large Universe.
I'd like to defend against the idea that Dr. Paul is not supportive of civil rights and is pro "whitey". The war on drugs for these past decades has resulted in the criminilization of entire communities of color through the use of discriminating policies and law enforcement. The Iraq war has estimates of 150,000 plus people DEAD, 80% civilian. Ron Paul is the only peace candidate and is policies are explicitly anti-racist and pro human rights. Thank you for reading.
I admire your desire to find a good candidate. I believe much (most) of the current system has been corrupted by money and RP said so much in the Iowa debate Saturday with a comment (paraphrased) " we would not have the problems we do if the people in public office upheld their OATH to the people". You seem to want all points you raised rebutted and I will do my best within the time I have, first I am straight (but don't care what you or anybody else is its your free right to exist), I am not young, I am religious, and I have five ethnicities from German to Indian (pretty much American as I see it). I like rules in the form of boundaries and I do not believe the income tax was legally authorized. I recommend this video called "Wake up Call" to learn more about our the federel reserve act. (its you tube so its safe)
Military spending is ridiculous, we spend 42% of ALL military spending in the ENTIRE WORLD, (bet you did'nt know that) source is independent media which I HIGHLY recommend over mainstream media because they lie.
Here is ONE (many more) video from TYT (independent media) that leaves NO doubt about the LYING
A true free market would mean that we were only about 7 trillion in debt as opposed to 14.5 trillion, this is because the bailout was not really 700 billion it was instead 7.7 TRILLION If it was a "free market" the banks would not have done what I call "transfer of wealth" from the people to the big corporations. They would have gone under just like any one of us could lose a house.
source bloomberg news: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
The war on drugs: Here again this is about freedom, I do not use or like drugs but they have not always been illegal, and if there were no law preventing people from using drugs that would not change my mind about using drugs, if they were not illegal there would likely be a lot more people alive today that had the chance to change their mind about using drugs (after personal consequences like alcohol does…lose your job, lose your family etc). Also its a State power as directed in the 10th ammendment:
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Philosophically consistent is not my primary reason for liking RP but it's a definite plus when judging integrity.
End the fed..Nothing to do with Greenspan, Paulsen, Bernanke or any chairman. The fed was conscripted on the eve of Christmas in 1913 with only a few members present (5 if memory serves), just this info alone should raise an eyebrow. I recommend doing a little research into what fiat currency is and how the current federal reserve fiat money is "loaned" to the U.S. at a rate of approximately 6% interest (its more complicated than that but 6% should suffice) A small example would be we borrow one million dollars to run the economy after a time we have to pay the interest, well we now owe one million PLUS 6% where is the 6% going to come from? We have to borrow more to cover the interest this is why we have a national debt to start with. Any currency based on any precious metal would be better that that ponzi scheme.
Here is a great site to learn more about the federal reserve:
The Texas fence makes sense to me but I don't think its that relevant to who we elect as a president.
The department of education should be abolished, again this is a State matter, and I like the idea of private school funding for our kids, or even home shool. Schools have become a mass assembly line to pump out kids into the workforce, there is nothing "quality" about it currently.
The biggest issue facing this country is all of the unsolicited, un provoked illegal wars we have entered into ( you may remember from civics, check and balance system, senate and house can declare war but the president has to order the militia to fight, so we need all three). We seem to have some corrupt politicians who believe that eternal war and conquering the middle east is a good thing no matter how many people are killed. We have thousands of Americans killed in the last decade but the un reported 70 million civillian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is the real atrocity, thats more than Hitlers holocaust (estimated at 50 million), all for one manhunt? So then why is Iran next? also syria and Pakistan are on the chopping block as well, sounds more like conquering than defense to me.
And so on the isolationist point: Here is a quote from George Washington:
In his farewell address to the nation on September 17 1796
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world…. Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?
I hope this was helpful
You're very well informed and right on the money my friend. Just remember though, you're preaching to the choir. These anti-RonPaul, anti-American liberals (republicans and democrats) will never accept the truth about America. The truth is not pretty, and we are a pretty-oriented society. They would rather hear pretty lies than the ugly truth. Anyway, thanks for the post. It's always comforting to know that there are some Intelligent Americans who get it.
Right on. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of that. No more US world takeover!
Ron Paul 2012!
Everyone needs to switch registration if they aren't currently registered as republican. Do it now so you can vote in the primary.
I'm sorry, but you seem to misunderstand a lot of his stances or reach improper conclusions from them.
You say that Ron is against open borders because he is against illegal immigration, but that's not the same thing. Ron has talked in the past about wanting to make it easier to get a work visa so they can come here legitimately, but no one should be pro-illegal immigration. I feel we should allow anyone to come here who can prove they have a job and aren't a violent criminal, but there are still people we shouldn't let into the country.
Your mention of Alan Greenspan as a libertarian is laughable. Libertarians don't believe in manipulating the market to inflate the stock and housing markets. Greenspan, by taking the Fed job and then repeatedly and continually practicing discretionary policies and attempting fine-tuning of the economy and pandering to his political bosses, went against pretty much every tenet of Libertarianism I can think of. If you think Greenspan was a libertarian, then you don't understand Libertarianism.
As far as the Civil Rights Act goes, Ron is against 2 of the 10 parts but is fine with the rest. It's about government overstepping it's authority. Congress unjustly used the commerce clause as an excuse to tell private businesses what to do with their property. They say that someone from California being in North Dakota and buying something counts as interstate commerce, but that doesn't hold the litmus test because no other facet of interstate commerce is ever applied legally. Those in support of the Civil Rights Act say it is justified because it needed to be done, but resulting from this is congress has since used the Commerce Clause to carry out virtually anything it desires. Even though the intentions were good, government should not have the authority to do whatever it wants with a majority. The constitution was written to restrict government for a reason.
Your section about church/state is a little all over the place and feels like a rant without much substance, but your description of his view on Israel is very inaccurate. The current Israeli PM and many other lead Israelis support the same stance that Paul is taking which is that Israel should be determining it's own future, not the US. So what if he doesn't believe the current Israel is the one mentioned in the bible, I don't see what that has to do with anything. So what if he has a statement of faith. I have never seen him use it as an excuse or a reason for any of his legislation other than his belief that we are all are created equal and with rights. As far as education goes, he thinks that if we fund education (only at the state level) that it should be a voucher system where you can pick whatever school you want to go to, whether it's a Christian school or a flying spaghetti monster one. It doesn't matter.
As far as abortion goes, Ron believes life begins at conception. If life begins at conception, then the child has every right to be alive and to extinguish it's life would be murder. If you disagree, fine, but it's hardly a radical stance. But aside from that, most everything there you mentioned is about him voting against funding. Ron believes we shouldn't be funding anything in those fields with federal money because the federal government doesn't have the authority to do it. It has nothing to do with any stance on abortion.
Helping the billionaires is laughable considering not one billionaire has given him a dime, but they LOVE Romney and Obama. As far as environmental regulation goes, he is against regulation, but that doesn't mean he's pro-pollution. It's about where this gets enforced. Regulatory agencies do far more to protect corporations than they do to help the environment. Take a look a the BP oil spill, the EPA is limiting and defining how much money BP can be held accountable for, but if this was left up to criminal and civil courts, BP and those who took the actions would be criminally and financially liable for all their actions to the full amount of damage.
I'm not sure what other legislation you're mentioning her following but his "anti-union" votes that I've seen in the past have been ones that take away any special privileges unions have. While unions should most certainly exist, they should not have any special advantages either. The rest there seems like more funding the government doesn't have the authority to spend and more forcing of wages that it doesn't have the right to do, most of which ends up being very hurtful to the poor.
Katrina is another issue of funding, subsidizing. We encourage people to live in high risk areas. That just isn't smart.
As far as what Ron can get done within the office of the president, well, it's a lot actually. He can bring home all of the troops, which will save us hundreds of billions a year, and he can appoint people to office that share his views. He can order them to not enforce legislation that's on the books, and he can propose legislation and veto any he disagrees with.
Your comment about being for regulation after being against it seems to me like a failure of understanding. He's against government regulation because it's biased, protects the corporations, and skews the market. But the free market regulating itself cannot be bought and controlled by any one person and no one gets special privileges. It's about respecting property rights and the choices of consumers.
No disrespect intended but this girl is off her rocker. Her facts are twisted, her perceptions are limited at best and she has some kind of vendetta against Ron Paul. Even if you don't agree with when conception begins you can't find another candidate that stands as close to the constitution as Ron Paul. Your twisted perception of his views stands as a stark contrast to your perception of the other candidates. Name another candidate that is as consistent or who follows the constitution more closely? You can't!
Ron Paul simply stands by our founding principles and the Constitution. Since most Americans are ignorant when it comes to these issues, it's understandable that they would think Ron Paul is insane. No, Ron Paul will never be president. In this day and age, neither would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Returning to our founding principles and the Constitution is the ONLY way to save America, which we will never do. I will vote for Ron Paul for president in 2012. If he is not on the ballot, I will write in his name, as I did in 2008. When America takes it's final fall, as it will, I will go down with the ship, but with a clear conscience. I pity anyone who thinks there is hope for this country. They will go their graves disappointed. Thomas Jefferson talked about "Eternal Vigilence". Unfortunately, the American people lost that a long time ago. God help us!
Nicely said!!
So, we should go back to slavery? Should we also repeal the women's vote?
No, you miss the point, it was all about keeping government from getting too much power.
No, you miss my point. The world evolve – things the founders of the US considered acceptable or unacceptable doesn't necessarily apply to today's world.
No we should just go back to the days when the govt couldnt detain American citizens indefinately without trial. But I guess no one is paying attention to that are they? And they call us crazy…
I'd love to work through a Skype call with you Ashley. I can understand why some of these policies on the surface may seem disturbing and would at face value disrupt society.
Lemme know if you're game would be a stimulating debate.
Skype Name: Schalk.Dormehl
Creeper ahoy!
Why do we support Ron Paul?
Because people like Ashley F. Miller are perfectly happy with the status quo.
But hey, I don't have a vagina, so it's not like I can get my rich banker boyfriends to pay my way through college like Ashley F. Miller.
Congrats Ashley F. Miller! Enjoy the payoff while you can.
The "basically youngish white men", you denigrate tend to remember the treatment they get from the little "white girls" like you while you use shame and blame to turn us into slaves, just to sell yourselves up for a piece of one of the members of the 1%.
You may not "have a vagina", but it doesn't keep you from being a cunt.
Ron Paul certainly has a few good views, but he will not get the nomination, and should not. Unlike some losing candidates, it doesn't even seem that any of his views will make it into the platform of the winning nominee. I don't like that the media has been trying to ignore his popularity and claim that he has less followers than he does, but that doesn't mean that I would vote for him.
Sick misogynistic fuck. Not all women have the slightest interest in living off some man just so she can have a dick on the couch. My girlfriend, like the OP, makes money blogging–and tons of it. I don't need to support her, just like the millions of working women in the U.S. Get a fucking life, loser, and learn how to treat ladies with respect, even if you disagree with their views.
Ashley, you are a brave, brave soul.
You've also nicely enumerated all of the various issues I have with Ron Paul. I believe that he is a man who is truly trying to create a better America and truly willing to step above backroom politics and political BS. I respect him for that, for his honesty and for his idealism.
I just don't agree with his solutions.
I didn't realize posting faceless, ignorant articles about one of the few respected politicians out there was "brave".
It isn't.
Of course, that's not what Ashley did. She posted a well argued, well cited blogpost on a politician who is considered irrelevant at best by the population at large, and dismissed by the sanest part of the Republican base.
Even if I felt Ron Paul was a good choice (and I don't – he is perhaps worse than Perry), I would never make the claim that he was respected. He isn't. Not by his fellow politicians or his fellow candidates, not by the media (not even Fox), and not by neither the Republican base nor the voters in general.
He does, though, have a rabid fan-base, which defends him mindlessly whenever he is citizised. For some reason that doesn't increase his respect.
This is where you are being misguided, The media is an extension of the large business interests (heck they are large business interests) if you get your facts from FOX you are sadly mistaken. If people would ever wake up to the fact that media lies to suit their agenda, turn off the TV and use independent media we would not be in the mess we are in now. I an acquaintance of mine is from the Czech Republic, one of his biggest issues is that the media here is so obviously biased that he only watches it to see what the "driven" agenda is. He watches media from overseas and gets TWO sides of the story. Here is a sample of what they do (this is not about content BUT CONTEXT):
If this is not enough to convince you there are 500 hits available here, use the search term "lies" if it is not iautomatically entered.
When you say not even respected by his fellow politicians, do you mean they think its laughable that he does not want to continue to conquer more of the middle east, or that is unthinkable that he wants to cut defense (since we spend more than anybody in the world actually 42% of the entire world spending on military is the US). It has been said that we could cut our defense in HALF and still spend more than any other single country on defense/offense. Or perhaps it is beyond comprehension to stop the great ponzi scheme of the federal reserve, that is, paying interest on all of our money to a privately owned company (I am sure you know about this), does any school of economics address where the interest payments on out debt based fiat currency are to come from? Is there a plan at any school that shows how to pay the interest in ANY WAY short of borrowing more money from the FED to pay it?
In parting, I would say that anything that FOX is trying to bury (i.e. Ron Paul) is probably bad for corporations profit lines and good for the people.
Thank you for your response Mitt – of course, it is flawed as it is based upon the premise that I am an American.
It's brave because she's opened herself up to a torrent of misogynistic insults, and she's even more brave to post them on this page so that everyone can see the way some people see fit to address her. If it hasn't happened to you you have no idea how physically sick it can make you.
http://rleahy.ca/blog/about/ This guy pretty much said it all!!!
Well, there are so many ways in which I can counter what this woman wrote but that would be a lengthy endeavour. I'll just state that her arguments are based on a previously held belief that she has; that Ron Paul is a "crazy, racist Christian fundamentalist". She uses that opinion as the jump off point for her arguments and then intentionally takes his own words out of context to support her characterization of him.
The "point" she makes about Greenspan being a libertarian, and the cause of the financial meltdown is literally pointless. Whatever political ideology Greenspan classifies himself as is pure semantics. The only point that matters is that Greenspan is PRO fed and Paul is ANTI fed. Her racist argument falls about 30 yards short of making any sense as well. She somehow attempts to infer that illegal immigration has something to do with the free market system when all he is saying is a very logical point that the more compassion you show to those who immigrate illegally the more likely you will see an increase in illegal immigration. I am inclined to agree with him. He isn't making a "racist" statement, just a logical one.
A lot of her complaints about his Christianity and stance on gay marriage etc are merely character based. Those are not policy related issues as Paul has said a number of times that he doesn't care if gays get married; it's not the business of the state to determine who can marry. If he himself is opposed to gay marriage but in the same breath says that he will not stop any gays from getting married because it's not his right as a politician to dictate that then this woman is only chastising Paul because she doesn't like his character. I get really annoyed with people that align themselves politically based on the candidate's character. It's a foolish way to vote.
I could pick it apart further but I'm not going to bother. The main issue with this article is that it is not written objectively as a proper journalist should write. It is written with preconceptions and opinions. Most troubling is how she uses small snippets of his words and video links (not providing the entire context in which they were originally spoken) and then rephrases them into her own words in an attempt to support her existing negative predispositions of him.
"Those are not policy related issues as Paul has said a number of times that he doesn't care if gays get married; it's not the business of the state to determine who can marry. "
But that's the problem, if it's not the state's business then whose business is it? The churches? Well then that falls against the First Amendment, especially as the President. He would be establishing a religion, in this case Christianity, in the nation. And of course you and the other crazies will say no he isn't because Jews and Muslims can still get married, but my question to you is what atheists and agnostics?
Plus, it's not the point of actually getting married. It's the legal protections and benefits (such as Social Security) that GBLT community would get–which falls under the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Read that last part, "the EQUAL protection of the law." If straights are afforded a marriage license, and social security even as married couples, then so should the GBLT community.
And that's where Ron Paul fails. I'm sorry to say that Ron Paul is a bigot, a racist and a fundamentalist crazy who would impose his religion on us by enacting his social programs.
And that is NOT someone I can support.
i believe what he is saying is, it should be determined by the couple that wishes to get married. Once they have done that , they go and do what every other married couple has done, get a license. You don't need to be married in a church or by a pastor/priest.
The state should get the fuck out the marriage business. There should be NO benefits or protections from being married. Then it wouldn't matter if you were gay, straight, polyamorous, single, etc. you'd just be you.
And it is NOT true that Ron Paul has said that states shouldn't get involved in who can marry who. He has upheld the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) time and time again, which states that every state has the "right" to refuse to recognize any marriage of a couple coming in from another state. This means that if you are a GLBT couple that married in Massachusetts, and you move to a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, then you are shit out of luck.
This is something that Ron Paul has supported. Yes, he's consistent for the most part (see his support of DADT, followed by his agreement that it should be repealed for an example of his inconsistency), but he is often wrong on issues like these.
Show me exactly where Ron Paul has said he is in favor of everybody getting equal rights in terms of marriage, and I will eat my words.
Since most people never learned these things in a government school, here's a little crash course. Foreign Policy: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none". —Thomas Jefferson. " America is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own". —John Quincy Adams Government Funding: "I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that granted to congress the power, to expend on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents".—James Madison "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated in the Consitution".—Thomas Jefferson Religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". —1st Amendment. Translation: You cannot be forced BY LAW, to practice any religion; nor can you be forced BY LAW to stop practicing it ANYWHERE. Gun Control: "I ask Sir, who are the Militia? They are the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them".—George Mason "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the State or Federal governments; but where I trust in God, it will forever remain; in the hands of the people".—Tench Coxx Government Power: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".—George Washington "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man; but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution".—Thomas Jefferson. OK Class, you're dismissed.
Ah yes, quotes from a bunch of people who felt it was completely alright for people to own slaves. And we are supposed to be impressed, why?
Yes, slavery was wrong, and the Constitution later outlawed it. You must remember that people back then were a product of their times. Slavery had been an accepted practice in many parts of the world, and by many governments, for many centuries. Sure, there many who could not see that slavery was wrong and immoral, not unlike today, when many can't see how wrong and immoral abortion is. I wouldn't say that pro-choice people are evil. They're just misguided by the courts and their governments. The Founders put a clause in the Constitution that it could be amended. I'm sure they intended those added amendments to enhance the freedom of the American people, as they ultimately did. Someone once said that what the founders did, was not only create a new nation, but also the mechanism for it's own improvement. Without that mechanism (The Constitution), slavery could have go on in this country for many more years, and woman and blacks could still not have the right to vote today. Our nation was founded on the basis of individual liberty. The first society in history to be started on that basic principle. In a society built on such a foundation, freedom cannot help but grow and flourish. That is, until the people allow it to be trampled on by power-hungry politicians.
This is why its not working, your comment implies that you should not listen to the constitution or words of wisdom from the framers. What would your version of the constitution be? Once you experience oppression first hand you will change your mind, but by then it will be too late.
Since I am not American, I don't hold the US constitution in the same awe as many Americans. For its time, it was a surprisingly forward thinking document, but it had obvious flaws (with slavery being the most obvious one).
@Kristjan, All sarchasm removed… I would like to read what you think is a good "modern constitution" or whatever it may be called either from your country wherever that is or your opinion of a good one somewhere in the world. Please post a link.
I guess what you're saying is since the founders were a bunch of white racist slave owners, we shouldn't put too much stock in what they said. In other words, all of their ideas were bad. So, to me, that would mean that you're saying we should do the opposite of the ideas and principles that they proposed. Let's see what we have here.
BAD IDEA: Separation Of Church And State
GOOD IDEA: Let Congress legislate on religious issues. If they decide that all Americans should be Christians by law, then so be it.
BAD IDEA: Freedom Of Speech
GOOD IDEA: It should be illegal for Ashley Miller, or any of the rest of us, to post our comments on this site. We should all be heavily fined and/or imprisoned.
BAD IDEA: The Right OF The People To Protest Governemnt
GOOD IDEA: The Occupy Wall Street protesters should get 10 to 20 years. Mmmm! I think you may be on to something here.
Wow, I never realized these guys had such stupid, ridiculous ideas; and I just named a few. I could go on and on. Anyway, thank you for enlightening me.
No, I am not saying that any idea the founders of the US had were bad – I am saying that quoting a bunch of slave owners as if they were the fountain of all wisdom is not going to convince me.
Each idea should be considered on its own merit, and it should be recogniced that things change. Things that seemed like a good idea several hundred years ago, might not work so well in a modern society (one example: the 2nd amendment – outside the US, it is generally considered a very bad idea to have a large number of weapons around).
That's the problem. Most Americans like only the ideas that support their political agendas. They're basically saying, "You have rights and freedom, of course, but only if I approve." Why should anyone have to approve? As long as you're not infringing on the rights of others, what's the problem? The mere ownership or possesion of a firearm, doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. The mere act of smoking marijuana does not infringe on anyone's rights. The mere act of gambling doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. It's your money. Do what you want with it. Why should any of these things be illegal? Yes, I am a gun owner, but I don't smoke pot or gamble. Actually, I despise drugs, and I really don't associate with anyone who uses them, but I'll stand up for anyone's right to peaceably engage in any activity they choose. That's what America is all about. I'm aware that you're not American, but even most Americans don't understand this basic prinicple of freedom. I guess maybe I'm just selfish. I realize that I cannot be free unless everyone is. So in a way, I guess the founders were never really free, since slavery existed in their time. I'm just glad they gave us the tools and the blueprint to rectify their mistakes. I never want to see anyone enslaved again, by other individuals, OR by government. Remember, when you want to see other's rights taken away by government, you're giving that same government the power to take away your rights. Libertarian Mary Ruwart said, "When you seek to control others, you find yourself controlled."
And now we are in a time where it is completely alright to kill babies.
So you are saying slavery was a good idea back then but the constitution is a bad idea now?
The majority of the comments posted show that we have no faith in your explainations, research or biased view point of RP. Mostly liberals land on your blog, yet you still failed. I'm sorry, Ashley. I wish you the best in finding the candidate that suits you.
Also "explanations" * but that's another story ; )
Really, Because I'm a possible Obama supporter who googled information on Obama then Ron paul, and found this in my research for "reasons why ron paul isnt a good choice"… lol
She is once again making baseless statements with nothing to back them up. Clearly this is a common method for her. It's quite pathetic really.
Anyone who quotes from Prisonplanet is either an overt racist or at the very least a closet racist.
Ron Paul and his worthless son are both racists. They're also both neo-fascists. All of his fans and followers are also neo-fascists, but they're so uneducated and so stupid that they don't know what that is.
Have any facts or sources to back up those ridiculous claims? No? Then shut your educated mouth. You may find it perfectly acceptable (like the author) to make baseless claims and assertions without having the concrete facts to back them up, but most educated individuals reject such ignorant and simple methods. I suggest you abandon them so you don't make yourself look like even more of a blithering idiot. Which would be quite the accomplishment. But I'm sure you are quite capable of astounding us with your enormous lack of intellect.
Must be too much FOX news…enuf said
The sad part is you really do not know who your enemy is, it's not any race, color, or religion, its a small number of people who OWN EVERYTHING, including all the media that you get your so called "facts" from. The most humble request I can make from you is to go to this constitution website and read, it really does not take very long to realize that we have been duped. The framers had plenty of experience with oppression and did their best to keep it from happening again.
Some media outlets called "independent media" which include Alex Jones have (some) good info (I have not been to his site for quite a while so the racist comment leaves me with a blank stare). Another great info site (with real facts to back up their claims) is TYT
Alex Jones? Sorry, you lose all credibility when you even consider him as a credible source. All he does is spout nonsense conspiracy theories that lack any basis in reality and are the product of his paranoia-addled mind.
The Young Turks, however, I can get behind. But only because they're slightly biased in the same direction that I usually think (progressive liberal). They make a lot of arguments based on emotion and personal feelings as well, but I simply happen to agree with them most of the time.
Why is it when liberals can't find anything bad to say about somebody, they'll always resort to calling that person a racist, whether they have proof or not? I guess it's their last ditch effort to bring the person down. The irony of it all is that in the 2008 Democratic Primaries, liberals proved that THEY are the true racists. So many racist comments were made by the left during the Clinton/Obama battle. PA Governor Ed Rendell stated that the people of PA were not ready for a black president. I heard several similar comments by the so-called party of tolerance and diversity. Of course, the media never called any of them on it. I personally know registered democrats who have actully quit voting because Obama was elected president. I wonder if any registered republicans would do the same if a black republican were elected president.
I don't know why that's the case Ron, and I must admit I haven't seen this tendency, but even if that was the case, what relevance does that have to this post? Ashley provided plenty of information that reflected badly on Ron Paul and his politics, and linked to a blogspot where someone else provided good evidence for Ron Paul's racist tendencies.
Oh, and regarding the Democrats/Liberals are racist gambit – that dog won't fly. Come back when the Republicans' and the Libertarians' voting record shows them to be not racist.
I have dealt with similar claims in the past
The democratic party has it's roots in racism. It was the pro-slavery party back in the 1860's. The republicans were the abolitionist party. It was the republicans who helped to pass the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Many democrats voted against it. Among them was Al Gore's father, who was a senator of Tennessee at the time. It was Ronald Reagan who passed the bill to make Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday. Robert Byrd, democratic senator from West Virginia was a member of the KKK. These are facts my friend. I know facts don't sit too well with the liberal agenda. And you really can't talk about the libertarian's voting record, since no one will give them a chance to prove how they would vote. Republicans and democrats just assume that the libertarians would be bad for the country. I don't have to assume that the two major parties are bad for the country. They've proven it themselves time and time again. Unfortunately, they will continue to prove it for years to come. And libertarians are supposed to be the stupid, ignorant, nutty people. LOL
*sigh* Yes, and the whole Dixiecrat thing with the mass exodus of racists to the Republican party after the civil rights vote didn't happen, right? Strom Thurmond continued to be a Democrat to his death, right?
Most of us are probably aware of the historical roots of the US parties, and are also aware of how the parties changed through the years. The current situation is much different from how it was back then.
Ron, the liberal/conservative attachments swapped between Democrats and Republicans since then. Democrats used to be the conservative party, and Republicans were the liberals. It wasn't until some time ago that Republicans became the conservatives and Democrats the liberals.
So, if you're going to blame a group of people for wanting to keep slavery, being against the Civil Rights Act (which Ron Paul IS AGAINST by the way), blame conservatives, not any one party. Blame the mindset behind such ignorance and bigotry.
full of shit – full of lies – fuck you ashley f. mliler.
What the hell is the matter with you?
My close freind is associated with the online part of RP's campaign. He tells me that the core supporters are really nice people. Many of the comments here do not reflect the kind of supporters he suggested exist.
We get the same stuff from RP haters. Trollers gonna troll. But I wont lie reading this piece did anger me a little. But I can't hate liberals I know they mean well, they jsut don't understand that the govt just messes stuff up. They end up making things worse. I. E. FEMA with Katrina. Govt forcing companies to give loan to uncredit worthy people causing the housing crisis. Of course the loaners are to blame as well along with the borrowers but when the govt makes a program like that it will be exploited. It means well but the results arent there. Welfare makes people dependent and less likely to provide for themselves. If you have kids you cant just give them everything as much as you want to you have to teach them the hard lesson so they can provide for yourself.
I have yet to met a single Ron Paul supporter who isn't an arrogant, blind hater who refuses to do research and insists on ignoring parts of Paul's platform to support, of all ridiculous things, drugs. Forget all of the racist newsletters (that he either wrote or profited from: tit-tat), the school prayer amendment, not accepting evolution (I.D. is not evolution, has nothing to do with evolution, and has exactly the same amount of evidence as creationism: see abiogenesis), denying Separation of church and State, calling MLK, Jr. Day "hate whitey day," and all the batshit crazy things he says and does, and what are we left with? Someone who hides behind "it's for the states to decide" when asked the tough questions.
Well, I for one don't want any government, state or federal, to decide who I can love, marry, where I can work or live, or any of the other protections that fall under the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the yet-unenacted ones to protect the GLBT community. No, the states should not be able to decide if an employer can fire someone for being gay or black, if a landlord can refuse housing to someone because they're handicapped, or any of the other prejudices this man (sometimes unintentionally) promotes. Inevitably, his supporters are straight, white, religious men who have no idea what prejudice and discrimination are. That's why they can't see what a destructive POTUS this man would be: It's called privilege. Either that, or they can't put down the joint long enough to Google him.
Krae Talle: Congrats… Nice to meet you. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I'm a white, gay atheist living in rural Alaska.
I've been with my partner for 22 years and would love to get married some day. We've considered moving to Iowa or Vermont to get married but, because the of DOMA, it would be silly. Under Ron Paul, I would be able to choose to live in a state that accept me — right now, I have no choice. If I were a woman, I'd even be able to get the morning after pill — President Obama's administration just banned it from being over the counter. Ron Paul wants NO government control over drugs which would include this one.
I'm also a government employee — environmental specialist in fact. I work with VOLUMES of regulations — that are great at employing more people but do little to actually protect the environment. For example, I bet you've violated hazardous waste laws by tossing an aerosol can into the trash at work. You must be an environmental hater if you did so.
Ron Paul is against the corporate government that strangles every aspect of our lives. The OP's viewpoint is one of the best I've read – but still doesn't convince me that Ron Paul is not a better alternative than the other people running. The points she brings up pale in comparison to the bigger picture. We have a government that KILLS thousands and thousands of brown people in wars, fosters corporate monopolies, wants to invade your privacy in every way, and is controlled by people who want only power.
Most of the RP supporters I have met are usually the only ones paying attention. Everyone else seems too busy watching American Idol and then voting for whoever thier party nominates. The sad part is it is usually on issues that the president can't even change.
If Paul supporters are the only ones paying attention, why do I end up telling them about things about their own candidate, like the Susan B. Anthony pledge?
Thanks for posting this article. While there somethings I agree with Ron Paul about, there are too many things that I cannot overlook about him.
He does have a loyal following though.
Dear Ashley,
Thank you for your article. Even though I think it is a load of inaccruate, fear-mongering, democratic tripe, I accept your RIGHT as a free-thinking American to express such ignorant views.
I hope you dig-in-your heels and vote for either Obomb-a or Newt World Order/Romney. That way once these candidates of your choice pass the NDAA, Patriot Act II and strip away your RIGHT to criticize anything about the government for fear of being labelled a terroritst, we shall all be spared your delirious rantings.
Please enjoy your last few years of freedom of speech and other articles of the Constitution for it won't be long until your anti-Ron Paul candidates finish stripping those away from you too!
So Ron Paul stipping away the rights of minorities and women is OK? As Ashley explained, Ron Paul has actively voted to do so in the past – why would he be any better as a president?
How would Ron Paul strip away the rights of minorities or woman? Name ONE of his policies that does that. He is a candidate that would end the War on Drugs, which is a way law enforcement has kept minorities down. He would also allow abortion issues to be decided by the states. None of this is anti-woman or anti-minorites.
Stop spewing your ignorance.
Have you even read the original blogpost?
His opposition to the Civil Rights Act is simple. He said it would have been much more effective to repeal the Jim Crow Laws. That's how libertarians think. We are against adding more laws when you can just repeal bad ones.
Do some actual research for yourself. Ashley's blogpost is INCREDIBLY inaccurate and misleading. She has done VERY LITTLE actual research. Ron Paul explains ALL his controversial view points very well and she has spent zero time looking at his actual words and actual views.
Note how she still avoids the questions about the economy. She still has cited NOTHING in all of economics that would explain why Ron Paul's ideas wouldn't work. Meanwhile Paul cites all of austrian economics.
Yeah, I'm gonna listen to some self-righteous ginger blogger who doesn't employ the use of facts or sources over one of the leading personalities and advocates for the Austrian School of Economics.
Do you even KNOW what the Austrian School of Economics is? Or are you just trashing his policies without fully understanding them or where they come from? Have you read Mises? Friedman? Hayek? Have you even heard of these people before today?
If you don't understand the problems with using a gold-based currency in a global economy and in an expanding economy, you should really not be commenting on economics at all.
Even Friedman backed away from his early support of gold-based currencies.
Speaking of Friedman, he is not really considered part of the Austrian School of Economics, even though he based much of his economic theory on it. In general the Austrian School of Economics is no longer considered correct by any economist worth his salt (inside or outside the Chicago School). The fact that Ron Paul seems to base his economic ideas on it is another strike against him.
Really? Because the Austrian School of Economics has consistently predicted downturns in the economy such as the one in the 70's. Also, Ron Paul himself predicted the current economic downturn in 2003. He predicted it to a T. This was when everyone was claiming the housing bubble would expand indefinitely.
He bases these predictions on Austrian Economics. EVERYTHING he predicted came true.
Ron Paul was hardly the only person to have predicted the housing bubble – many did.
And no, everything Paul has predicted has not come true. As a matter of fact, most of what Paul has said on the subject of economics is absolute garbage (and other adherrents of the Austrian School of Economics are probably embarrassed by his nutty utterings – the few who still exist, that is)
If you want to find a Paul with a much better track record, go for Paul Krugman.
Alexandros, you are ignorant of economic theory, you have no understanding of the mechanisms of economy, you lack the understanding of the basic fundamentals of economics. In other words, you have absolutely no clue what youre talking about when it comes to economics.
That's not something to be ashamed of – many people lack this knowledge. You should, however, not try to bedazzle the rest of us with your very limited knowledge on the area. It is painful to watch, and it is, frankly, embarreshing.
Given this, I will bow out of this debate. It is not worth my time, and I have no need to see an ignoramus demonstrate his lack of knowledge further.
You'll probably see this as a victory – so be it. I have no need for demonstrating that I can beat the witless in a debate requiring a minimum of knowledge.
So all economic schools aside, you believe a currency system that is debt based (with interest attached) is ok?
Since that's not how currencies work, that's a meaningless question.
This is where actually you are wrong, it is not very well known and definitely NOT taught in economics schools, much of the information can be found in "Modern Money Mechanics" available at the Fed's Chicago branch website. The FED is a hybrid government/private corporation and the process of creating money is relatively simple, the problem arises when the monetary base has to be continually expanded (causing inflation or debasement of the dollar) through the 6% INTEREST payment on the Primary Dealers reserves. The eternal expansion of the money supply compounded over the last 100 years is the primary problem, as it only works if the economy expands at the same rate, this implies infinite expansion which is clearly not the case. The creation of money out of thin air has been used throughtout history, nothing new here, its the interest payments that are the real culprit and this is compounded by the policy of creating "new money" on new loans instead of loaning money currently available in the system. And actually I AGREE with you on the Gold standard due to its scarcity, I would prefer a more plentiful metal (and less volatile) such as silver. And BTW your slanders to people intelect do not help make your point, lets try to be scholarly with each other and maybe we can all learn something.
I should add I am talking about the monetary policy HERE in the US since you are from Denmark, just to be specific.
All I hear is garbage everytime you shoot down peoples economic principles….things like " you know nothing aobut economics" does not prove someone knows nothing about economics….you keep saying how things won't work, but NOTHING substanitial as to why.
People have posted videos and given you all the details of how our current monetary system works but all you provide is "no it doesn't work that way"..
LOL….you are SO deluded by defending your socialist right-wing of the establishment that you refuse to see logic and will continue to argue even as our country is circling the drain.
No logic, no reason, just a party mouthpiece trying to promote his "side".
Paul supporters don't pick sides like gangs, we choose the people with integrity.
Please don't vote …..or breed. Thanks.
Unfortunately, my fellow Ron Paul/Freedom supporters, the majority of Americans think like Ashley Miller. Most of them don't even realize it. Nikita Kruschev said back in the 50's, "The United States will eventually fly the communist red flag; the American people will hoist it themselves". It's sad that it took a communist dictator to speak the truest words ever spoken about the American people. I guess he knew communism so well, that he knew it's a natural tendency in most human beings.
It is always interesting to see Americans demonstrate that they have absolutely no understanding of what Communism is.
How exactly does the people (or the state) control the means of production in US? Where is the trend towards that?
I have no romantic feelings about Communism, which I have no wish to ever see risen from the graveyard of ideologies, but stupid, inaccurate claims serve no one.
Communism is NOT where the people own the means of production. That's Socialism.
Nice try.
Both socialism and communism are based on the idea of a common ownership of the means of production (which was part of Marx's ideas, which both ideologies are based upon).
As long as we all continue to argue over Keynes, Austrian, seperation of church/state etc.. the farther the bandits get away from the crime scene. Just look at BASIC FACTS: Have the number of grassroots small/medium businesses declined over the past 30 years? WHY? (hint: How may companies has Procter and Gamble acquired? Can you say "made in China") Why do we have inflation? How large is inflation in terms of real gold? How come two incomes are NOW needed to have a (barely in some cases) middle class lifestyle? Why did congress authorize TARP even though the people 'en mass' said NO and even the house of representatives shot the bill down? How come the countries that we have the most "fear" of killing us "happen" to be in the top 10 of oil reserves in the world (which in total are 90% of the worlds oil) Iran is #3, Iraq is #4, Kuwait is #5, Venezuela is #6, Libya is #9? How come after Sadam and Osama were killed we did not bring the troops home? Are they home now or mobilizing for another invasion of Iran, Syria and Pakistan? Where does it stop? This country was stolen, part of Mexico was stolen, now we are stealing the (apparently) whole middle east. If you continue to argue economic theory and vote for the faux media lies about "threats" in Iran. You continue to be missing the forest for the trees.
Everything is headed towards a monopoly, no it will never be exactly a monopoly, but control is obviously being shifted toward a few Ultra Large corporations. Maybe its not communism but it's definitely some form of corporatism. Small business cannot compete with sweat shop labor costs and therefore the big corps win everytime. There is NO "loyalty" toward american jobs, just their profit line (this is how it is supposed to be with business). Why can they do this? Insuffient import duties on Chinese goods. This is where any resemblence of help from our political servants disappears. They will never change this because it would raise the prices of the large corps products thus allowing competition again and small business growth. So economic theory's be damned, its all about politicians getting paid by Ultra Large corps to allow them to make higher profits. So why am I for Ron Paul? Because I believe he has LOYALY to the American People not the large corps. Sorry so sloppy was I interrupted several times.
The way the people vote is what puts a society on the road to communism. They vote that way out of ingnorance. They will vote away their own freedom and property rights until the government owns everything. The following are the ten steps toward communism outlined in the communist manifesto. Read them Kristjan. Then tell me we're not on that road.
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.
Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????
I love how you can depend on Ron Paul supporters to be complete morons in the comments section of any article like this. Consistency!
As long as the media can keep us (we the people) in some sort of rivalry-competition about who wins the establishment will win every time. Has anybody considered that a lot of RP supporters show up because maybe there is already a majority that media keeping silent (right wing media says either Mitt or Newt and left wing media is Obama, they leave us psychologically with no other choices, which is BAD, they have already won if they can get any of the three in office)? At every turn the media puts out some false propaganda about the man (they definetely don't want RP because he will shatter the corporate/treasury buffet including media's profits, directly or indirectly they are tied to the money of advertising by the Ultra large corps). Don't just answer from your emotions or the "winning spirit" about who you want to win, RESEARCH, and as I stated and proved, Mainstream media is not to be trusted (they lie proof added), you have to get information outside of that corporate wrapped system. I posted a few independent media sources throughout this blog (one is slightly left wing biased), and no I am not pro republican OR pro democrat, I am pro "The People" and tired of us being the sheeple.
This is why I am for Ron Paul, ALL the arguements here are moot. NOT ONE candidate EXCEPT RON PAUL will protect your rights from the police state that is coming to your house soon. Obama, Newt, Romney, Perry..ALL of them are for this type of government (NO political Bias, I don't believe there is any difference anymore) IF you do nothing else spend 15 minutes watching these two videos and realize what just happened to our freedoms. This is the nail in the coffin to any future protests against our government…EVEN if you did not like OWS, ANY FUTURE PROTESTS will be silenced by this new law, because they don't have to have a reason to arrest you, don't have to say where they took you, and can hold you indefinitely, this is now an authoritarian government!!!
Vote for anybody but Ron Paul and WW3 is right around the corner, if we make it to the next election.
Mitt, even if Ron Paul became president and turned this country around in a very positive way, these people on here would still find something to hate about him. They've made up their minds to hate Ron Paul, for political reasons, of course, and that will never change. Isn't it just amazing how people can continue to vote for politics as usual, and continue to expect different results each time they do? And we are supposed to be the stupid, ignorant ones. Wow!!
I agree, Much of what I can discern is how blinded they are by mainstream media, even when you show them how they lie… GL to all of us.
Kind of like you lot and anyone who's not High Holy Lord Racist Ronnie?
So, let me get this right. Paul will support and expand the freedoms of straight, white christian men, repeal the Civil Rights Act, own every woman's uterus (and no, I am not pro-choice, nor am I pro-life. I'm actually undecided), force the nonreligious to pay for religious education through vouchers, try to push through a school prayer amendment, eliminate the EPA and give corporations even more leeway to freely destroy our only planet, legislate pollution by pushing his ignorance on climate change into law (because he, unlike the 97% of scientists who accept it, thinks it's a hoax so it's okay to legislate it), push through an even more frightening form of DOMA (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html), reinstate DADT so the people who are fighting for him have to hide who they are because of his religion (see the First Amendment), the terrifying We The People Act (that in effect creates castes in America of superior christian straight people and inferior gay nonchristians), and on and on and on.
The man is not what this country needs. I don't think that's any Republican or Obama either (I'm voting Rocky Anderson). So he has a couple of good ideas about war–that isn't enough for me to create a Patriot Act a million times worse by electing him as POTUS. All you have to do is read the comments on this page to see the kind of people who support him: Instead of intelligent debate, they rely on ad hominem attacks and call the OP, who happens to be female, a cunt, say she's living off some man, she should go back in the kitchen. If those are his supporters, I see no reason to join them.
"he's very anti open borders" There are several interviews with Ron Paul in which he says in his own words that he is a constitutional Republican, that he is more Republican then all of the other candidates. He has also stated why he left the party to seek the libertarian ticket in the past. But he was never a libertarian, only acceptable to their platform. This first point is complete fluff.
"Ron Paul Doesn't Support Minorities:" Actually Ron Paul just says that a moral society would confront racism instead of sweeping it under the rug and pretending it does not exist. He always votes towards real equality not pandering. He is also the only candidate who thinks in a ideal society nobody would care who got married to who. He thinks if illegals can stay in the country and be productive we need not hunt them down- again another completely fluff point…
"Ron Paul is against church and State:" If i was a teacher in a social studies class and I said "Creationism is a religious belief which serves as an explanation of the origin of the universe." There is nothing a real science minded person would have a problem with in that statement- yet it would have been teaching about creationism in a school… Science can defend herself- as if evolution vs creationism was a serious topic anyway. By the way your pathetic regurgitation of a highly edited video on his views is characteristic of the fluff perspective you are presenting. A full transcript of that video can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/18118.html He states he has not researched it, as it is completely inconsequential to him. To have a strong opinion one way or another would be silly. NOBODY who really respects science can say that is a unwise move…
Stem Cells, he is for stem cells just not ones from abortions. He also is smart enough to know that Ella and Plan B are considered contraception…
"Ron Paul Helps Billionaires Not the Poor" Right, that is why billionaires support Romney, Obama, Perry, Newt but not Ron Paul. The EPA an their precious regulations are completely exempt for companies like Haliburton and oil&gas. You fail to understand that a strict adherence to respecting property rights would never provide an safety shield for corporations to destroy the environment. Why did the EPA side with Ford and screw up the superfund site in "Mann vs Ford"?
The earmarks *yawn* the people in his district paid money in for the benefits they received, just like he does not think medicare should not exist- he still thinks the people that paid into it should get their moneys worth.
You can completely forget that he is the only candidate who is against bailouts, and corporatism leading to massive subsidies and govt contracts that amount to mountains of wasted money as the spending on the federal level is never accountable in comparison to State operations as a whole. That he is the only real peace- or that he is the only who cares about sound money. He would never allow the federal reserve to print money at the cost of inflation- it only destroys the middle and lower class. Look who ends up getting the money too- it is not people with lobbies that support Ron Paul…
For those willing to learn, this video shows exactly why Ron Paul wants to "end the FED" and the possibly illegal income tax. This video will teach you more than any history or economics class could wish to do, If you are convinced that because I like Ron Paul this video is not worth your time then you are the one who is guilty of "contempt prior to investigation"- Herbert Spencer
I am just trying to inform, I spend a LOT of time trying to figure out why our system appears to not work.
You likely do not like Ron Paul because you do not fully understand what causes our problems, and how they can be fixed. You may not have a very good understanding of the American Revolution, the Constitution, Common Sense, Federalist Papers and the works of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and others. If you really understood what they are all about, you would see why people follow him so passionately.
He has been around a long time, for every video you find about him others can find 10 that prove it is taken out of context or was just a mis-statement. No one is perfect, but this one guy represents the people rather than corporations. Show us another candidate for president who isn't in the pockets of the biggest banks in this country, and plenty of people will give him/her a close look.
Federal Reserve, DOD, military spending. That is where most our money goes. All this other stuff is easier to fix if we focus on cutting spending on military bases that we have in dozens of countries and auditing the federal reserve, which has taken trillions from us in the past few years.
Jeremy, well put. No candidate is perfect, but RP is not you typical corporate-owned politician. He speaks to power as no one else dares to because they are all bought and sold by power the POTUS included.
Rocky Anderson. So look him up and prove you're not just a typical Paulbot who wants the Mary Jane. Ron Paul is a frightening person if you look past his pretty words, but then again, I assume you're straight, white christian and male, too young to know better, or too old to care. He's all about legislating his chosen form of religion into the government no matter how that affects others (See the We The People Act, it's terrifying for anyone who wants to protect the rights of other Americans), and nothing will stand in his way. The rights of women, gays, the poor, elderly, disabled and racial minorities are irrelevant to him–and to every Paulbot I've ever seen. Not a one of them cares about other people.
But what's really scary is that there are a few loudmouths like the haters on this page who've called the OP a cunt and other hateful names without actually researching anything. Continue to spew your hate. It only helps the cause of those of us who want equal rights for everyone, not just the special few who meet Paul's criteria for privilege. Every time you Paulbots open your mouths and alienate people, there's someone who's read it and realizes the kind of people who support him–because he's just like them. (Does accepting money from the KKK and having Klan members on staff ring a bell?)
Ashley F. Miller, I am an African Descended, part Cherokee, part Muskogee Creek, same gender loving (gay) man in my early 50s. I am politically savvy, have 3 advanced professional degrees, am both a spiritual teacher and a political radical and social activist and live in Oakland, CA, one of the mot culturally diverse places in America and YOU are my new heroine for composing this piece. THANK YOU! And may you experience nothing but total joy and happiness in your life from this day forward.
Do any of you know what the Susan B. Anthony pledge is? Did you know Dr. Paul signed it? And you say he isn't pro-life. That's laughable.
Many her just don't get it, I believe someone here said this was a mostly "liberal/left/democrat type of site/blog. Here is the BIG NEWS, NONE of the current republican candidates OR Obama are going to do anything that helps the people much more than lip service. As long as you continue to go to mainstream media (FOX, CNN etc.) for your education you will never be able to make an informed choice because your facts have been skewed AND they lie (see my earlier post). The media's role is to talk you into voting for a pro establishment person (right or left). A pro establishment person is someone who will obey the LARGE money interests and "sneak" inside bills small clauses that give more money to their cause either through government contracts, subsidies or bailouts. I do not think they give a rats tail about all of the civil issues i.e. gay's rights (personally I don't care, live and let live) this is just a leverage point to help the pro establishment people to get you to vote for them. They push the limits either direction every 8 years or so and then unwind one side or the other, but the ONE CONSISTENT THEME (no matter dem or rep) is that the ULTRA wealthy continue to get what they want, tax cuts for the very wealthy or lack of tax hike (this just happened under Obama a liberal), public money funnelled to the private sector (bailouts both Bush and Obama), thier continued conquering of the middle east's oil countries (Bush, Bush's daddy and Obama). NAFTA .(Clinton) which has KILLED american Jobs and been GREAT for large corps.(Clinton). And what many do not know is from 1982 to 1987 (Regan) the top tax rate was reduced from 70% on the millionairs to 38% this is when the actual debt bubble began (I will post this chart if it posts). So when I hear ANYBODY ranting about some pro -establishment candidate vs. the ONLY anti-establishment candidate we have had in a long time (Ron Paul) I have to come to the conclusion that you are NOT very informed or ALL of your facts are from pro establishment news ( FOX and the like). Here is a simple easy fact check, see who gets a bunch of money from Goldman Sachs and other large corps, these are pro establishment candidates.
Here is Obama 2008 contributions, no shame here I voted for him too (McCain is just a war monger). I discovered my fallacy later.
here are other candidates 2008 ( I use this because we are not far enough along in this current camapign):
John McCain:
Mitt Romney: Note the self financing, do you really think this guy wants to spend 44million for a job that pays 400K /year, all in the name of making a better place for his grand kids? Heck give the grandkids the 44Million in a trust and its a WAY better place for them.
Do yourself a favor and look more at places like this to get a "snapshot" of whats going on.
Here is the chart of public debt, notice it ramps up in 1982ish
Now compare the debt chart with the stock market and wonder where the money went regardless of political party control, notice the upward turns at 1982 (TAX CUT for RICH- Regan) AND 1994-1995 (NAFTA-Clinton)
They ALL continue to sell us out!
If you are old enough to remember Ross Perot, Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of today, NOT a pro-establishment candidate, otherwise he would have tons of corporate backed money.
I did not realize the Dow Jones link does not work for direct linking
(http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/USDJIND1980.gif DOES NOT WORK) , and although many here appear not interested, here is a shortcut to the chart page
scroll down to "U.S. Markets" and two links below the word "US Markets" is DJI 1970-2002 link, this shows the inflections at 1982ish and especially at 1994 (NAFTA)
The conclusion that should be made is that neither republican nor democratic presidents of the past did much for average people BUT made HUGE changes for the very wealthy. NAFTA being the worse for jobs here in the US.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this, you have spent a lot of time and effort which is more than most Americans do. Sad to say but true. I guess where you lose me is getting hung up on the pro life, pro women issues with the current state our country is in. According to NPR 1 in 2 Americans are poor or low income. There are actually Americans going hungry! I am willing to look past the areas in which I disagree with Ron Paul to give him a chance to turn things around. Whether your a democrat or republican, the same rules have applied and have put us where we are currently. You say that he waffles which is strange, considering that even those who detest him will give him credit for being consistent on the material issues. I was listening to him on Wolf Blitzer a couple of days ago and I don't know how any rational American could say he isn't putting the country first, not lobbyists, not weapon manufacturers, not credit card companies, he is actually putting the country first and he remembers that this country is supposed to be run by the people and for the people. I feel it's been 25 years since that has been true. If JFK had reacted like Obama, Mitt, Newt or the incredibly dense Bachman during the Bay of Pigs, where would be right now? You are too caught up in the pro war propaganda if you can't see that the reason other countries hate us and wish us harm is because we feel the need to stick our military in their countries and babysit. We have active troops in over 60 countries. I would like an honest answer from you on how you expect that not to build resentment? Can you imagine if Russia decided we needed "help", we needed them to show us the light and stationed 10,000 troops in Texas? if, as our current politicians believe, that the people in the Middle East are attacking us because we are free and wealthy and live a lifestyle different from theirs, please explain why these same people are not attacking Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, etc..Below is a list of the top 10 countries with the highest standard of living
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland
I would say we are the number one target on that list and it has nothing to do with being free!
I mention defense because it goes hand in hand with my number one issue and that is the economy. I am sure you realize we spend as of 2010, $663 billion dollars on defense yearly. The interest on our national debt is $164 billion. I believe our debt is approximately $15 trillion. If we redirect a large portion of our defense budget towards paying down the debt and getting our country back on solid footing, we will once again be in a position to help others. Right now we have to help ourselves get back to what we once were. We used to be a country that the world admired and respected, sadly that is no longer the case. Mitt and Newt would like you to believe that we have to rule with an iron fist and intimidate other countries so that they are so afraid they wouldn't dare harm us. I think the Arabs that wish us harm have proven time and again they are willing to die and no amount of weapons or aircraft has been able to put a damper on that.. Russia finally went bankrupt, in part from spending 9 years there in a war they couldn't win.
We as a country are in a dire situation and I believe there are a lot of reasons for this but the saddest of all is the complete apathy most American feel. We, myself included have been so wrapped up in our own little world that we have allowed our country to be run by the politicians and for the politicians. When the Senate passed the Act (last week) that allows the President to hold American citizens who are merely SUSPECTED of terrorism without a trial, without being charged and without due process I had to search the internet to find it. I have the news on all the time and I did not here one journalist on any of the major networks or the 24 hour news programs talk about it. To me this is huge, this is one of the main reasons our founding fathers left Europe. We go into Iraq to liberate the oppressed and yet we are taking away our citizens rights in the same breath? Anyway, didn't mean to go on this long but I did want to say I appreciate your post and while I don't agree with it, I love the fact you care.
You are aware that Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) are the target of terrorists, right? Also terrorists from the Middle East.
Unrelated to your comments about defense, I find it interesting that the majority of the countries on your list are fairly socialist. These countries, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc have apparently prospered and thrived my embracing the economic and social policies that RP decries as tyrannical. I just can't understand how these countries with such meddlesome overzealous states can be so productive. I mean, Norway forces free education and health care for all of it's citizens and they don't even use the gold standard!
How can their economy possibly survive such a despicable usurpation of their individual rights?
True, they are socialist, which is contrary to RP's economic and social plan but for the most part these countries do not meddle in other countries business. My point was that RP's foreign policy is more in line with countries who do not send in troops or try to dictate how other countries run and are not targeted by hate groups to the extent the US is. The Romney's, Newt's and even Obama's of the world would have you believe the reason we have a huge target on our back is because we are free and rich and I was trying to point out that isn't the case. I don't believe everything Ron Paul says but I do think that unless we get our financial house in order we are looking at a very different world for our kids, one most of us have never encountered. This isn't a political issue it is a math issue. We can not keep spending money we don't have. That said, one place to cut is by pulling back our military from countries we have no business being in. We spend close to 7 billion on defense with most of that being the military. Ron Paul is not against defense he is against our military being in over 120 countries with 60 of them active. As to socialism vs. capitalism, I honestly don't know which is better. I would gladly live in a country like Finland where socialism works but I don't believe it would be possible in the US. You are either a capitalist or a socialist and I don't know how you blend the two but if you have any ideas please share.
I'm ashamed of some of the replies here. Whats wrong with Ron Paul supporters? The man is so balanced and thoughtful but his followers (mostly young guys) are so hostile to anyone that doesnt accept everything he says or who questions him. Shame on you. Dont just follow his politics follow his character too.
correction, young WHITE guys!
No, I believe she said young, non-religious white guys. Why would a non-religious person support a Christian fundamentalist? That doesn't make sense; yet, we are supposed to believe that everything else she says makes perfect sense. Why?
"No, I believe she said young, non-religious white guys. Why would a non-religious person support a Christian fundamentalist? That doesn't make sense; yet, we are supposed to believe that everything else she says makes perfect sense. Why?"
I wasn't quoting Ashley F. Miller ( BTW, I totally agree with her post here). I was making my own observation independent of her similar observation. The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters I know are straight white males. And I know a lot of Ron Paul supports. As an African Descended, same gender loving man, I have learned to be very wary of any national candidate that has an unusually large straight, white male following. That's not because there is anything wrong necessarily with straight white males per se' but more because the *absence* of supporters of color and to a lesser degree the absence of LGBT supporters is a huge red flag for me personally. I have been voting for 33 years. In my experience, it has 100% proven to be a reliable and negative indicator for me, when a national candidate has relatively few supporters in the people of color community, as is the case with Ron Paul and to a lesser degree is the case with practically all national Republican candidates. Danger, danger Will Robinson!
Really, because I am only aware of a total of 3 deaths between Switzerland, Sweden or Finland that have been caused from "terrorist attacks" by persons from the middle east. You can not possibly say the Oslo attacks were from an organized terrorist group out of the Middle East. 2800 people die from choking each year. Do the math.
Just because the terrorists are caught before they manage to commit their acts, doesn't mean that the Scandinavian countries aren't targets.
Denmark is very active in Afghanistan and Iraq, and had the whole drawing thing as well. So far 7 or 8 different terrorst plots have been stopped by the police and the Danish intelligence agencies.
I fail to understand what point your trying to make. My statement that we are the number one target on that list of 10 countries is correct. Are you disagreeing with that or simply letting me know that other countries are targeted as well? I think when you weigh the number of lives we have lost and the billions of dollars we have spent on our war with"terror" it is safe to say it has been a failure. We are more of a target now than we were before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan and we are billions of dollars poorer and 1000's of families have lost a loved one. Are you suggesting we should spend more money and more lives fighting this war on terror? Are you saying that our spending on defense has been well spent? Do you think if our reaction to 9/11 was to go after the individuals responsible for it and not countries we would be in a more vulnerable position?
According to Time magazine there were 31,224 gun related deaths in 2010. 3996 people died in 9/11. If you and our politicians are truly interested in protecting our citizens doesn't this seem a little irrational? The punishment did not fit the crime and did we even punish the right people? I feel like we punished citizens of two countries merely for being Islamic? It seems like you are just disagreeing to disagree. If that is the case then let's debate but if you have a real point or idea I would like to hear it. I have read what you have written and you seem to be well informed on the topics you write about and I would like to hear your thoughts as to why changing our approach to Middle Eastern is wrong.
I have read quite a few of these comments and the only people who seem to be citing sources are the Ron Paul supporters. They should definitely learn to relax though – you guys/gals are becoming heated over nothing really. Ashley, I read your article and I can't say I understand how you draw some of your conclusions based on the facts presented. I don't encourage this endless bickering, because I believe once things get heated, as the comment section of this article has, it's hard for people to think rationally. I do suggest you do more research on Ron Paul though. Also, of all the things you slammed him for, being inconsistent is probably the most far-fetched.
To the man that said Ron Paul and all of his supporters are neo-fascists… Sir, do you know what a neo-fascist is? I don't think there is one intelligent human being that would label Ron Paul as a neo-fascist.
You don't think it's inconsistent that he says he wouldn't let his views on abortion affect his political decisions yet he signed the Susan B. Anthony pledge, where he promised to only appoint pro-live judges and politicians if he becomes President? I think it's inconsistent, and very questionable. It seems many Paul supporters over look many flaws of his.
Jen, RP is a constitutionalist. And there isn't anything in the constitution that guarantees a right to abortion. As a constitutionalist, the only conclusion that he can arrive at is that it is a decision probably better left to the states – regardless of personal belief. Now in the US we have over 50 million foetuses aborted since Roe V Wade, and above 1 million per year. Now, I'm pro-choice, but I cannot deny that a feotus begins to show the characteristics of a human form within a very short span of time, and these numbers are therefore quite gruesome. What most women are flushing from their bodies is a living thing, a nascent-human being. So, on the other hand, perhaps some people need be a little less militantly pro-abortion (seeking even to have the government pay for it !) and think about how we can reduce the number of living humans-in-formation that we are destroying. It's not as if there isn't such a thing as birth control and we don't all know what it is and how to access it. It's quite available. What many pro-choicers are arguing for is simply irresponsible behavior. If you don't think you will get backlash for that (even empowering right wingers), think again.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Paul stating he wouldn't let his personal philosophy affect his governing. Clearly, he is letting his personal philosophy affecting the way he (if he gets Pres.) decides to run this country. What you said is all fine and dandy, and I, too, support education, but the reality is that abortion is a necessary evil. Now, Ron Paul has stated he's never seen a "medically necessary" abortion. Nevermind tubal pregnancies, or placental abruptions, etc… The point here is that Paul says one thing and does another, not whether abortion is good or not.
I would certainly not label Ron Paul a neo-fascist, but some of his supporters are openly neo-fascists – which I believe is the only claim that has been made, not that all are neo-fascists.
It's absolutely absurd. The closest thing to a fascist in the room is the black guy with the big ears and funny name. By that I would point out an increase of encroachment over civil liberties, the unchecked expansion of military-style policing tactics, the relegation of governmental authority to unelected bureaucratic agencies, and, a reliance on the corporatist state as a source of (real) power. Lets add to that an embrace of Bush era expansion of the authority of the executive branch. Libertarians, by contrast seek to decentralize power and authority as far from a central (federal) source as possible, and restore as much individual autonomy as possible.
Here is a snippet from a recent article on Newsmax.com:
—-The National Organization for Marriage, which previously criticized Gingrich for his two divorces and extra-marital affairs, said the former Speaker of the House signed its anti-gay-marriage pledge Thursday.
In the pledge, candidates promise to pursue a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage and to create a presidential commission to investigate "reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened" for opposing same-sex marriage.
The pledge already has been signed by Gingrich's opponents, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.—-
Funny, we don't see Ron Paul's name on that list. Another FACT that destroys the myth that RP is anti-gay. Ahh, those FACTS. They sure can get in the way of one's political propaganda.
Ron Paul, however, and several of his Republican presidential candidates, were attendees *and* speakers at the so called "Values Voter" summit this past fall in D.C. an event co-sponsored by two Southern Poverty Law Center designated "hate groups" for their rapid anti- LGBT stances and rhetoric; The American Family Association and The Family Research Council
Yes, but Paul supports DOMA and has openly admitted it. I don't care what his reasoning behind it is, supporting such a trash law, in my mind, makes him anti-gay-marriage.
I read the article on the DC Values straw poll. I failed to see anything in there where he bashed gays or anyone else. The only bashing he did was against the Federal Government. He talked about war, and the war on drugs, the two government endeavors that destroy more innocent life than anything else on earth. I've heard Ron Paul speak many times on TV and on internet videos. I've never heard him say any of the things that Ashley accuses him of saying.
Anyone can type a paragraph and put quotation marks around it. There is plenty of REAL evidence of some of the controversial statements that the other republican candidates have made. Why is no one going after them? Could it be that people are realizing that Ron Paul has a real good chance of winning the nomination and de-throning Obama? I hope he does. But if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, I really don't care who wins in November.
The purpose of the link to that article was not to showcase any anti- LGBT bigotry Ron Paul uttered during the summit. It was to indicate that the largely rabidly anti LGBT folk who *attended* the summit loved him. And again, the two main sponsors of the summit are listed as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. You do the math.
Actually Sage, you would be surprised, or maybe being a gay man, you wouldn't be surprised, but a lot of strait people are anti-gay homophobes. Unfortunately, I would say, the majority are. Many are not publicly open about their views. You will find them in all politcal gatherings all over the country, and among every political persuasion. I am a middle-aged, strait, white man who believes in EVERY individual's right to live his or her life the way he or she sees fit, without government interference. Like you, I am not a democrat or republican. The reason I have never affiliated myself with either party is that I could never find a candidate on either side who shares my views on individual liberty. Ron Paul is first political candidate in my lifetime who DOES share those views. I want a president who is never going to tell me how I should live, what I should own, what I should eat, or whom I should marry. As long as I am not infringing on the life, liberty or property of another individual, I want the president to stay out of my life, and yours. I believe Ron Paul would be that kind of president. If not him, then who?
And for the record I am decidedly *not* an Obama supporter. I am *not* a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican…
Sage I think you are operating under the pretense that RP is a "conservative/republican" and the (albeit true at times) comparison of the "party" with racism, classism, anti-gay, etc… I think I see where you are coming from, making an indirect guilt by association. First I say to you that I am for "true freedom" same as a few others here, Your right to choose a partner is NONE of my business and definetly not for me to say there should be a law either way for or against. That said I believe this guilt by association is inherently invalid because 1.)Some here that oppose RP do so with statements like he is an "outsider" or that he does not share the same values as his party, or he is not even considered a "respectable " candidate this is my ENTIRE THESIS about the man, He is NOT cut from the same cloth as the others, the "others" are "corporate men" , pro-establishment, and yes probably racist elites that believe they should rule the earth (this is why we keep conquering countries, besides their oil). 2.) At the very least a vote for RP means NO federal mandate "either way" for gay rights, and puts the issue squarely withinin the power of the individual states and California as you stated would probably live happily ever after not burgeoned by the federal government. 3.) I believe that many are judging him on his "personal" opinion or what his "personal" choice would be, when in reality he states that no matter his "personal" choices, its not his place to mandate laws that take away liberty from any particular "group" of people. 4.) To achieve the ideal you strive for (which I am guessing is a declaration of gay rights) you are going to need an "openly" gay president which in reality is not probable (they may be gay but they will not run on an "openly" gay ticket) 5.) You are not as far away as you think from a vote for RP, he is for repealing bad laws more so than writing new ones,IMO absolute freedom for ALL is the best thing to come to the gay community ever.
I disagree Mitt, with just about everything you said there. I did however, appreciate the mindfulness in which you stated your position. That is no small thing for me. I have lots of problems with Ron Paul, not just that he attended the Values Voter summit and spoke at it. But he did do that and he didn't have to. He freely chose to. For that he is complicit in my book. And I don't need to support an openly gay candidate. There are plenty of third party and other candidates who are totally pro LGBT. Plus, I do not support or not support a candidate simply on their views about the LGBT communities. However, such views are fundamentally important to me. However, they are not always a deal breaker. It depends on what else the candidate does or doesn't have going on for them/ For my taste Ron Paul has too many checks in boxes that are things I cannot support.
For MANY years I have said, while watching debates or the like, I don't care what "the position" or "belief" of the candidates are, I want somebody that upholds their duty NOT their personal opinions, the pandering to this group or that group by saying I am for X or Y or Z, to me is not what we should be electing somebody for yet we have been hypnotized into this kind of thinking, The rules had already been made, all we needed was a sherriff to keep order and to stand in the way when tyranny (internal government) comes knocking, we are supposed to be electing somebody to protect our rights, protect the country and keep "crap" laws from passing. We have not had that in my lifetime…yet.
personal opinions often translate into what rights a politician will or will not protect…
FYI, I am looking at some info on Gary Johnson per some of your statements.
Fair enough Sage
I'm sorry, but an unbelievable amount of this is either taken entirely out of context or just plain false. The important thing about him that you don't seem to understand is that he believes moral values should not affect federaolicies. For example, although, being a "conservative" Christian, he personally thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman, he doesn't think marriage should be legally recognized or controlled by the government (because it's a religious practice). He believes in giving people the freedom to marry whoever they want, as long as the government doesn't get involved.
The appeal of Ron Paul is that he believes in giving people maximum freedom. People should be able to do what they want, without being controlled by a government that's concerned with whether their moral decisions are "good" or "bad". In my opinion, it's the most intelligent approach to social politics in the modern era.
He supports DOMA and he signed a pledge that says he will only appoint pro-life judges and politicians. But noooo, his personal Christian beliefs aren't affecting how he is going to run at all. Let's not even go into the fact that he wants to appeal the ADA and IDEA.
Keep in mind, though, that his support of DOMA doesn't necessarily mean he finds it to be consistent with his personal philosophy. He supports DOMA because it gives states the right to define marriage for themselves. He understands that it isn't a perfect approach, and he certainly wouldn't have enforced something like DOMA if he had the power to change it to his work with his philosophy. In fact, he's said many times that he strongly opposes giving the federal government the ability to define marriage.
You make an interesting point with the Susan B. Anthony pledge, though. Although it seems like a very un-libertarian thing to sign, my guess as to why he signed it is that abortion is directly a matter of life and death, and logic alone can't determine that an unborn child won't grow up to be successful. The abortion issue is interesting because neither side of the debate is truly fundamentally conservative or liberal (even though the Democrats and Republicans have decided to take sides with their peers). It's such a personal matter that neither view of it can (or should, at least) really be considered outrageous and radical. I, by the way, support abortion.
I can't say that I think Ron Paul is perfect, or that I agree entirely with him. He's not my personal hero to any extent. He's Christian conservative, and I was born and raised Atheist liberal. But what I can say is that I value individual freedom for everyone very very much, and Ron Paul's philosophy is very similar to my own. Compared to Obama (and, without question, the idiot candidates from the GOP), I really like Paul, and I find more promise of social freedom from him than any president the U.S. has seen in a long time.
He says that is why he supports DOMA. But he has said that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. Isn't it convenient that DOMA also happens to support states rights and it meshes with his personal philosophy. He plays the states rights card and can get away with it. I think Paul is incredibly smart, and he knows exactly how to play people. Let's be honest, most people are easy to play. For example, he's got so many of his followers believing he isn't really pro-life but there's PROOF that he is. They don't even research him enough to know about this pledge and if they do find out, they are full of excuses. It's okay if Paul is a hypocrite, but not any other candidate? Psh. I personally don't like Obama, or Paul or any of the GOP candidates, unless you count Johnson, who will hopefully run 3rd party, and he will get my vote. He is the candidate that makes the most sense. Too bad the media and the RNC are afraid of him. He's fiscally responsible and conservative and socially liberal. He is THE candidate. Also, just to point out that Paul may be for individual freedom, but who's freedom really? For example, he wants to repeal the ADA because he thinks it infringes on business's rights. He doesn't think a business should have to build a ramp, or allow in a service dog. What about the rights of the disabled? Do they not get to practice freedom as well? Under him, they would be severely limited. But hey, business's will get their freedom. Who cares about those annoying disabled folks?
Your comment that most Ron Paul supporters are mostly young white guys is open to debate. What determines most? Yes he does have a lot of young white supporters but he also has a supporters from many different demographics. I myself am a in the 1%, according to my income, I am female, 44 years old, married, small business owner and white. My two children are half hispanic and their last name is Flores.
Below is a link to a black website which outlines why black people should vote for him.
I appreciate your concern for equality but if we go into a depression and things get hostile because Americans don't have the simple basics to survive who do you think will be protecting the LBGT community, minorities, handicap persons, etc??? I have spent a lot of time in Mexico and I can tell you these are the people who suffer the most in a poor country. They are an easy target and when people can't feed their children or get a job they will do things that cross the line and unfortunately it is those groups I mention above which I have seen pay the biggest price I understand that a financially sound country is better for me and my children as well as for you as a gay man.
I don't agree with everything he says but I know we need to fix our economy and get back on sound footing. A financially healthy America is going to protect you much more than a broke, hostile, chaotic America and that is where we are headed unless we make some real changes. If you do the math it is inevitable, you can not spend money you don't have forever, eventually the marker is going to be called. If we try what Ron Paul suggests, there are going to be a lot of cuts and people are going to be hurt by it but I would rather we do it by choice than by force. We as a country don't do well in a pressure situations, TARP, bank bailouts, TSA etc… The cuts are going to have to be made eventually and I would rather we do this ourselves with a plan rather than as a reaction to a run on the banks or the dollar bottoming out or the DOW dropping to 4000. There is no way around it and the politicians who say otherwise to get voted in are being dishonest. Many programs are going to have to end, the poor won't get the same assistance, the elderly are going to suffer and Americans in general are going to go through a tough 5 years but I believe that is better than the alternative.
Mary, I find your response to be well thought out. I think it really comes down to just that. Ron Paul is about the basics. food on the table and the country not slipping off the cliff with debt, while other countries are very rich and able to overtake us. It's about will to survive. the other candidates just want to pull you in emotionally. they think its the govt. that must determine how we feel about ethnic minorities, about abortion, about our freedoms. they want you to vote for them because they "have a big heart" but Ron Paul is like your dad who gave you the "wake up and get to work son, or find somewhere else to live". we all know that it will take discipline to overcome our recession. and RP has 30 years of doing just that. It's such a no brainer that I think people overthink it. This entire Ashley miller thing is just a woman who "let her feelings get hurt" she has no background of experience to write this collumn. But I am very glad that she voiced her opinion. I think it's great to question a candidate. and thank you for doing that ashley. As for me Its between RP and Obama, But obama needs to disconnect from his crooked friends, and study up on being fisically responsiblle. I do think that Obama loves his country and is great at getting people to stick together. RP needs to find a way to not scare people off with his good ideas. Most people are to dumb to listen, and just wait for a candidate to be likeable. so RP might need to work on being likeable. He is, however, brilliant. In every way. Thanks Mary, I'm a small business owner myself. The current tax code is a joke. i hope that you find some way to make money in this economy, I am losing money every year, after paying taxes, and conforming to new regulation. Merry Christmas everyone.
Has anyone noticed how Ron Paul's supporters are always being judged by their race, gender and sexual orientation? I thought we were not supposed to do that. Sounds like somebody's not practicing what they preach.
Ron Paul supporters are apparently willing to trade more economic freedom for people who already have money for less social freedom for women, people of color, and LGBT folks. Observing that they are mostly not women, people of color, or LGBT helps EXPLAIN why they are willing to make such a Faustian bargain–because it will not affect them personally.
They are being judged for their selfishness. Making note of their demographics helps explain why they are so selfish.
Don't forget the disabled. He is just biting at the bit to repeal the ADA and IDEA. There's a video where he talks about how inconvenient handicapped parking is. He doesn't really seem to like a lot of folks.
Indeed I have noticed. See ashleyhasa*enis post at the top of the page. There are plenty of insults to go around in this thread. I had heard that real RP supporters were above this. Guess I heard wrong.
I posted this to a reply above but not sure of the protocol so I am posting it here as well.
I fail to understand what point your trying to make. My statement that we are the number one target on that list of 10 countries is correct. Are you disagreeing with that or simply letting me know that other countries are targeted as well? I think when you weigh the number of lives we have lost and the billions of dollars we have spent on our war with"terror" it is safe to say it has been a failure. We are more of a target now than we were before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan and we are billions of dollars poorer and 1000′s of families have lost a loved one. Are you suggesting we should spend more money and more lives fighting this war on terror? Are you saying that our spending on defense has been well spent? Do you think if our reaction to 9/11 was to go after the individuals responsible for it and not countries we would be in a more vulnerable position?
According to Time magazine there were 31,224 gun related deaths in 2010. 3996 people died in 9/11. If you and our politicians are truly interested in protecting our citizens doesn't this seem a little irrational? The punishment did not fit the crime and did we even punish the right people? I feel like we punished citizens of two countries merely for being Islamic? It seems like you are just disagreeing to disagree. If that is the case then let's debate but if you have a real point or idea I would like to hear it. I have read what you have written and you seem to be well informed on the topics you write about and I would like to hear your thoughts as to why changing our approach to Middle Eastern is wrong.
OK, I wasn't for Ron Paul before, but you talked me into supporting him. I still think his policy toward Iran is dangerous, but the other points you brought up are excellent reasons to vote for him. By the way, MOST doctors don't believe in evolution. Probably because they can see the complexity of biological systems (that demands a designer), but aren't a slave to research grants.
Good choice my friend. It's nice to know there are some open-minded people who are willing to listen to facts and common sense. I hope there are many more like you.
Oh yeah Bob's so open-minded he's anti-science! And where do you get the knowledge about what most doctors believe, Bob? One could be crude here, but I'll refrain.
Bob, some of us here spend a LOT of time researching to discern the facts from the lies. Here are a few vids on the propaganda of Iran, I will make no definitive statements about Iran however the evidence, when viewed through the lens that the mainstream media lies or distorts the truth to further the "agenda" (see a video I posted earlier), points toward this is war propaganda (probably for oil control or the fact that they do not sell their oil in US dollars, they are the only one remaining, I think, LIBYA was the other and we know what happened to them). Any way this hopefully will help calm your nerves a bit about Iran. (there are many other reliable vids as well, search youtube for "Scott Ritter", the former US/Iraq weapons inspector,for some in depth stuff).
That goes to show while the doctors are well trained in their field they are ignorant in others. Evolution has no reasonable counter in science and to reject it is to deny all evidence that has come up.
I am sure if someone made an experiment to find intelligent design is real it would also get research grants but no one can.
By the way, MOST doctors don't believe in evolution. Probably because they can see the complexity of biological systems (that demands a designer), but aren't a slave to research grants.
MOST, in fact almost all, doctors are aware of the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance, which is a classic illustration of evolution at work in the real world, and hence accept the ToE. That assertion of yours draws a rapid [citation needed]
The theory of evolution is without a doubt the best-supported theory in all of science, and that fact is not at all dependent on research grants. It's stood up to and been refined by a century and a half of investigation. It might also come as a shock to you that in science, a "theory" is not something you dreamed up after drinking all night — it is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning which has survived rigorous testing of both its explanatory and predictive value.
I just had to inject this, amongst many of the issues upheld here does anybody think the government is EVER going to give you what you want? Watch this video "NOT" as push for Ron Paul, BUT absorb the reality of what our republic has become, this should shake EVERYBODY here to the core with the littony of government powers have been added and if you think "what for?" the conclusion cannot be any form of freedom.
oops, here's the link
oops, here is the video link
Ashley, on the point of immigration vis free markets – In a Libertarian world, you would have not open borders, but robust immigration to support labor markets as required – as the US has had in the past. Modern welfare states mean that open migration is not practical, since the result is that some societies will draw immigration on the basis of benefits – like free education. So you don't have labor market parity, and this leads to problems, like inviting an unmanageable number of illegals, who will inevitably wind up to some extent, mooching off the state. Illegal and undocumented immigration is never desirable, and frankly it is not fair to those who play by the rules. I don't like the principal of fencing off the country, but I can hardly advocate in favor of people who are breaking the law either – as you seem to do. You imply that 'racism' is at work, but frankly, you should perhaps focus your attention on the fact that both parties have failed to make legal migration very viable, resulting in a 'shadow economy' of undocumented, underpaid and under-benefited illegals. Who benefits by this? One beneficiary is business, and the other are labor unions. So, it would seem to be a very bi-partisan agreement on restricting labor access.
Next, giving access to 'free education and the such doesn't solve the problem – though it does buy votes (not of the illegals but of people sympathetic). So, the issue is fraught with difficulties, and stopping the flow of illegals would be a good first step to getting a manageable immigration policy to work. Unfortunately both democrats and republicans have supported a status quo which is clearly very exploitative. To dump this on RP's head, as you have is not really fair, and distorts the libertarian perspective on labor markets.
So Mr Fabrizio, what organisation is going to police these borders? You? A Corporation? The Government? President Paul in a Jeep?
And also how the hell does "illegal" immigration benefit unions???
So, let's talk about spending. In our broken system it is the responsibility of a congressman to bring money back to his (or her district). Not doing so means that your district will wind up in the negative – that is to say, because you won't get parity on your Washington-bound tax burden, or as in the case of government borrowing, you will wind up on the hook for the inevitable bill hat comes around without any actual benefit accrued. To suggest that one needs to be philosophically 'pure' under such conditions is utter nonsense, and really intellectually dishonest. Let's ask ourselves the question: has the man consistently advocated for, and fought for less spending and less government. Yes, he has. Which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for most of the rest of congress and the executive branch. But fighting to maintain financial parity for his district in the environment of profligate spending can hardly be called irresponsible. It is completely responsible, as long as he fights for an across-the-board end to such practices – as he has and would do as POTUS. And that's why many people support him for POTUS, because they trust he will do the right thing on spending.
Let's talk about the 'crazy' gold standard. You have to understand a little bit about what money is to understand gold vs fiat (paper) currencies. I won't get into it, there's plenty of stuff on YouTube if you want to learn. But suffice to say, that gold has become a globally recognized store of value for centuries, and it's status will never change. Tying your currency to a precious metal, therefore means that the value of the currency remains very stable over time, because the supply is very stable, with relatively little gold actually coming onto the market each year. It also means that the fed cannot print money or manipulate interest rates as it does to finance more spending by congress and more irresponsible lending at rates that are far below the market — or big bailouts for politically connected friends. This would 'force' to some extent the government to live within its means – because literally we would need to ship our gold to China, to support our debt. It would mean that we would have none left, and the party would end. You will note that the US ran budget surplusses for most of it's history, with a few periods where it was forced to go into borrowing. It was the liberal big-state policies of LBJ that put the US deeply into hock, and to which Nixon responded by decoupling the currency from gold – because more money was needed to fund the war in Viet Nam and profligate growth of government (sounds familiar, I know). As an average citizen think about what happens to your savings when the fed prints money. More money, less value per unit. This may benefit them and their games of global finance, and bailouts, but it hardly benefits you or I or my retiree mother who lives with the net effect of a weaker dollar and the artificial suppression of interest rates (seniors once could rely on market-interest rates to live on). So, in fact a return to the gold standard does offer many benefits and it's philosophically consistent with a small-government, libertarian view of economics and helps keep a check on the warmongers and welfare-state builders.
"Tying your currency to a precious metal, therefore means that the value of the currency remains very stable over time, because the supply is very stable, with relatively little gold actually coming onto the market each year."
What you see as a virtue is actually the big problem with the idea of tying money to gold. If the economy was closed and stable, it would make sense. Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately, as we all benefit from it), today's economies are open (i.e. there is trade between countries), and they are expanding. Using gold as a basis would lead to deflation, which is NOT a good thing (deflation creates worse situations than inflation).
It would lead to deflation only in an environment of spiraling deficits, which is exactly what we have. We could not expect to revert to a gold standard until there is some level of equilibrium between the value of paper money and the precious metals that back it. By contrast, we are looking at the possibility of serious inflation (hyperinflation really) if we continue to monetize debt. The problems of irresponsible spending, bailouts, and needless wars will likewise continue, so long as we have a fiat currency that can be manipulated at will by politicians. A stable 'real money' currency is the only way to check the reckless impulses of the political class..
"It would lead to deflation only in an environment of spiraling deficits, which is exactly what we have."
Nonsense. In an expanding economy, the same amount of gold (more or less) would have to cover more worth – the economy has expanded after all, which means that the gold would become more valuable, which would equal deflation.
My last and final point is this: many people will fault libertarians for a supposed carelessness about the poor and needy. This couldn't be further from the truth. Extensive study and observation documents that big government spending does shave percentage points off of GDP, and this means less work and less opportunity – usually for the most disadvantaged in our society. The response, by statists is to redistribute income, relegating the poorest of our society to a permanent condition of reliance. You see this in Europe where there are permanently high rates of unemployment and despair among the poor. Politicians 'pay them off' with benefits which is usually boxing them up in some shitty government housing, living off of peanuts. Libertarian economics tends to see growth as the most desirable outcome, since it enables people to get into the labor market and be productive. The philosophical ramifications are of course, profound in a society that values industry over idleness for all persons. Furthermore a reduction in the size of federal spending doesn't at all address the role of the states, who probably 'should' be managing human benefits and most entitlements locally. Remember, the states cannot print money, or borrow indefinitely, meaning they would have to make sound choices on behalf of their populations. Many people forget that we have a great deal of government already. We have state and local, plus federal. The burden of government in the US is now around 35% of GDP – and growing. That is quite hefty and is actually anti-growth. Growth atrophies around the 20% mark and begins to reverse from there. So, you know, higher taxation, higher spending is of questionable benefit to individuals and society. Now, we obviously cannot get 'rid' of the states, though that would be a solution for people who think a strong central government is the solution. But since we cannot, we should think about a smaller central government and more states autonomy. At least this way, we have power and authority distributed, not concentrated, dangerously as it is, in 536 politicians in DC.
"You see this in Europe where there are permanently high rates of unemployment and despair among the poor."
Unemployment numbers only show people receiving unemployment benefits, which of course leads to higher numbers in those countries where it is possible to get it for longer. All studies show that unemployment is vastly under-reported in the US.
Regarding the despair – well, first of all, the happiest countries in the world (however that's measured) are located in Europe. Second of all, the mobile mobility is a lot higher in Europe than in the US, so why would the despair be higher among the poor in Europe than in the US?
Or put differently: [citation needed]
"Growth atrophies around the 20% mark and begins to reverse from there."
[citation needed]
"So, you know, higher taxation, higher spending is of questionable benefit to individuals and society."
In the US, there are millions of people who don't have a health coverage. The major reason for bankruptcies is medical costs. The social mobility is nearly non-existent (see link below for studies into this). Students have to go into serious debt in order to get an university degree (there are serious indications that for many, the cost of an education is higher than the increased lifetime income it gives).
On all these issues, it seems to me that Europeans and European societies are better of, because of their higher taxation and spending.
Link about social mobility:
I don't have the statistic at hand on growth rates, but it's been validated by a multitude of studies, not just one. You will observe also that the fed-gov has been meddling in the insurance markets for decades. The insurance picture prior to Obama was not encouraging, a virtual state mandated oligopoly under heavy regulatory burden and not at all competitive. Strangely, (or not so), competitive businesses continue to increase real wealth and prosperity in society through value creation. Those areas where insurance does not cover healthcare procedures, costs have come down, as quality has gone up – demonstrating that a market based approach does work (see cosmetic surgery as a prime example). This doesn't argue in favor of a statist approach. US unemployment, we know is consistently lower than our European friends, and, our growth rates are also higher. This isn't rocket science. As for mobility, if you seriously believe, over time that the US doesn't offer mobility, well good luck for you. Lastly, it's clear that European welfare spending is no longer sustainable, as evidenced by the probability of another global economic implosion – unless serious austerity is undertaken to curtail the debt.
"I don't have the statistic at hand on growth rates, but it's been validated by a multitude of studies, not just one."
So in other words, you have no evidence. BTW statistics alone wouldn't prove it – correlation doesn't equal correlation after all.
Yet the whole eurozone is in crisis and collapsing. How can you defend current policies that have put us in the current situation? Seriously? The house is burning down, solution? Put more fire on it!!!
wondering why my comments were deleted here…
Probably because they were against the posters opinion and maybe they made sense.
Oh John, did you read the thread? What bollocks.
Oh yes, John, you're totally right. There is not a single comment here calling Ashley names or wishing violence upon her person, much less disagreeing with her. All those posts were deleted.
In reference to your commit……. "I've been trying to understand why smart people I know support Ron Paul and I just can't get my head around it."……well Ann Miller……..Maybe the reason you cant understand is simple ……YOUR NOT AS SMART AS YOUR SMART FRIENDS …….and psychological studies show that it is often difficult for people with greatly varied IQs to communicate………you said it your friends are smart and you cant understand them well said ann well said…….in the future listen to your "smart friends"
Just because some one is 'smart' does not means they always are intelligent, wise, moral, hard working or any other attributes.
They might be very smart people at doing math but have blinders on when it comes to politics.
Oh dear. Your username is so apt. If you try really really hard you might learn spelling, grammar and punctuation. And then after that you can try to tackle the enormous task of looking at the name of the blogger (hint: IT'S ALSO THE NAME OF THE BLOG) you're so desperately trying to insult. Better luck next time, dear.
If you don't understand why smart people like something then it's probably because you're not smart.
LOL that is soooo true when you think about it.
I was going to watch some of your films to verify they suck but judging by your article I wont waste my time with a mike Moore disciple. You Hollywood guys and gals obviously dont realize that this is a republic not a democracy. we have a constitution which is the law and everything in this world is not free you have to take from one person to give to another and the mandate of that is a mix of socialism/communism the opposite of the "civil rights" that you advocate
"You Hollywood guys and gals obviously dont realize that this is a republic not a democracy." What the heck are you on about? It has elements of both and unfortunately for the rest of the world at certain times when it gets a bit gun-crazy it is also an Imperium. Gfred you are spouting nonsense.
Ashley F. Miller
Filmmaker, Writer, Editor and mental retard
Laughed out loud at work..
The core of Racist Ronnie's constituency: dim-witted teenage boys like you.
Ableist asshole.
Really helping the cause here, aren't you?
chris – rude, ignorant, stupid, uncivil and a twerp.
she went to emory that explains everything
Tom – possibly elitist upper crust twit. Or simply jealous
I think people are too obsessed with this smart/intelligent issue. How smart does one have to be to realize that big government and politics as usual don't work? There is plenty of evidence. One only needs to be a little observant. What kind of a college degree does it take to figure out that a candidate who accepts millions of dollars from big corporations in campaign contributions is going to be beholden to the Wall Street fat cats, whereas a candidate who gets all of his campaign money from average citizens is going to be beholden to the people? Only an indoctrinated, inculcated mind couldn't figure these things out. It has nothing to do with being smart.
Ron, it looked like this post of yours was "the end" of this debate or interest subsided to basically zero, I find it odd that out of nowhere there are 15 posts mostly against RP between 6am and 8am today? hmmm….
Mitt, maybe they're upset because Newt Gingrich dropped to third place in Iowa, and that damned Romney is in second place now. I'm just speculating here. LOL
ugly cunt. no guy would ever fuck you. you're a 3/10 a best in your hideous picture. go kill yourself.
Aw the poor man got his fee fees hurt because the mean lady said bad things about his binky :C And, because the po widdle guy couldn't think of anything substantial to counter her points with, he resorted to misogyny. Dawwwwww.
And this is why those of us who can think don't support someone who welcomes this type of idiot with open arms. Learn some English and get an education. You're pathetic.
Congratulations "Obama" you just convinced me of the truth of this article. Perhaps Mr Paul should be notified just how mysogynist his followers are.
More stupidity from this idiot.
Well, Ron Paul Followers have definitely convinced me . . . that they are a bunch of whiny, spineless, psychotically misogynistic bigots who apparently haven't taken Econ 101.
Thanks for making up my mind on that, boys. What the world definitely needed was more proof that libertarianism is the religion of privileged useless bigots.
Ms. Madison: your piece is bang on. And they know it, which is why they're attacking you. Your rocked it. Enjoy their impotent rage.
Do I have your permission to repost this, giving you full credit and providing links to your blog of course? I have compared the Ron Paul following to a cult before after having my own encounter with them in the comments section of that creationist video you posted last year, and I just really love this takedown of him. So many poeple are simply fooled by his endearing dottering old man act that I feel like if he gets the nomination many democrats might vote for him, and I think everyone needs to read this article.
Thanks for posting this
ITT: Angry libertarians rage because their entire world-view is worthless and they know it!
Not voting for Ron Paul because I like him, voting for him because it drives all the Rethuglicans And Democraps insane.
That alone is worth it…enjoy.
Troll-voting. Brilliant. Fuck the nation, fuck the polity–let's all vote on the basis of what choice pisses off the most people. What could possibly go wrong?
Smega Ma
Also, I believe that instead of getting angry, we should enjoy the humor and entertainment that the mainstream reps and dems and their supporters provide for us. Maybe it's just me, but I sometimes find blatant hyprocracy to be quite funny. If you've ever watched any sit-coms, you will notice that characters who display hyprocracy get the biggest laughs. If the dems and reps weren't so dangerous to our society, perhaps people would be able to enjoy them more.
And you might try learning how to spell the word hypocrisy.
hippo crissy ??
Damn, girl, you hit a nerve! I just wanted to say that I think your post is reasonable, if perhaps not the most academic/thoroughly researched in nature, and I commend you for your scrutiny (or, sheesh, at least that you were interested in a topic and did a little research).
I find the incredibly inflammatory comments and criticisms from RP supporters on this thread a much uglier picture than they realize – I don't know how many recommendations that you got to NOT reproduce on this thread so that the world will not have to deal with the awful, terrible genetics in your body…but I think you can wisely disregard.
RP supporters on this thread may be (or may not be) correct in asking for additional or more thorough research, but turning around and calling you a twat is telling.
"Hey, you stupid mentally retarded cunttwatbitchfag, do your research!"
Yes, very compelling. I am impressed at the tower of intelligence and moral integrity of the libertarians represented here. You make your case smashingly well. I don't know about yous guys, but my political affiliations are decided on how many times I get called a cunt, too, and who is doing the calling.
Ron Paul is clearly pro-Aspergers. That's the only reason I can think he appeals to a particular white nerd demographic.
Hey leave those Asperger's folks alone. If it was up to Paul, he'd repeal the ADA and IDEA.
Ron Paul is a fool. Libertarianism is rosey-eyed foolishness — it depends on people having enlightened self-interest, when almost no one has any enlightenment in this country. See Enron, AIG, "Too Big To Fail" and BP's recent oil spills for some hints. Enlightenment ? near zero. Self-interest ? near 100. Come back to me when that ratio is closer to 50-50. Right now, every time someone gets an "unfettered free market" the country goes into economic collapse. That should teach you people something.
It's not Libertarianism that's driving our country into the ground; it's Liberalism. I think you have the two confused. How can something that people are afraid to try cause anybody any harm. I'm more afraid of something that's been tried over and over again, and has failed miserably every time.
[citation needed]
You're afraid of something that been tried over and over and has failed miserably every time?
Then why do you keep posting? You keep trying and yet…
Since the power elite control EVERYTHING at the moment, any expectation of change for the better (unless you are a favored corporation or an elite yourself) is moot until their power is broken. The "over and over again" is repleat throughout history, elect a pro establishment person (either left or right), use media propaganda to mis-inform the public to get them elected, pay them lots of money to get laws passed that benefit only the rich and corporations, attack anybody who stands in the way (both militarily and personally) Rince-Repeat. The Money cartel called the federal reserve needs to stop taking over the world (or invading) countries that don't obey the elite, And (if you actually read this, and hopefully learn more than you think you know) get our system off of the ponzi scheme called the federal reserve so when some country decides to use common sense (as Libya did) we do not get hurt economically in the process (please note the referrence to Iran AND Iraq in relation to their currency and see if you can connect the dots). So all the "intent" for freedom or (fill in the blank) will never come to fruition as long as the elite control EVERYTHING. Name a candidate that is Anti-establishment?
Citations here:
The last two links should be of paramount inportance to ALL of us, The NDAA passed the senate 93 to 7 so 93 senators believe they should be able to detain indefinitely YOU, if they wish (or you tick them off) 93 SENATORS did not stand up for We the People, who among any candidates we have to choose from will stand up for YOU and not for more opressive power that just became "domestic" tyrany.
Good lord Caravaggio, given your rants here you don't even know what liberalism actually is. Like most in your team you've appropriated the dishonest rants of the Right (libertarian branch included) and just allowed your brain to stew in them. I suggest you get a few books on politics (no I don't mean the Randian faux philosophical dreck you probably read, I mean by reputable political scientists) and educate yourself. Or failing that enrol again (?) in University and study. Oh and by the way people have already tried the libertarianism – it's called laissez-faire capitalism and it tends to send people like you and me into slums.
Given what we have to work with. CFR stooged, others bought and paid for by special interest, super pacs, multinationals and bankers. I say this in all honesty show me a candidate that will restore the constitution, roll back the attacks on your rights, my right, the rights of " We The People". Obama promised change , Gingrich gave us neo-con corruption of the constitution. The rest are bought and paid for. Please Tell me the name of any candidate running for office that will reaffirm the constitution as the law of the land? Some one that has a real chance of election. This is why people are voting for Ron Paul first and foremost. Name me the candidate that after they are in office that will work to remove the fascist laws laid down by every president since Woodrow Wilson?
Any interest I had in Ron Paul has evaporated after reading the vitriol in this post. I strongly disliked George Bush II but never felt that I had to hate his supporters as much as this group of Ron Paul fanthings seems to do. Yes, a few rational Paul supporters spoke out against the maddened crowd, but the haters should have been in the minority. They weren't.
This country won't go to hell in a hand basket. Instead, we'll each choose to carry our own little containers of crap as we individually customize the demise of America.
Be proud, hate-ridden Paul supporters. You've got nothing else.
Good reason not to vote for Ron Paul #24537:
So many of his supporters seem to be misogynist assholes.
You left out "horrifying subhumans."
Wow – just… wow… I'm not going to say much other than that I liked your post. The sense of being overwhelmed by bullshit comes from the negative responses you have gotten – holy crap! I haven't seen so much fervent belief since the last time I went to church (which is one reason I no longer do).
Please continue the good work and I look forward to reading more!
Great article. Unfortunately PZ Meyers linked it and you're bound to get even more of the hate-ridden Paul supporters here.
First off, you had forgot to mention one of the biggest reasons, at least in my circumstance, why my friends and I 'like' Ron Paul. The idea of "ending the fed" and moving away from centralized banking and to establish our own independant currency.
Extreme idea, yes, but the transition will be extremely beneficial for our nation.
And second, electoral reform. Electoral Reform!
And third, pizza! Pizza!
And forth, better posting! Posting!
Just saying some thing with excitement doesn't make it exciting or intelligent. Actually, I'm pretty sure you didn't read the article at all. Please go back and try again.
Also wanted to say great article and I also got here from PZ's blog. Thanks for writing this up!
Was anyone actually surprised the RP fans here are unabashedly misogynist? (what were you expecting?)
Don't know how long this post will stay here but I support Dr. Paul. What is not acknowledged here is that in every case Dr. Paul wants you and I to have the ability to make our own choices stick. All of his proposals lead in that way by getting the federal government out of our lives. There could not be a more pro-survival way to go about it.
That's the problem Ken. These people also want the federal government out of THEIR lives. They just don't want them out of yours and mine.
Wow, nicely said Ron, I couldn't quite put my finger on it because some of what they say I agree with and don't see a large seperation in what they want vs. what I want. I think they miss the point that RP places "Principals BEFORE Personality". There has been a LONG list of politicians that have prejudiced people's thinking to the "vote for what the candidate PERSONALLY believes" mantra (constitutional or not). BTW this blog has lasted longer than I expected, and become intensly long. RP is doing better than the MSM reports as you probably know. Just wanted to type something to another one of the "radical paulites"…LOL
Personal opinions held by politicians do not magically exist in some sort of a vacuum. Such opinions run a high probability of eventually translating into policy. All the more reason not to vote for Ron Paul.
Hello Sage, again, I agree with you. The difference for me is that I know everybody else is either lying or appeasing the masses (just like they always do) so I don't know what their real "personal beliefs" are, and they are on the corporate payroll (austensibly), I really believe that RP WILL place "principals before personality" (if elected and I end up being wrong I will be one of the first to say so) . I do like his platform and though some people here have presented a few valid rebukes I feel the man will be unbiased where freedom is concerned. At least he understands what it is. I am on your side too my friend. IMO this debate misses the point that its US (meaning all of us) or THEM (meaning the corrupt politicians).
Oh yeah nicely said Caravaggio. These non-RP supporters are clearly out to oppress you! Aw Come onnnn!
Every other brand of crazy has had it's chance to fail spectacularly, let's just get Paul his 4-8 years to thoroughly prove his way wrong or somehow surprise us.
Why is it Libertarians are missing on Gary Johnson, he does not have a lot of the gang ups Paul has like his views on religion.
I prefer Johnson to Paul a million times over. I know a lot of Paul supporters wish for a Paul/Johnson ticket but it will never happen since Paul signed the Susan B. Anthony pledge
His support of a national sales tax is a dealbreaker for me.
I really like Gary Johnson — but he has no chance. So, of the choices left — the other Republican contenders, President Obama, or Ron Paul — I have to make a choice that best reflects who I think can have the most influence on the Nation. Obama, Romney, and Perry are bought and paid for by corporate interests — more war (Iran is next), more restricting small business to favor big business, more regulation without enforcing the rules already on the books. Bachmann and Santorum are out due to their fundamentalist insistance that we are a Christian nation. Huntsman is okay — but also has no momentum, so he's out. And — guess what, I agree with about 80% of what Ron Paul has to say.
He's definitely not perfect. But Martin Luther King was a philanderer and plagierist — yet is a personal hero. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves — but his ideas established the basis of equality in our country. Since I can't have perfection, I'll settle for change.
Wow, now that was eloquent. I may have to barrow it down the road. It is very rare in deed to hear things in such a succinct manner.
Ashley F Miller!
Wow, you really are a piece of liberal shit !
Just do the world a favor and kill yourself.
Boy, you're one of those hyper-rational super-thinkers, aren't you? Violent Ronbot schmuck.
You are so helpful!
What an awesome contribution!
Did you notice? Punctuation goes right up against the word! There's no space!
Another mysgynostic twerp who feels his ego has been slighted.
Ashley F Miller!
Wow, you really are a piece of liberal shit !
Just do the world a favor and kill yourself.
This is a constructive argument! I am sure RP would approve.
He'll get his ghost writers right on it.
All this just shows you how strong the cult-like worship of Racist Ronnie is – violent, hateful 20-something white boys throwing a holy tantrum because you told the truth about their cult leader. They use every cult phrase, every buzzword, and every pathetic defense before launching directly into the violence and hate.
And that is why Paul would be the death of America. You know, besides the kook gold-standard economic disaster, the rollback of everyone's rights, and so forth.
Ken Howe, consider reading this.
It seems to be written by someone who doesn't understand liberty, but is sure he doesn't like it.
I would say he understands a lot more about it than you do.
While I agree with the fact that Paul's position on some social issues is quite controversial, I have to inquire… when is it that a President has been 100% exactly what Americans need in a President (socially)? Teddy Roosevelt was harshly racist… but protected national forests like no other… Actually several of our first Presidents owned slaves, despite endorsing the message that all men are created equal. The thing is, that kind of open blatant hypocrisy is necessary political (and social) progress. Thomas Jefferson realized America would have to deal with the conflict between slavery and equality of all people… eventually, but accepted a reasonable level of hypocrisy as opposed to stagnation and intransigence. I just want to urge a little more realism, not that I disagree with Ashley's observations, but… strong personalities have sharp characteristics. That's what makes them so damn appealing. But even strong personalities can't change the legal framework of America, no matter what office a person holds.
All I'm getting at is that Ron Paul can't change the 1st Amendment, and he has to abide by it, and enforce it.
He can't unilaterally repeal the Civil Rights Act as the President. Nor can he change the 14th Amendment (just like the 1st).
He can specifically enforce laws that are going unenforced today (that's his charge as President). Some people seem to latch on to that message pretty tight, and will be abrasive (and insulting) to "defend" him. That's kind of silly people… try to be honest about the shortcomings of your candidate.
George W. Bush supporters were never honest about the shortcomings of their candidate. Obama supporters are never honest about the shortcomings of their candidate. Bush and Obama have both proven to be failures as presidents. Give Ron Paul a chance to prove himself. If he's a failure at it, I will be the first to point out his shortcomings. I care too much about the future of my country to defend ideas that don't work, but I need positive proof that certain ideas won't work before I address their shortcomings. Logic and common sense will not let me believe otherwise.
Thanks for writing this. I agree wholeheartedly that RP is a dangerous whack job and his son is even worse.
However, I have a grammatical nit to pick, and that is that
"2.Less taxes, less rules, less government" should be
"2. Fewer taxes, fewer rules, less government"
because taxes and rules are countable.
Okay, first off…
He doesn't flip flop like just about every other candidate. He's not under the influence of the Globalist Banker tyrants who have ahold of congress and most in Washington. He's AGAINST the NDAA and prolonged indefinite detention, BOTH of which have been streamlined for ALLLL OF US!!! He's against the deconstruction of our Constitutional Rights: bearing arms, freedom of religion/faith, etc. I want those who have spoken out against him on this blog to actually GO LOOK UP the NDAA's verbiage and tell me that will be a good thing for us. The impending coordinated economic implosion of not only our country but others: Greece, Spain, Europe, is being endorsed by all the other candidates available. Go do some real research before trying to say RP is this or that. Don't just regurgitate what the PRESSTITUTE-WHORE mainstream media "tells you is the 'truth'". Use your brain, that's what its there for.
Why is that if you aren't a Paul supporter that you are automatically an Obama supporter, or you don't know what the NDAA states? There is another candidate who supports the Constitution that doesn't want to derail so many other things. I did REAL research about Paul and didn't like what I found. I found that he took campaign money from Stormfront.com. I found that he wants to repeal ADA and IDEA and that he often favors business over the rights of the disabled. I found that he signed a pledge which I find is him supporting a lobby I don't agree with. I find he supports DOMA. I would rather go with a candidate like Gary Johnson. He may not get the Presidency, but at least I can sleep at night knowing I voted for someone good and ethical.
Why does anyone like a clueless c*nt? It's not hard to understand. There are lots of clueless c*nts around, thus the disastrous state of this country. There's not enough intelligence to make up for so many deluded, brainwashed idiots like you. You win – and everybody loses.
Do you think that if you leave the 'u' out, it makes you less vulgar and hateful?
Just checking.
Bob Henry illustrates my complaint perfectly: when you spew a lot of vitrioloic garbage, you shut down conversation and you make enemies instead of reaching consensus. Bob, on behalf of all Ron Paul supporters, I apologize. Ashley, I apologize to you as well. You and I disagree pretty strongly on Ron Paul's candidacy, largely because we're working from different fact-sets, but I can't even address your objections to Dr. Paul, or even your overly-critical and unfair characterizations of Dr. Paul because this thread has been completely derailed by name-calling and generally gross discourtesy from my fellow Paul supporters.
Again – I apologize. I hope that I'm right and you're wrong. I hope that Ron Paul is elected. I hope that you and I are both freer and more prosperous in five years than we are now. Most of all, I hope that people can learn to discuss issues that important to them without attacking people who disagree. Democracy depends on empassioned, free, and open debate between interested parties, and insults and ad hominem attacks only slow us down in our effort to reach consensus.
Wow, thank you, Mr. Newland, for being the first Paul Supporter I've ever heard who was respectful.
I'm still trying to figure out why this country elected a crazy, Christian, racist black man…Between Jeremiah Wright and an (In)justice Department that refuses to go after bat-wielding, voter-intimidating Black Panthers, this is the most racist Prez in years.
Anyhow, the tired "racist" stuff was dealt with years ago:
For the record, the newsletters were talking about certain black race rioters (not an entire race) who burned, looted, and killed for three days straight. I happen to know some victims and they weren't white–the were Koreans. I guess that's hard to square with your your uber-PC worldview, huh?
And what organisation do you belong to – Stormfront?
Ashley, I don't believe your intentionally misleading people, but your paragraph on regulations leads me to believe you may be less than fully informed on this particular topic.
For instance, when you comment about Ron Paul's stance on regulations, it appears that you misunderstand what he means when he says that a free market will actually create tougher regulations… One example of the "tougher" regulations that Ron Paul is talking about are those borne out of the judicial protection/enforcement of property rights which, under libertarian philosophy, is the proper vehicle to regulate negative externalities created by business. So, for example, Paul would like to do away with the red-tape and bureaucracy of the EPA and allow the courts to perform their proper role in protecting private citizens' property rights. He believes that the court system is more effective, less bureaucratic and less likely to be corrupted by cronyism.
Another example of how the free market is actually a stronger regulator of conduct is the idea and reality of failure. For instance, if the banks in this country were regulated by an innate fear of failure – i.e., knowledge that Main Street would not be there to bail them out and pack their golden parachutes – you would not have seen the risky lending that took place pre-Great Recession. A true free market would eliminate the moral hazard. With a fear of failure, risky practices would be far less and the degree of risk would again correspond not only to the reward for success but to the punishment for failure. When Main Street bails out Wall Street, there is no punishment or disincentive for continuing risky behavior.
Oh, and your comment about Ron Paul violating his own philosophy about the executive branch is a silly, roundabout argument. I mean, c'mon, are you serious? He has stated that he will be a different type of President, if elected. In other words, he will push for the reforms he promotes, but he won't do so through an unconstitutional usurpation of power.
I urge you to read Ron Paul's platform and the libertarian platform. They are both full of common sense.
Why does anyone like Barack Obama? He's gone back on many of his big-stuff promises, like transparency, lobbying, etc. He was against individual insurance mandates before he was for them. He has escalated the war in Afghanistan. He continues the warrantless wiretapping program and just signed a bill to allow indefinite detention without charges or trial. He assassinated a US citizen and then later his 16 yo son. His drone program does this (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/21/us/texas-drone-strike-victim/index.html) to innocent people.
Why does anyone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? They won't stop any of those things. They'll probably make them worse.
Look at your choices. This time around I will choose peace.
If you won't listen to me, listen to Cenk Uygur:
The venom spewed by Paul supporters against this blogger raises my suspicions about the man himself.
Alan Greenspan was an objectivist early in his career, before he became chairman of the fed. The fed itself is not a free market institution and interferes with the free market process. If you knew anything, absolutely anything at all, about the fed, objectivism or the free market, you would know this.
Alan Greenspan wrote an article in 1966 for Rands objectivist newsletter. It argues for a gold standard, in complete agreement with what Ron Paul is teaching.
For serious. Arguing that someone is anti free market because theyre anti fed… Of all the crazy things I see on the internets, this might take the cake.
It's been explained much better by commenters before me (such as Rusty), but a lot of the examples in the article are taken out of context. I think there's a lot of confusion on his stances because he's a states-rights guy. So when you ask him something like, "Are you for or against abortion?", he can honestly say something like "Both, depending on the state you live in." That's a confusing answer to a lot of people, particularly people who have a hard time with a "Live and Let Live" philosophy.
I certainly don't agree with Paul on everything. Big collections of power, whether it be in corporations, unions, or the government, are where abuses occur, and I believe government does have a small role to play in maintaining a balance between all 3. But the role is limited, and Ron Paul is a correct step in that direction.
One of the biggest problems in this country is that people in New York have to care what people in Texas think, and vice versa. It's why barely anyone votes, because it just doesn't matter. If you're a Conservative in California or a Liberal in Texas, why even bother going to the polls?
By making politics more local, you return more power and freedom to the people. That's the fundamental goal, at least for me. If one state wants to have universal state-sponsored medical insurance and another does not, great! If one wants to require that cars sold in the state get 40mpg, and another does not, fantastic! The differences are the strengths. States with higher standards of living will emerge, and other states will copy them. It's almost like a non-biological form of evolution.
What Ron Paul supporters realize, and often have a hard time enunciating, is that they know they are not smart enough to set the rules for everybody. That instead of designing the world to an "ideal" specification, they should allow people to design it for themselves. I think that's one of the main attractions of libertarian thought, even if there's a lot of disagreement on the details.
This blog posting would be more compelling if it didn't read like some lit chick trying to come to grips with something O-so-hard-to-understand.
First we start with the throwaway race-and-gender conscious remark, i.e. Ron Paul supporters seem to only be young white males…
..but why even try to compose a list?
Here's an argument for you: even if Ron Paul is batshiat crazy, and even if his administration would accomplish zero thanks to a hostile Congress, it would still represent a contraction of executive power and a reversal of countless executive orders that signal the ceaseless advance of the U.S. into full-blown imperialism.
Not convincing? Well, then, you probably identify the problems with the U.S. as being something other than, e.g. becoming a police state. I don't agree myself with Ron Paul on abortion and other "social" issues — but these are small potatoes compared to endless wars and a police state at home. I'm not in favor of libertarianism as a kind of anarchism-for-old-white-people either — but there's no chance of that so long as there's a non-libertarian Congress.
As a historical corrective to the many evils of the federal government (indefinite detention and even murder of U.S. citizens without trial or charges?) and to protect against those to come — he has my support.
This blog posting would be more compelling if it didn't read like some lit chick trying to come to grips with something O-so-hard-to-understand.
For those having difficulty, THIS is an ad hominem. The personal attack is completely irrelevant to the argument. Since the argument is that Ron Paul's personal views directly drive his political acts, pointing his to personal views and how they have been reflected in his political actions is not ad hominem.
For the rest of your argument, you cannot stand still, the federal government is not the only powerful player in the US – if it steps back, who do you think will step forward? A great big hint, it won't be liberal college professors because they don't have billions of dollars – but it will be people who do.
Great work Ashley…and of course great big hates to all the young men who are so scared of women, they throw the worst attacks they can think of whenever a woman disagrees with them (this does not, of course, include horacesmiley who may be blind to his privilege, but is able to accept a woman as a real person, even if he is a condescending shit)
I am baffled by the apparent idiocy of your post. But then again, this is the internet.
For those "having difficulty", it's really not so outre to call this blogger out for laughably struggling with something that with a little research is obvious. Why? Well, when you frame your article as "why does anyone like X" it certain conjures up certain associations: flippancy, banality, etc. As in: "Why does anybody like quiche?" "Why does anybody like adjustable chairs?"
You seem to have a real affinity for tribal politics. Criticizing this blogger's falure to come-to-grips automatically gets reframed by you as a young male haters vs. women as "real people" issue — which is itself the ultimate condescending gesture. As if in the lunatic laboratory of the internet, a female blogger might only be criticized for *sniff* being a woman — and posting such a heroic blog!
Your whole comment is in fact an "ad hominem" — first against me (by failing to counter or even mention any of the relevant points in my own comment) and also against the blogger (passive-aggressive stand up for the poor-female-blogger because she's not poor-and-female-she's-strong-and-heroic).
As for your idiotic point about the power vacuum created by reining in an out-of-control federal government: is there another federal government we don't know about who is going to break the internet (SOPA) or disappear its citizens (NDAA)? You obviously haven't been paying attention. But then neither is anyone who asks: Why does anyone like Ron Paul?
"Small potatoes" to straight white christian (usually) males. Those of us who deal with discrimination every day would tend to disagree. Learn a little more about the lives of minorities, gays, women, the disabled, and all the other people who'd suffer even more under this man's presidency. Some of us have lived in a "police state" all our lives, where we couldn't even drive a nice car in a "white neighborhood" without being pulled over and harassed. Learn about it so you don't sound so ignorant.
We live in an imperfect world with imperfect people and imperfect government b/c it is made up of people. The author of this article knows this, and uses it to paint Dr. Ron Paul as a bad person by holding him to a perfect standard knowing the exaggerated claims will portray him in a bad light.
On "Ron Paul is anti free-market" : This claim just discredits the author completely. It illustrates most evidently that she's making outlandish claims, and because she's quoted something and it "sounds good," her article has credibility! Or, she knows nothing of the libertarian belief system. You can not get any more free market than Ron Paul and the principles of the Libertarian philosophy. I don't even feel like anyone should have to explain why this is so, b/c it is so evident and so much at the core of Libertarian thought that it's too easy to find online. A completely ABSURD statement by Ashley Miller.
On "Ron Paul doesn't support minorities" : This one is a little convoluted. Basically, the libertarian argument is that EVERYONE should have equal rights. Systems that label groups of people "minority" are actually discriminating against everyone who is not in said group. Reverse discrimination would be an appropriate term to use to describe this idea. Racism is unfortunate, but in our brief history, African Americans have come from being property with less value than animals, to President of the USA, leaders of Fortune 500 companies etc. We still have a long way to go, but creating a different system that favors a minority, is just taking the focus off one group and putting it on another. It's not productive in the long run, and the argument (a good one in my opinion), is that we need to get to a place where EVERYONE is equal, and that minorities aren't "more equal." Yes, we have A WAY to go, but we live in an imperfect world, and progress is being made. It is an ideal we should strive for.
On "Ron Paul is against Church/State separation" : is a blatant abuse of a Ron Paul quote by the author of this ridiculous article. Ron Paul is a politician, that does NOT mean he can't have his own faith. But if you read Ron Paul's books, he is firmly in support of allowing local communities dictate what is right for them, not allowing the Federal Government to make those decisions. (A HUGE ideal in Libertarianism, limiting federal control and giving it to the states to give as much control as possible to the people who comprise the individual communities. With that being said, this quote is Ron Paul using a religious statement to contradict a religions statement. People are trying to justify war in "those parts" based on religion, and Ron Paul is simply stating "Well if that's your interpretation of things, you're wrong anyway, b/c it can be read like this based on a different interpretation of religious content." Religion isn't the primary reason for Dr. Paul to stay away from Israel, it's the Libertarian ideal of not getting involved in other peoples' business! Don't interfere in their squabble. He has a statement of faith on his website? So what?! He's allowed to, just because you are a public servant doesn't mean you have to hide your faith, in fact, Christian faith says you shouldn't be ashamed of God. If Ron Paul said you HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HIS STATEMENT OF FAITH, that's a completely different story.
Ron Paul is not anti-choice. The pro-life argument is that the baby is alive and has a choice which also must be considered, and we as capable people have the obligation, in this instance, to protect that life which has literally NO OTHER method of securing itself. The thought that life begins at conception has not been definitively disproved by liberals or any other group that supports a pro-abortion stance. He is arguing a valid, and again, yet to be disproved statement that a fetus is alive, and therefore ALSO has a choice which must be respected. Until it can be disproven without a doubt, his is as valid a point as any other. And to anyone who would say "well a fetus can't remain alive without its host mother" I ask you, can anyone use that logic to murder a one or two year old child who can not sustain itself without assistance from a guardian? Pro-choice is actually "Pro-one person's choice, the person who got pregnant."
On "Ron Paul Helps Billionaires, Not the Poor" : This is a fundamental difference in belief between liberals (which the author of the article CLEARLY is), and Libertarians. The government DOES NOT MAKE ANYTHING, THEREFORE IT CAN NOT GIVE ANYTHING OUT. Ron Paul does not vote against these measures because he doesn't want poor people to have health care, he voted against it b/c it is NOT the American way for government to TAKE money from someone to give it to someone else. If everyone is OK with giving up their money to fund "hand-out" programs, why not make it elective and have the people give all they want?! Why not make it optional, and allow the people decide where they will give what, seriously? And all the dems who have decided that EVERYONE should be guaranteed healthcare can contribute to that end without violating the rights and stealing from the people who do not agree? In addition, he isn't a supporter of eliminating minimum wage laws so impoverished people can plunge deeper into despair, he is AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT HAVING SO MUCH CONTROL IT CAN TELL YOU HOW YOU HAVE TO RUN YOUR BUSINESS. If ours was truly a free market, a business can pay $1.00 per hour, and guess what?! People wouldn't work there, and the business would eventually shut its doors for lack of manpower to keep them open.
On "Ron Paul is a Hypocrite" : Dr. Paul has already stated why he earmarks funds , and it's not hard information to find for yourself. Any money that is taken and not earmarked will be given to the Federal Government so the Federal Government can decide what to do with it, so he moves to get as much money as he can back to the locals from whom it was taken.
On "Ron Paul is a little nuts": A classic case of what juveniles do when they can not stand behind their argument, resort to name calling! Ron Paul is nuts, and if you vote for him you are either ignorant or REFUSE to see it HER WAY. Of course there is NO chance she might be wrong, it's you!
"Oh, it's also great that he wants to get rid of the fed, I love this. You know who made the fed what it is today? A guy named Alan Greenspan. You know, Alan Greenspan, the most famous and powerful libertarian ever to work in the US government. He was a disciple of Ayn Rand and was part of the inner circle of her cult. Alan Greenspan almost single-handedly caused this recession. By all means, let's fix the fed, but let us also acknowledge it was a libertarian that got us here!"
Alan Greenspan is despised by Paul, and did nothing while Chairman that could be called "Randian".
You want to figure Paul out? Read some Austrian Economics. Read some Rothbard.
Is Paul 100% right? No. But he's right on the important things, and he's a lot closer to 100% than any other pandering, flip-flopping, shallow, psychopath running for POTUS.
You are aware that Ron Paul is a Libertarian and a follower of Ann Rand?
Nope. But it seems like you guys follow Marx
Ayn Rand was the founder of Objectivism. Very few libertarians are objectivists.
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist who is frequently referred to as a libertarian because he shares a majority of libertarian/minarchist views. He is not in any sense a follower of Ayn Rand or Objectivism.
The problem with most of the criticism in this thread, whether yours or Ms. Miller's, is that you lack a fundamental understanding of politics as it is actually practiced, political schools of thought, or the nature of power and the abuses it entails. Miller's insistence that Paul is a racist because he opposes the Civil Rights Act is a perfect example–the Civil Rights Act destroyed private property rights while privileging particular groups above all others. In the interest of providing what it considered "fairness," the government told private citizens and small business owners that they were not permitted to use their own property in the way they see fit. The libertarian argument–which is also Paul's argument–is not that decency regardless of race should not be an American value, but that the government should never strip people of their rights and liberties to facilitate some imagined greater good. History is replete with good intentions gone bad, and yet leftists continue to stumble down the path to totalitarianism as though the 20th century and the rise and fall of collectivism never actually occurred.
Yeah, they don't follow her.
Quoting Ayn Rand on Capitol Hill Is a Paul Family Tradition
Yesterday, Senator Rand Paul did what many saw as inevitable: he quoted at length from Ayn Rand, specifically from Anthem, during an Energy and Natural Sources committee meeting to make a point about individual will being squashed by a collective rules society. The speech got us wondering: before Paul the younger arrived to the Senate how often does Ayn Rand get mentioned in Congress?
By far, though, the person most likely to mention Ayn Rand is Ron Paul, the current libertarian hero and father of the newest Senator from Kentucky, Rand. (That his son and his hero share the same name is just a happy coincidence.) He has invoked Ayn Rand's name nine times in the span we surveyed: when criticizing the post office, while commemorating the 100th anniversary of her birth, and in an article submitted mentioning her during a tribute to Milton Friedman. And Ron Paul is notably the only member of Congress to actually quote Ayn Rand during this period.
Well jdb, you'll have to excuse me and my fundamental lack of understanding. Because to me, when you say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has violated private property rights it appears to me that what you are really getting at is this.
Property owners, by virtue of their wealth (property) and status in the communites where they live and do business have the right to work together to establish a set of community ordinances and business practices that subjugate another group of people in the community identified by whatever arbitrary characterisic the property owners agree on.
Again, you'll have to excuse my lack of fundamental understanding here. Because to me that looks an awful lot like just plain and simple segregation.
So, with my lack of fundamental understanding, you appear to me to be nothing more than a common ordinary racist who longs for the days of systemic racism when you didn't have to sit next to a negro while eating lunch, riding the bus, drinking from a fountain or taking a piss. In spite of your dressing it up in that nice fancy suit you call property rights.
"You want to figure Paul out? Read some Austrian Economics. Read some Rothbard."
Murray Rothbard, for crying out loud, who believes police forces should be privatized. This kind of grandiose, all-or-nothing ideological puritanism should have collapsed along with the Berlin Wall. Ron Paul's "philosophical consistency" is the scariest thing about him. (That, and his belief that slavery would have died a natural death in America without federal intervention…)
Nice article Ashley. However probably more amusing is all of the butt-hurt Ron Paulians who refuse to see the errors of their out-of-touch-with-reality candidate.
Sad to see the knee-jerk emotional name calling by people who disagree with you.
Regardless, I found it amusing to see someone call your post a "take-down of Paul", especially given the obvious ignorance & poor reasoning ability it seems to be based on.
What poor reasoning ability?
Here's a pretty obvious example:
"Oh, I don't care when you *believe* life begins, I care about the legality of the situation. If a fertilized egg is legally a person, abortion or doing embryonic stem cell research would be murder. You can see that this is how Ron Paul votes as well, regulating against science when it conflicts with his personal religious beliefs."
For one, you are claiming that legality defines what life is, but you object to Ron Paul introducing a bill to change that legal definition.
But the fact that life begins at conception doesn't depend on lawyerly word games.
While you imply that the legal definition is based on science, that is completely incorrect, given that science has explicitly & repeatedly shown that once a human egg has been fertilized, (the "moment of conception"), then the egg becomes an organism with the qualities necessary to indicate the existence of life. Additionally, science has explicitly shown that this living organism has its own unique & human DNA, proving that it is an individual, living, human being.
If one is honest & refuses to blatantly deny the existence of existing scientific knowledge, then what's missing is simply legal recognition of those facts, typically based on a utilitarian mindset, which boils down to the principle that "might makes right, so the strong have the right to kill the weak."
To understand why so many "smart people" support Paul, I think it's important to ask how many of those people support him because they don't subscribe to the lure of insisting that disagreement with someone's views is the same as understanding of them. That view is merely an attempt to rationalize the disagreement.
For another thing, many people realize that the single biggest issue right now is not abortion, or amnesty for foreign aliens, or views on the origin of the earth – it's the rapidly increasing threat of a devastating economic depression, which makes all those other things moot.
If the world, or even just the US completely goes to heck, then things like gay "marriage", abortion, tomato pickers, etc., are going to mean absolutely nothing, and Paul is the only person up there who has any understanding of economics or has a chance to help keep things from totally crashing. This is not political philosophy, it's simple mathematics. You can't make yourself rich by doing nothing but whipping out a credit card, either individually or as a nation.
Well… let's not be sloppy with the science…
"…science has explicitly & repeatedly shown that [at] the "moment of conception", … the egg becomes an organism with the qualities necessary to indicate the existence of life."
This is oversimplified. Life does not begin at conception. Life began several billion years ago and has branched out ever since. Sperm are alive (they swim, remember?). Eggs are too. They're not batches of special PlayDoh that spring to life when you mix them. From a strictly biological perspective, a fertilized egg and a mutated cell look the same. (I.e. A cancerous tumor also has its own unique DNA from the host and is alive and replicating.)
"Additionally, science has explicitly shown that this living organism has its own unique & human DNA, proving that it is an individual, living, human being."
This is also oversimplified. In addition to the argument above about tumors, identical twins come from 1 egg, and the twinning process happens a long time after conception. In the intervening time, the fetus can represent 1, 2, or even 3 people in the case of triplets. Look up "monoamnionic twins" to see what I mean.
In any event, science is not going to solve this debate, because while it can be informed by science, the abortion debate doesn't end there, not by a long shot. The question centers around when the Right to Life begins, how that Right is expressed when two people share one body, and whether the government has a legal ability to demand something when it comes to a person's body. (For example, would the government have the right to order you to donate a kidney?) These questions are well outside the realm of hard science.
I grant that it is impossible for science to exactly determine the time life is "created", probably because that "time" seems to be a matter of the concept of "ensoulment." Since "soul" is not a material object, it is necessarily outside the realm of science.
That said, given the innate uncertainty – since we can't "know" when a person comes to have a "soul" and become a real "person" – I tend to give life the benefit of the doubt, personally.
The question whether a government has the right to make you donate a kidney is a false analogy. A better question would be "does the government have the right to force people to take care of their own offspring?"
The answer is obviously "yes."
IMO, the claim that "it's a woman's body" fails because while the woman & the child are quite closely connected, they are individuals with their own bodies. They do not "share one body."
Yes, the child exists in a dependent state – a state that is directly due to the intentional action of it's parents. No, pregnancy may not be the reason a couple have sex, and they may have even attempted to avoid pregnancy, but the fact of the matter is that by having sex, they undertook the "risk" of making another person. (Yes, I know, cue the "incest/rape" complaining here. While that's valid as far as "intentional action of both parents", I don't find it to be a compelling argument that a person/child that had nothing to do with a crime should be put to death for it.)
So it comes down to the utilitarian argument of "might makes right", often accompanied by consequentialist rationalizations.
"IMO, the claim that "it's a woman's body" fails because while the woman & the child are quite closely connected, they are individuals with their own bodies."
If that is the case, then simple removal from the woman's body should prove no impediment to the fetus' survival. Think of it as an eviction rather than an abortion. Adult human beings can't access my property without my permission. Why should embryos be permitted to make use of my body without my permission?
Oh good, can we incarcerate babies who kill their mothers during childbirth?
That's a remarkably absurd attempt at an analogy.
Wait, Ron Paul was influenced by Ann Rand? Or Ann Rice? Or Ayn Rand? Or Ann Landers?
Sheesh, the RP hate is so uninformed and laughable. For the record, Paul isn't an Randian objectivist and his son's first name is short for "Randall," not the Russian author.
Now how many Obama-drones did I lose there?
Wow another intellectual giant! So everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is an "Obama-drone"?
Wow! All this just because Ron Paul is now leading in Iowa. I wonder what we'll see here if he wins on Jan. 3. I have a feeling "we aint seen nothin' yet".
in the name of Mike Mazzone
get raped
Behold the high standards of RP supporters…
Found you from a post by PZ Meyers. Thank you for creating this post bashing those batshit insane looneytarians. Us enlightened progressive liberal atheists need to fight back against Ron "KKK" Paul and his legion of rich white privileged male followers. These regressive Randian free-market fundamentalist fucktards pose a dangerous threat, what with them placing individual liberty over the collective. We must all submit to the collective because individuality is the enemy of free-thought.
This is a very well-written, well-reasoned article. Clearly you has your priorities straight attacking Paul for not believing in evolution and for publishing newsletters with questionable content over 20 years ago. Those are clearly more pertinent and relevant issues than his foreign and economic policies.
Libertarians like Ron Paul are irrational for believing that people should be free to live their lives freely without harming anyone else, and that the federal government should mind its own business. Fools! Don't they know that the government's business is to get involved with our own? Of course not! Otherwise they would be free-thinking progressive atheists like ourselves! Otherwise they would allow the government to perform warrantless wiretaps and wage perpetual war and bailout "too big to fail" banks and redistribute the wealth and tax the rich (who clearly don't pay enough!).
And what is with their obsession with the Federal Reserve? What could possibly be wrong with a private bank being controlled by the government with less transparency than the CIA? With the way they bitch and moan about it, you'd think it funneled $7.7 trillion in secret funds or something. You'd think it helped create the recession by slashing interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
And why do they want to deregulate everything? Everyone knows that deregulation caused the recession—especially the repeal of Glass-Stegall! Obviously we don't have enough government oversight. Again, with their bitching and complaining, you'd think that a new regulation is being created every two hours. Do they honestly believe that the market can regulate itself? Please! There are no real-life examples of the market regulating itself. We obviously can't have regulation without government. Who else will tax cow farts and regulate farm dust?
If these free market fundamentalist fucktards love their ideology so badly, they should move to Somalia (which is obviously doing worse than it was under its former tyrannical government). Screw them having a say in our democracy like every other citizen. They should love it or leave it, those unpatriotic bastards! We don't want a free market in this country, lest it becomes a shithole like Hong Kong. Everyone knows that countries with the freest economies are shit.
So thank Ashley Miller and PZ Meyers for standing up against the fringe minority that are libertarians. We free-thinking progressive atheists need to attack blind faith in the market by supporting blind faith in the government. Freethought and skepticism only applies to religion, never to the government. We must never question the government. Government is sacred. Government is benevolent. It never does any wrong (unlike the market, which always does wrong). Government is great. Government is good. I cannot cease singing of its praises.
Thanks for the links that are posted within your essay, at first glance the one on the free market is interesting.
Information is power, Mainstream media is NOT information, its propaganda.
You are a terrible troll. -9001/10.
I happen to be late 50's and I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that's not afraid to stand up to the bankers. I don't care if he's against free markets. Does anyone really think we have free markets anyway? How silly. Free trade? Even sillier. Ron Paul haters are coming out in full force because he's winning. The bankers that run the Federal Reserve and our once great country are scared Ron Paul will audit them. Reveal the corruption. Look now at MF Global, the banking bailouts, secret loans to foreign banks, etc. Trillions of dollars. The bankers now have our once great nation in debt at over 100% of GDP Watch as they foreclose on homes with fraudulent paperwork. How many criminal charges have been filed? None. How many of these bankers are in jail? None. And they won't be because they run this place. Look at the insider trading deals with Congress. Congress isn't going to bite the hand that feeds them. Look at how police forces nation wide have treated the Occupy Wall Street folks. When it was Libyans revolting, it was great and the "news" media covered it extensively, but because Americans are revolting, they are called dirty hippies and should be shot, pepper sprayed, arrested, etc. Watch and sit by idly as they say the US military can now murder Americans on American soil, or send them off to Gitmo (or worse), without charges, no rights, no lawyer. Next they will go after the internet and free speech will be a thing of the past. Americans better wake up before they lose it all to the bankers. That day is fast approaching. Ask the Greeks.
Don't listen to the Ron Paul haters…..they are all running scared.
I don't think you understand Ron Paul's political ideals.
"I don't care if he's against free markets."
Not even the most basic.
Literally, this blog post is full of assumptions. I wish I had the time to sit through it and point out the false points you made out, and easily cite information that discredits your opinions in this article but I don't.
But just to help show how you really should put more research into him yourself, one of the first incorrect pieces of information you gave was that he called MLKJr day a "hate whitey day". That is not true, or at least cannot be proven to be true. Twenty years ago newsletters were published in his name that said such things. He denies having written them and claims that he didn't even know about them until ten years after they were written. Also, he has disavowed them.
So it's perfectly okey-dokey that he made millions off the racism that was promoted in his name? So either he wrote them, he approved them, or he had no idea what was going on under his watch. Are any of those things really acceptable in someone who wants to be president of a world power?
Ron Paul is delusional if he thinks a completely deregulated (aside from colossally tough checks on importing labour) marketplace will result in some perfectly competitive utopia. They'll be more than a few firms with monopoly or monopsony power do to economies of scale playing the game and setting their own de facto rules.
Ron Paul's political ideals:
End the Fed (great thing)
End the IRS (Good thing)
End the CIA (Great thing)
Return to the Constitution (Great thing)
End illegal wars (Great thing)
Keep our nose out of everyone's business (Great thing)
I don't think you understand the grip the bankers have on our politicians, our military and our foreign policy.
We have no free markets. Name ONE free market in this country.
End the Fed (Not happening.)
End the IRS (Not happening.)
End the CIA (Not happening.)
Return to the Constitution (What the fuck does that mean anyway?)
End illegal wars (Listen up, we went into iraq and Afghanistan with the full support of the American people and Ron Paul couldn't stop it from happening then and he cannot stop it from happening again.)
Keep our nose out of everyone's business (Isolationism in a global economy? Fuck.)
Bankers (Ron Paul will further deregulate the banking industry, giving them an even greater grip.)
What the fuck is a free market anyway?
So refusing to stick a gun in everyone's face & tell them how the hell to live is "isolationism", eh?
There are a LOT of educational materials enclosed within this Blog, don't just look here at the bottom, there are literally hours upon hours of validly researched videos posted here that answer these statements you have made. Where you use the word deregulate the problem is primarily "corruption", it was corrupt for the banks to not inform people who had money deposited in "commercial" banks that Glass-Stegal had been repealed and that their deposits were at risk, AND it was CORRUPT for FDIC to insure the money of such risky endeavors as derrivative trading by commercial banks with depositors funds (that were FDIC insured). Non-fractional reserve banking would not have allowed this to happen, because they could not have leveraged beyond what could be loaned, and hence if it was loaned from "government notes" (not necessarily gold or silver backed just not funny money) this would imply expansion of some form (either a house or a new business does'nt matter) so the monetary base would be expaned ONLY by the amount of "economic expansion". No regulations required, and no highly leveraged bets allowed because of the "sound money" system (you can't bet what you don't have). Commercial Banks would be depositors banks, and the risky stuff left to intentional use of investment banks. It was corruption within a system that allowed it and the SAME people who did it purposely did not regulate or deregulated financial laws. Why do you think any other politician we have as a potential candidate would do anything different? The system has the ability to do this because of fractional reserves and nobody but RP is even willing to look in that dark room. I do not intend this to be an attack on your character, just an opportunity to show you what many years of research have concluded, please see "The Money Masters" video previously posted and you will get a first hand look at this ponzi scheme that has been going on for a millenia world wide. Have a Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday or whatever you may recognize for 12-25.
Even if he wins in Iowa, he will remain irrelevant in the race, just like Huckabee was. Most Americans can see through Paul's foolishness, even if there are a bunch of rabid knuckle-draggers in Iowa who can't.
Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate in this race with any chance of getting a major party nomination. I'm voting for him, and shame on anyone who isn't.
Yes, shame on us who want everyone to have equal rights. How DARE we protect the disabled, gays, minorities, women, nonchristians, children, and the poor? We have some damn nerve to expect the protections of the Civil Rights Act, ADA, IDEA, etc.! We need to get the hell to the back of the bus and shut up so you privileged can bask in your wonderful utopia of no antitrust laws, no EPA, no laws limiting the power of banks, all laws based on christianity, an American caste system, and all those other wonderful things that bastion of a man wants to implement. Yes, damn it all, how dare we expect to be equal in the United States?
If your money bought 90 times more than it does now would that help your financial situation? The fed has de-valued the dollar near 90%, wouldn't a NICE house for $30,000 be great with your dollar buying more imported goods than (probably) any other currency on the planet. The establishment is AFRAID of Ron Paul WHY? Maybe its the fear of him ending the corporate / government money buffet? Or no more bailouts? Or no more insider trading? I could continue but let a well known DEMOCRAT who liked Obama explain the fear:
Do you want 30 more years of this?
Those of you who voted for Obama should read this:
Make no mistake, if you vote for him again, you will have blood on your hands.
Sorry, I don't read hate sites.
LOL. Look at all these dumbass "libertarians." Hey Libertards, libertarianism is an idea created by anarcho-Marxists. You idiots are the only people in the world who think it means "free market capitalism." Yet another testament to the stupidity of right-wing morons. Oh, that's right. Knowledge is for those elitists who read things like books. We can't have that! YEAH RON PAUL 2012! YEAH, ALEX JONES AND GLENN BECK! Keep dreaming, dumbasses.
Libertarianism was created by totalitarians? Well, that's one of the more fanciful claims I've ever heard from someone trying to smear us. Got any facts to back it up?
John C. Randolph – Totalitarians? Spoken like someone who has never read a book in his life, especially not Marx or the Anarchists. I wonder why morons like you think they're entitled to an opinion when they obviously have no clue what they're talking about.
But proof to back it up? Read Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, genius who thinks Marx and Anarchists wrote about totalitarianism. Oh, that's right, you don't read! Otherwise you'd know it wasn't fanciful. Once you get through the wikipedia article–because, let's be honest, we both know you're not going to pick up a book–consider calling yourself a Willfully Exploited Serf, since that seems to more accurately describe your ideology. "Libertarian" is taken.
Americans, god bless 'em, are the only people on the planet who think "libertarianism" means "Boo, government, but YAY CORPORATIONS!" YEAH, RON PAUL 2012! Right? LOL.
Ron Paul is dangerously delusional, and I'm glad Ms. Miller had the guts to point it out. It sickens me how the Paulites have to resort to insulting Ms. Miller's gender when they can't find fault with her arguments.
Paul's insistence that the market can regulate itself would be foolish if it wasn't borne of his servitude to the coporate oligarchy. Unregulated markets brought us the S&L debacle of the '80s and our current economic mess. The Fed is the one agency that has the power to regulate the banks, and needs to be given MORE power, not less, but it also needs to enforce the laws on the books. Alan Greenspan said that he doesn't think that bankers should be prosecuted for fraud related to current banking scandals. There's an episode of Frontline called "The Warning." Watch it, and then tell me what you think of Paul's ideas on less regulation.
And John Randolph, do you really think you wouldn't have blood on your hands if you voted for anyone else? Every candidate is a servant of the corporate oligarchy, and the wars are another way to funnel public money to corporations.
>do you really think you wouldn't have blood on your hands if you voted for anyone else?
I know I won't have blood on my hands if I vote for the anti-war candidate.
> Every candidate is a servant of the corporate oligarchy,
It's rather sad that you're ready to throw in the towel instead of trying to be part of the solution. If Ron Paul were a servant of the corporate oligarchy, why is he the one they're trying to bury?
If yo have the courage to challenge your beliefs for the sake of verification or reconciliation, watch this google video. You will know more about the Federal Reserve than 95% of the people here.
If that is the case, then simple removal from the woman's body should prove no impediment to the fetus' survival. Think of it as an eviction rather than an abortion. Adult human beings can't access my property without my permission. Why should embryos be permitted to make use of my body without my permission?
I find it hard to believe that anyone old enough to conceive a child, or cause one to be conceived is ignorant about where babies come from. As such, whether it is your intention or not, by spreading your legs, you give implicit permission for a child to become dependent on you.
As such, you are responsible not only for that child's existence, but for that child's dependent state. By putting them into a state of dependence, you forfeited your right to "evict" the child.
You can't claim a right not to be responsible for someone you explicitly forced into a position of needing you to survive.
Wow. You ronbots really have to twist yourselves to come up with a justification for your Holy Lord's woman-hate, don't you?
Lol. Yeah, that's it, "woman hate"…
You're obviously about as informed about what Christians believe as a rock is.
Not sure what's robotic or misogynistic about simply recognizing that actions have consequences, but I'm quite sure that having to accept responsibility for your own actions is a decidedly resisted concept these days.
Take care…
@Chris, yeah, I'm sure all those incest and rape victims, and all those women who need medically needed abortions (yes they do exist) should take responsibility for their own actions. Abortion is an evil necessity. It's unfortunate, and I hate it, but it exists.
Obviously Jen, you haven't bothered to actually read anything here.
As I mentioned, while it's true that the small number of rape or incest caused pregnancies were not caused by the intentional actions of both parents, I also stated that I don't buy the claim that a child that had nothing to do with a crime should be put do death for it.
Would you mind enlightening everyone with some reality based numbers on "medically necessary" abortions?
But a woman/child who was forcibly raped should be forced to have child with the rapist? Wow. Hey, I bet you have never been raped, have you? As for medically necessary abortions (ever heard of placental abruptions or ectopic pregnancies?) I have a feeling it wouldn't matter what I posted, as your mind is already made up. http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com/blog/2006/03/what-do-doctors-mean-by-medically.html You can read that, and you can then continue to treat me disdain as you seem to enjoy it.
Jen, would you care to tell everyone exactly why a child should be put to death for a crime it didn't commit – specifically, for a rape that the child had nothing to do with…
If you are going to offer the usual "a painful reminder", then please feel free to include the reason that an attempt to feel better is a good reason to put someone to death…
I'm well aware of both placental abruptions and ectopic pregnancies, having had both pop up in my life.
Yes, placental abruptions are dangerous events, but happily, they are quite often resolved with no loss of life whatsoever – my own daughter being a good example …
Ectopic pregnancy is a quite serious medical emergency, with two ways to address the issue. Either through intended, direct abortion, or treatment of the misplacement of the embryo. Either way the child will unfortunately not survive, but intentionally just killing the child is wrong.
There are other "medical necessity" pleas given as well. Uterine cancer is a common one. Other than placental abruption, the child unfortunately does not survive the treatment for the condition.
I do not think you can be swayed, nor am I trying to do so. However, there are treatments for such things other than direct, intended abortion, which is always wrong.
Your "facts" are nothing but your opinions and unshakeable evidence that you are part of the problem in this country.
Geaux Ron Paul!
@Scott "Unregulated markets brought us the S&L debacle of the '80s and our current economic mess. The Fed is the one agency that has the power to regulate the banks, and needs to be given MORE power, not less, but it also needs to enforce the laws on the books."
That's completely ignorant. The S&L debacle had a multitude of factors, including lax regulation (by the government), changing tax laws (by the government) that changed the value of real estate and then a bailout (by the government). Markets fail all the time, but when the markets fail, people go broke. It's like the Churchill line about democracy being better than the other options, markets aren't perfect, but they are far more self-correcting than government.When government steps in, it prevents people from going broke and uses bailouts to prop the market up, preserving the bad behavior (and sometimes encouraging it).
As for the Fed, it is the ultimate source of bad banking behavior.
Who in politics gives a shit about evolution? When has that issue EVER mattered during a presidency? You know what does matter? Making sure our government doesn't spend us into hyperinflation and debt-slavery. None of our hallowed presidential candidates will prevent that problem except Ron Paul. Quit arguing over inconsequential shit and take a look at our economy. A dollar in 1913 (when the Fed was created) is worth $0.04 today. Changes are needed, and Ron Paul knows the answers. Not voting for Paul, even though he's right on the economy, because of his scientific stances would be the same as not letting the kid who won the spelling bee have the trophy because he wore mismatched socks. Inconsequential.
Steady and predictable inflation is no great economic problem. Indeed, a lot of recent "inflation" is due to rising oil and food prices (the result of petroleum growing at a slower rate – and speculation – along with demand spikes due to a growing middle class in China & India). The US is on the cusp of deflation, as a matter of fact, so all this austerity-pushing hyperinflation fear-mongering is bullshit. Taking a trillion dollars out of circulation could ruin the US and – by extension – global economy.
You have no idea what inflation is. Inflation is not the overall increase in prices, it is the the increase of money to the money supply. Adding money decreases its value, thus raising prices. Unfortunately, inflation can never be steady and predictable because it NEVER affects everyone equally; prices always go up faster than wages, so those who own businesses win and those who earn wages lose. The people that control the Fed, who alone control the money supply, also own businesses that directly benefit from the increase in prices. Ron Paul wants to end the Fed and return us to a truly steady currency, but you don't want to elect him because of his views on abortion and evolution? You, sir, are the true measure of stupidity.
Brian, what are you talking about?
"Inflation is not the overall increase in prices, it is the the increase of money to the money supply."
You could not be more wrong. Reduce the amount of goods and services in the economy and you'll have inflation with a stable money supply.
Inflation, by definition, is the increase in prices of goods and services.
The point of asking about evolution is if the person denies it then either they are a) a cynical liar prepared to pander to religion b) an idiot c) lead by religious faith rather than evidence (which also implies b). One might give a career politician a pass on a) if their record showed it was electioneering. Not so for b) or c).
And for Ron Paul it is supremely hypocritical. He has repeatedly parroted about libertarianism but his own personal agenda appears to be extremely religiously motivated and denying evolution calls into question the rationality of anything he says. So no it's "inconsequential shit".
As for the dollar, I think you will find that the amount that people earn has risen to compensate in the intervening years. It's called inflation. People are not living on 0.04 of the income that they were in 1913. I daresay that the majority of people are actually vastly, materially better off than their 1913 counterparts.
As for Ron Paul "knowing the answers", it would be more correct to say "thinks he knows the answers", and I see no evidence to suggest he actually does even if he thinks he does.
Yes, people are "earning'" more, but that's worthless if they are also paying more. 100 years ago a man could work 1 job and support a family of 5, including a wife, on the income that ONE job provided. Why? Because his dollar was stable (not inflated), therefore the value held its own and he could predict the prices of things years in advance. This allowed families to save and plan.Now? Families need both the man AND woman's income to survive, and they need to borrow on top of that! And you think this is great! Ideal even! Get your damn head out of the sand and look at what's going on. We are quickly becoming financial slaves to the Fed and their cronies and you want to argue about science? Wake up.
Ron Paul has written several books, providing historical evidence that he knows what he's talking about. Read a couple of them and get back to me.
People are earning more but buying shit.
If I wanted to work a job and buy what someone 100 years ago did for his family of 5 I could manage it fine. But I don't, I want a TV, a microwave, AC, a car, indoor toilets, separate bedrooms, a washing machine, central heating, etc. etc. People in low income brackets scrimp on the necessities to afford some luxuries. It's not big and it's not clever but we all do it.
"So, why are these people supporting a crazy, racist Christian fundamentalist?" In a race that includes real examples of racism and fundamentalism (such as Perry and Bachmann) I'm surprised someone could actually make that assertion.
But I think Charlie Davis explains it better than I can.
I'll take the Reactionary over the Murderer, Thanks
Ron Paul hates women and minorities; Obama just kills and imprisons them
"Alan Greenspan almost single-handedly caused this recession."
I have a lot of reasons I don't support Ron Paul but none of them are based on the kneejerk hyperbola in this post.
I could only make it through a couple paragraphs before I had to quit reading – sorry, but this is really a terrible, terrible article. So many of Ron Paul's viewpoints taken completely out of context, with patently false accusations and a gross distortion of his philosophy. The reason your smart friends like Ron Paul is they take the time to understand his philosophy without just jumping on the bandwagon of freaking out at the prospect of doing things any differently than what we're used to (which is clearly sending us in the wrong direction as a nation). Talk with your smart friends with an OPEN MIND and hopefully you will come to understand Ron Paul a little better, you're clearly not getting it from whatever other sources you're reading / watching. I sincerely believe Ron Paul is one of the last hopes for our country. RON PAUL 2012!!!
Let's say everything you claim is entirely true. So what? The biggest issue for ALL Americans should be the way the current and previous administrations have gutted the Constitution so as to leave the US technically a totalitarian police state. That isn't hyperbolic, when the government can arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without charge or trial for their political views you have lost the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.
Of everyone running, on both sides, only Ron Paul (and any other libertarians) would restore the rights to the people.
But if you simply want to worry about your job security rather than your, and your children's, rights and freedom then you will may what you deserve.
My child is special needs. If Paul becomes President he has plans to repeal IDEA, which gives my child full and equal access to an education. If it's up to him, that will disappear. Do you know what life was like for special needs children before IDEA? They didn't have one and they were mostly institutionalized. Sorry, but I don't think that is any kind of future for my child.
So, let me get this right, people will vote for politicians to tax them to fund policies to help special needs kids but they won't fund it themselves? Does that seem logical?
And how exactly am I supposed to fund it myself? I can't work because I have to stay home with my daughter. My husband is in the Army. How exactly are we supposed to fund the thousands of dollars it would take? Free, public education means we don't have to, and right now she's in an excellent program and she's doing well. But what if that is taken away? And please don't start talking about giving us a school credit to fund putting her somewhere. See, if IDEA is repealed, schools won't have to take her. What if we are stationed somewhere the schools decide they won't take her? That "funding" won't do us a damn bit of good, will it?
People, as in all of us, not just you. Charity will never replace all that government does for unfortunate people but it might just do enough if we give it a go. But insurance might help many people leaving charity to the really unfortunate.
I'm sorry but how is charity or insurance going to give my child an equal education. IDEA has nothing to do with disability.
Either people care or they don't. I'm sorry for your situation but if you make it public you get funding from people who can make a difference or you don't. Or you already have insurance for the situation. Hope it all works out for you anyway, merry Christmas to you and your family.
Again, how is insurance or charity going to give my child a fair and equal education if IDEA is repealed? This has nothing to do with disability or insurance. I'm not understanding what point you are trying to make here. I'm sorry.
My point, such as it is, is that you are not necessarily fucked. Given human nature there is a good chance you and your family would be funded by people, the same people who were forced to help you via the government.
Or not, but people should help because it's the right thing to do, not because the government will shove them in jail if they don't or god will shove them in hell if they don't.
I'm sorry but my experience has not been so positive. I've been asked to leave places because my daughter had a sensory meltdown. We've been pointed at. We've been told by other parents that they don't want our daughter mainstreamed because it may take away from their kids education. My daughter has been picked on, bullied, and teased. Very rarely, outside of our circle, have strangers ever been kind to us. And again, I don't know what charity has to do with my daughter getting an equal education to those who aren't disabled. How is that going to get her a spot in a school? And I'm supposed to rely on the kindness of strangers so my daughter can get an education while "normal" children get all the good opportunities because they are "normal"? Tell me how that is liberty, freedom, or even nice?
Jen, I'm sorry for your situation and I'd help as an individual and try to convince others to help too, but you don't get to guilt trip me and all Americans into giving away our, and our children's, and our children's children's rights to a totalitarian, corporatist, illegal, unconstitutional state just because it offers you the possibility of a better life for your kid.
So, me speaking of my situation realistically is a guilt trip? Please. If you feel any kind of guilt, that's on you. I'm telling you the way it is. By the way, I love how because I'm against Ron Paul, you think you know anything about my political leanings. I'm voting for Gary Johnson, hopefully. NOT Obama, and not the any Republican candidate. I feel this country needs a change from the 2 party system, and in my eyes, Paul has become way too Republican on social issues. I never said I was for the federal education system, I just said that repealing IDEA would be bad for special needs children. Way to jump to conclusions mister. Do you have children? Would you do anything you possibly could to ensure their future? And really, who's guilt tripping who here? You just told me I was basically selling your children into corporate slavery to save mine. Guilt trip yes? Before you ASSUME you know anything about someones political leanings, maybe you should ask.
Good, good and good. Couldn't agree more about the two party system. I was referring to the limited choices available and Ron Paul happens to be the least bad in spite of some of his odious views.
Well said, Ashley Miller. Right-wing libertarianism has replaced left-wing communism as the infantile disorder of the day.
Don't let the abuse get to you – it's simply evidence of the stupidity of many Paulistas.
I don't get why his view on abortion is a big deal. His job was to help deliver babies before we was a politician. This thought that he is "anti-women" is frighteningly stupid, and quite frankly if you believe this I find your credibility on any topic in question. While we are talking about his past job…he also helped out AA women who couldn't afford their medical bills when it came to having their child. Would a racist do something like that?
I understand that you are all scared that RP will bring a lot of change to this country. It needs to happen. We are going down a very scary road right now, and no one but RP sees the need to stop it.
As far as your journalistic integrity is concerned Mrs. Miller, I would stick to writing about the World Cup and leave things actually involving research to those more qualified.
I think it's a problem when he starts pledging to only allow pro-life cabinet members and judges if he were to become President. I would say that his personal beliefs were overcoming his duty to the people of this country. But hey, what do I know? (Google the Susan B. Anthony pledge)
Don't let the jerks get you down Ashley. Bug nutty bat shit crazy people will almost always say bug nutty bat shit crazy things. At least the few that are reasonable have enough class to not be insulting. Haters will always hate.
Good article.
Ashley, a mutual friend pointed me in this direction (Crommunist). Your analysis is spot on, and well-supported.
I tried reading End the Fed a few years ago, and it was just a series of assertions repeated over and over again. Ron Paul is definitely consistent, in a superficial sense, in that he repeats the same specific policies over and over again, but you're exactly right in observing that those policies contradict each other at a very fundamental level.
The misogynistic comments here are appalling. To leave you with a quote: "Don't let the bastards grind you down".
My friend supports Ron Paul soley on the reason that he wants to legalize pot. That's it. Yup, no other reason. Nothing else matters to her in the presidential race besides the legality of drugs in America.
The funniest part about this article is that it automatically assumes Ron Paul wrote the controversial newsletters, which he did not. The basis of may if the arguments are distortions of his views, and lack a basic understanding on what Constitutional Law is.
Shame on Ashley Miller for ignoring reality, and instead taking at face value arguments which she claims to understand.
I think it's pathetic how she takes three sentences here, and four sentences there from a quote with no context. and then proceeds to rant for paragraphs.
Or how she picks edited video that cut off his explanations for his reasoning, for instance his evolution video is cut off.
We have a word for people like you Ashley, it's called being a shill.
He may not have written them, but he sure funded and ran the organization that did. So, he gets a free pass for not watchdogging his own business, why? Because he's Ron Paul?
You try running a medical practice, and 5 newsletters at once and tell me if you still think it is something you can have complete control over.
It's a fact that Paul staffed ghost writers, in which typically sign non-disclosure agreements. It's part of the publishing process, there is an excellent breakdown here:
Also here is a more fair review of the newsletters that doesn't resort to the sensationalism on this blog:
Also the guy who brought this story back up again in 2011 is James Kirchick who is directly tied to Newt gingrich and his campaign.
Personal opinions held by politicians do not magically exist in some sort of a vacuum. The personal opinions a politician holds have a high probability of eventually translating into policy. More reason not to vote for Ron Paul.
>>Personal opinions held by politicians do not magically exist in some sort of a vacuum. The personal opinions a politician holds have a high probability of eventually translating into policy. More reason not to vote for Ron Paul.
Exactly the reason to vote for Ron Paul. Strongly against the use of government force to intervene in the lives of free individuals. If Ron Paul were in office there would not be:
Legal assassination of American Citizens
NDAA with clauses that allow for the indefinite detention without trial for American Citizens.
Fist Amendment destroying proposals like SOPA
Using taxpayer money for Bail Outs to Corporations that don't deserve them
A 4th Amendment infringing Patriot Act
ATF arms sales to Mexican Drug Cartels
Endless Wars
Yeah, Ron Paul's beliefs do translate into policy, that is why millions of people support him against all detractors.
Ron Paul will be President of the United States come 2012
@Mike L, seriously? If he can't handle that, how is he going to be President? This is how you defend him, by saying he was "too busy"? Please. I've read a fair share of the newsletters, because I like to do my research. It still doesn't excuse him for not better watching his own business interests. It doesn't make it okay. Sorry. If he can't handle what he was doing then, he REALLY can't handle being President. Thanks so much for pointing that out to me.
Jen, if you want I can go deeper on this issue. Let's try:
There is no new evidence on this issue, all this was "evidence" 4 years ago when he was running in the 2008 election.
The same guy who "broke" the story in 2008 James Kirchick is the same guy who "broke" the story this year.
He just so happens to have direct ties with Newt Gingrich, he also has an agenda with Paul because in 2007 he interviewed Paul on Gay Marriage and he didn't like Paul's answer, ever since he has been dedicated to smearing Paul. (He got mad because James is a homosexual)
(Gingrich Connection) http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/gingrich-skulking-behind-ron-paul.html
(2007 Gay rights interview) http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2007/07/ron-paul-libertarian-bigot/
Paul did have a hands on with the Ron Paul Financial Report, but he also had help with the other 4 newsletters going out at the same time.
There is a lot of Speculation going on, and people who dislike Paul are going to be the ones sensationalizing this issue more than anybody.
The point is, that no one here knows the full story, and I think we should, don't get me wrong.
But I also think that even if his name was cleared in the eyes of the unbiased. That it wouldn't change any of the detractors minds anyways. This is just the thing haters are latching onto because it's so easy for them to do.
It isn't about debating the wars on terror and drugs, it isn't about balancing the budget, monetary policy, the Federal Reserve, the Bail Outs, and taxes.
It's now become about character assassination and smearing based on hearsay. It's quite sad and pathetically low in my opinion.
Even more proof on Newt Gingrich being behind this attack with the media:
Proof the Media is using "creative editing" to discredit Ron Paul and his CNN interview:
This is political assassination of the only anti-war candidate in the race, I can keep providing proof of Media Bias if you need it. It's borderline criminal what they are doing, and all the proven conflicts of interest going on.
Ron Paul has been handling this political scandal for 20 years. He fired the people responsible, and publicly distanced himself from the content. In the eyes of the public world that is all you can really do.
Remember out of the thousands of newsletters that went out, the racy stuff was in less than 1% of the letters. All this was brought out by a Democrat running against Paul in 1996, his name was Charles "Lefty" Morris.
Paul's Democratic opponent in the fall election, trial lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, was heavily assisted by the AFL-CIO and ran numerous attacks. Morris cited Paul's past votes to repeal federal drug laws in favor of state legislation, and also ran numerous ads about newsletters which had contained derogatory comments published in Paul's name concerning race and other politicians.[9] Paul's campaign replied at the time that voters might not understand the "tongue-in-cheek, academic" quotes out of context, and rejected Morris's demand to release back issues.
Paul's large contributor base outraised Morris two-to-one, giving him nearly $2 million,[6] the third-highest amount of individual contributions received by any House member (behind Gingrich and Bob Dornan);[10] he was also able to paint Morris as a tool of trial lawyers and big labor. Paul went on to win the election in a close margin of 51% to 48%,[7] the third time he had been elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.[3] Paul recalled later, "Here I am in the Bible belt …. but I convinced them they don't want [government] in their business."[1]
An interview where he claims ownership of his newsletters. http://amerpundit.com/2011/12/22/ron-paul-took-responsibility-for-newsletters-in-1995-interview/
I don't care what conspiracy you have proof of. The POINT of everything here is he was running a business and he didn't run it correctly. You reap what you sow. If he wants me to vote for him for President, he has to prove that he can do the job. If he can't do the jobs he had outside of the political arena, why would he be able to handle the Presidency? No, thanks. I will stick with Gary Johnson.
His incompetence with regard to the newsletters is only part of the problem. His answers, when questioned about them have evolved over the years. Only in the last 10years has he claimed to not read them or know who authored them. this is a relatively new tact for him in this matter. In the early 90s he had quite a different story. Ron Paul supporters call Obama a liar, which he is. Ron Paul, however is as well. http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/racism-charge-haunts-ron-paul/17yyfrlxq?from=sharepermalink-facebook&src=v5%3Ashare%3Afacebook%3A
Look at the others running against Ron Paul. Each and everyone is linked to dirty money, The Fed, CFR and or the tri lats, bribes from wall street. They support the patriot act and the 2012 mil auth act.; this is but the tip of a dirty filthy iceberg of NEW WORLD ORDER Hegemony. Something me and many other sane Americans want nothing to do with. No One said Ron Paul was perfect but he is a lot closer to rule by Constitution than any other candidate out there that stands any sort of real chance. If you know of another let me know and I will gladly look at them and throw my support their way. But truth be told most honest people never make it this far in politics. The only reason RP has is the economic collapse he so aptly predicted.
Oh my . . . previous comments have said enough about individual points.
But I think, all in all, Ashley, your understanding of Ron Paul's platform and voting history is deeply flawed and contains numerous factual errors.
You're not coming off like you have political savvy or know what you're talking about.
Personal opinions held by politicians do not magically exist in some sort of a vacuum. The personal opinions a politician holds almost always eventually translate into policy. More reason not to vote for Ron Paul.
Great work Ashley!!! Enlightening post.
This fits with the FB interaction I recently had with my old HS neighbor. He posted ~
Ron Paul
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
: I replied with, Point 1. Ignore Ron Paul [check]
Point 2. Laugh at Ron Paul [check]
The first two points is where you shoulda stopped.
Him: Do you collect government assistance money or something?
: I responded with, No, like you, I'm a middle-class white male. I'm not female or part of the under privileged minority. I was afforded a good education and now I'm able to support myself and my loved ones. Nor do I mind helping the less fortunate when able. Among the many reasons why I can't support Ron Paul here are the ones that stick out. He's anti-science, anti-education, and he's on the wrong side of history.
He then unfriended me.
i'm disgusted by the misogyny here. As for those who dodge criticism by stating Paul will leave things up to the states: riiiight. There will be intense pressure from the PACs to turn all that right wing nuttery into policy, and he will be backing legislation that supports his personal beliefs at every turn.
Ashley, I like your post because it brings all the important points together in one place. Don't listen to the Paulites who are giving you trouble. If nothing else their bigotry lends even more credence to the notion (seems obvious to me) that he was quite involved in the publishing of all of that hate propaganda with his name on it.
Two most important reasons I support Ron Paul is to re establish the constitution as the law of the land and to have the Federal Reserve in its current form dismantled. These two are reason enough. No one in the time since the criminal act of Woodrow Wilson has shown the guts and love of country to reestablish the sovereign status of the American citizen This is but a mere peace of the platform of Ron Paul. To believe anything else is belief in lies.As for talk of states deciding what is murder, or calling Supporters of Ron Paul names or the countless excoriations. This is the activity of an elite that has brain washed a few and allowed them to infect others with lies. Because they are scared of anyone of us believing that we are free by the word of God, and not having jacked booted thugs beat us for the remark as frightful!
Ms. Miller, thank you for having the courage to post your convictions, and thank you even more for taking the time to get past the ridiculous bumper sticker talking points his followers embrace and evaluate him for what he says and does.
Ms. Miller, I am a youngish, intelligent, white male who admittedly has not read all of the responses before this one so if any of my points are redundant please forgive me. I have weathered the maelstrom of critical detritus some readers posted in response to this article and I assure you this will definitely not be anything like those. I wish instead to actually address the question directly.
I was raised a Republican in the deep South during the 70's and 80's after being adopted into a wealthy and politically prominent family. Although you will most likely not find anything about my family nor our role in politics (as we are intensely private people) I can safely say I watch my loved ones shape policy from behind closed doors every day. I only mention this to establish a baseline of understanding about my following opinion.
My bubble of awareness about how our country works as well as its history was burst after I voted for, and was subsequently betrayed by George W. Bush roughly ten years ago. His administration left me wondering not only about my own integrity and values, but the priorities and values of my family as well. When Obama was elected (and I did vote for him after seeing the evils of the "W") I was genuinely excited about the possibility of seeing a real change in the way politics are carried out. I believe that is what all of us who voted for him felt as well. And although he has been unjustly attacked and his myriad accomplishments unfairly represented by the media since, he has also nonetheless proven himself ultimately an ineffective leader. Granted, he should be allowed the next four years if for no other reason then fairness considering all that we allowed the last guy to get away with for eight years. However…
Ron Paul also represents a certain kind of change that I get excited about. And that is blatant honesty. I've never seen another candidate, not even Obama, be so completely honest and especially outspoken about their inherent opinions on very sensitive matters no matter how unpopular or monstrous they may seem. He is, in many ways, the anti-politician. And this must be a very difficult line to maneuver. You even point out above the seemingly obvious contradiction in his want of less power were he to become the most powerful person on Earth. I would contend that may be the only way to go about it though. I believe the old adage is, "If you can't beat them, join them then beat them." It seems to have worked wonderfully for Saul (Paul) against the Christians he so desperately sought to decimate two thousand years ago before realizing they were simply multiplying too fast for him to kill off.
As much as I dislike Dr. Paul's racism, lack of Scientific understanding, and tendency to make bombastic comments about the Jews and government, I happen to very much like the fact that he is brave enough, and has enough integrity to make them. And let's face it – racism, antisemitism, and pandering to the ultra-wealthy will always exist in our government the same as any other. At least until "the people" finally figure out a way to truly take the power back into our own hands. So these things I can overlook for the time being as there is nothing real I can do about it for now. (Although I did recently read something about a new party which I believe is called the "Americans Elect" which looks like something I proposed several years back that could revolutionize the way we vote and who we get to vote for.)
In the mean time, I choose to focus on the character and integrity of potential candidates with the latter being more important.
RP is intelligent, informed, and maybe the only "GOP" (I know he's not really qualified for the title but it is the current party he's debating with) candidate that stands a chance in a debate with Obama. I'm not wishing he would beat Obama, rather merely stating it would be the most interesting debate.
Regardless of who would win from that scenario, I believe we stand to witness true, profound changes in our political system for the first time since the Bull Moose party and that excites me. That is the reason I support RP as far as the Right side of the aisle is concerned.
I believe this may be the root of the sentiments you are finding amongst young, white, non-religious, seemingly intelligent men. Might I add "angry" to that list of adjectives? We are angry because somehow we feel as though we have been disenfranchised despite our overwhelming numbers and RP seems to feel the same way in comparison to the Right. It is that similarity which appeals to us. His anger and self-righteous certitude matches our own – even if we disagree with some of his individual opinions.
I would like to conclude by mentioning once again how strongly I feel Obama deserves another four years in order to be able to fairly carry out his ideas, as we all know the conditions he entered into office under left him at a very unfair disadvantage in that regard. RP should have waited until 2016, but as Donald Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the army you have and not the army you wish for." Only this war is one about real change in our system and real change in how our government relates to us, the people it supposedly represents.
So between Obama and Paul, may the best man win.
Good luck in all of your future endeavors and if you bothered to actually read this all the way through… sincerely, I thank you.
Might I suggest you take a look at Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein? With a hard grassroots effort, I think one could be elected (and it looks like they're going to run together). You sound intelligent. Please don't ally yourself with someone who represents the 1800's idea of may-the-privileged-walk-over-everyone-else type of politics. He doesn't support freedom or getting out of other people's lives. What he supports is dodging the real issues by saying "let the states decide," and no, the states should never decide who has rights and who doesn't. Every American deserves *equal* rights, not white fountain rights in Massachusetts and black fountain rights in New Hampshire.
Sorry for you that you are so blind by the main street media.
Mr Paul would be the best thing for the us. And I know plenty of blacks that feel the way I do. We see past the main street.
Ron Paul is the racist? He's the only candidate who's against the drug war which has a wildly disparate racial impact. What's worse for black people – his silly newsletter from the 80s… or the fact 1 out of 3 black man get locked up?
You wonder why those of us on the left like him? Ummmm, how about the fact he's the only candidate of either party who doesn't think the President has the right to secretly murder citizens with no due process?
Sure, I don't agree with him on lots of things – but tell me why Obama is the better choice?
Apart from a few statements which are perhaps less carefully worded than one might like (Alan Greenspan has certainly been a key figure in the Fed's recent history, but there's quite a lot more to it than that) I applaud your attempt to get behind the Ron Paul mask. He is as reactionary as Alex Jones and they share much of the same nouveau John Bircher audience. In any event, even if I disagreed with you entirely I should not wish these psychotic reactions upon you. Anonymity breeds contempt, it seems. Keep up the good work!
People are looking to Ron Paul as an alternative because the other GOP candidates and Barack Obama are all worthless.
Thanks for brining up all of these points. I agree, Ron Paul is awful.
Canard Canard Canard Canard. It's difficult to really cut through the level of misinformation in this blog post, but essentially it comes down to this. I as a Undercover Ashkenazi-Jew/Irish/Swede/Native-American(Lakota) white kid… reject the assignation of my class identity. Always have, religiously I've encountered plenty of "fundies" as this article attempts to paint Ron Paul with (with it's oh so broad brush) and with such a consciousness embedded in me growing up you'd think if what the blogger posts would be spot on, and I'd reject the guy out of complete disgust at Yet Another Hypocrite Christian Fundamentalist trying to get votes. Problem is, in this arena and others, Ron Paul represents the striving honorable (not perfect) attitude towards religion that "good" Christians should be supportive of. There is much bluster here, and much of the hardened status-quo political drivel that we are supposed to adhere to to be "proper" politically correct libertarians, democrats, republicans and progressives. I'd welcome this articles critiques if they had merit, some of the critiques approach mertiable status, but on the whole, it's mostly bull. Signifying the calcified apparatus of someone who is rabidly attempting to justify thinly veiled hatred and indeed the profound misunderstanding of political positions that are pragmatic and sensible but counter to the going notions of moral relativism that guide most people nowadays (regardless of actual moral-theological stances) in political discourse. All of what you can really attack the guy on is known, and has been vetted out by an extremely critical and wary set of supporters, ones who see all of the hypocrisy exhibited by both the gilded caged left-wing and right-wing in this country. Know the quality of your candidate by the attitude of their enemies I say, he is considered as an enemy by both the fascist elements of the left, and the fascist elements of the right. I'll leave this at that for now, I would hope that the author enlightens themselves on these subjects as they do exhibit a distinctly well presented manner of writing. They just fail to reach the reasonable argument when it comes to their opinion on Ron Paul, because of their own (probably not even realized as…) prejudice and bigotry.
I'd also say I apologize on behalf of the RP folks I know to anyone who insults you in the manner that "a-m-hasapenis" the troll did. Sincerely. That sort of thing is saddening to me, but being a free speech sort of person, I recognize their right to be a vulgar idiot, but I am sorry to see it come out at you nonetheless.
If you're interested, I came here from Facebook, not a specific Ron Paul website. Though at times it's hard to tell the difference, depending on the makeup of ones friends list.
"Why does anyone like Ron Paul?"
Because he's the only one running who thinks murdering children to potentially save American lives is counter-productive?
The most popular catch phrase I've come across used very consistently by Ron Paul supporters is, "Ron Paul is the only one…" fill in the blank. The only other people I've come across who rival the overuse of that phrase are very strict religious fundamentals who purport that their God or religion is the only…Oh wait. OK, I get it now…
Sage, apart from Gary Johnson, point me to any other candidate who thinks the use of drone strikes in foreign countries is not in America's interest.
B I N G O! Gary Johnson is who I'm seriously considering supporting and I would never even for even a nano second consider supporting Ron Paul. I can't wait for Gary Johnson's announcement on December 28th where hopefully he will leave the Republican field and Ron Paul behind.
Funny, I feel like I am listening to the utterings of Newt Gingrich.
Uh..really Boxrocker? How is that? Gingrich like to mutter about Gary Johnson a lot?
Okay Sage, and easier one – point me to any other candidate (or incumbent) who thinks it's a bad thing for the king/President to be able to lock up a US citizen indefinitely without evidence or a trial.
Or declare war without Congress' approval.
I'm not going to play a (to me ) time wasting game of name this and name that. My original point, which I stick to, is that a large number of Ron Paul supporters overuse the "Ron Paul is the *only* one who..fill in the blank, meme. And it is often used in ways and contexts that simply cannot be supported. My point was *not* that they absolutely and *always* use it erroneously. A few (very few) times it is evoked accurately. My point is that it is over used. And I did not say that it is overused only in the context of current media covered 2012 presidential candidates. First, they often don't take into account various third party and lesser known candidates. And second, they often speak ex-cathedra, failing to point out that they are only speaking, and even then often erroneously, about current presidential candidates they know about. Rather, they often present it as if Ron Paul is the *only* politician on the entire planet who holds whatever position they are speaking about. And that of course is ridiculous. Often, and I have been in many dozens of dialogues (they are dialogues for me. They often come off as crusades for the Ron Paul supporters) with Ron Paul supporters who only after being called on their grandiose claims do they admit they are *only* talking about presidential candidates. They when I point out lesser known third party candidates who hold the same positions they claim *only* Ron Paul holds, they change the subject or go into attack mode because they have no defense for their grandiose claims.
Gary Johnson in a fucking second, but in terms of (I hate myself) voteability, he does't have a chance.
Show me a candidate with a snowball's chance in hell that doesn't want king-like powers and I'll switch from uber-Christian Paul in a second.
Fat chance of that coming to fruition.
If you are trying to understand why smart people support Ron Paul, maybe you should just try being smart?
There's nothing more tedious than a Ron paul fan boy. I think we know now who the 23 people that bought the atlas shrugged dvd are.
ashley you cant understand it because you, yourself, are not an intelligent person. no one that has been in a war wants war. any civilized person can understand that talking through problems and resolving differences with words is ALWAYS better than violence. shame on you for trying to subject our service men and women to your war mongering. pick up and gun and hop a plane to the middle east if you're so eager for conflict.
the war on drugs has failed miserably and resulted in many thousands of unnecessary deaths since it began. from cartel violence to over doses, the goal was always half heartedly to stop the producers and whole heartedly arrest the consumers. if you eliminate the distribution network, the consumers wont have anything to consume. problem?
(For passing NDAA) Even though many here disagree with "how" we want things changed, I think we can most all agree something HAS to change. In all of the debate here lets all not lose site of 93 Senators (that passed NDAA and the power to detain anybody, including YOU without trial or reason) that need to lose their job AND 300 or so Representatives. I have the list of Senators and later today I will post the representatives list unless someone else does. TO Reiterate: 93 Senators DID NOT STAND UP FOR ANY OF US HERE AT THIS BLOG or anybody we know. If there is ONE thing we can all do together lets get these thugs out of congress…pass it on!!!!
I was board so I spent a little time thinking about why Ashley has this opinion of Ron Paul. I've come to the conclusion that Ashley is not a real person but one of many personalities of the Status Quo/ NWO and they will say or do anything or hurt -kill anyone that stands in their way of the 2012 election so one way or another I don't believe Ashley that holds this opinion is a real "Citizen " type person. Who knows may be its realy David Rothschild in cyberdrag.
Ashley seems to have her own personal agenda, and it fits right in with what the Establishment (Evil Empire) wants – to continue to feed the masses disinformation and strip away more and more rights of the people. As a completely unbiased person, I can say with great certainty that you are as many respondents had said – "unintelligent", "fulfilling your own agenda" and quite possibly "David Rockeffeller (himself) in drag."
This article is a HUGE fail.
PS: Ron Paul for President – all the way!
So if I were to write a newsletter with a hate centered propaganda message with your name plastered above, you would be at fault and could never be viewed again as a decent moral person. Well, someone should have thought about that before some of our more devious officials got into office…. But wait, if that even were the case the news wouldn't have reported it. And that is still getting over the fact that good people don't have a thought to slander anyone. Good people believe in their own abilities to relay the proper message and for other peoples abilities to recognize what is good. I wonder how much you want a comfortable well paid job at a large firm and are more willing than you believe to look no further than what has been laid out by those you seek. Times are hard and I can understand that much, thus I can only hope you internalize my message and take a deep look inside yourself before you respond.
If you funded said newsletter, it would be a whole different story, wouldn't it? However, since it WAS Ron Paul who funded those newsletters, then he should be held responsible, just like the publishers/owners of newspapers publish false information. Did he own the newsletters? Yes.
But seriously Ron Paul is laughably unelectable. The only reason he's not been utterly destroyed by his various terrible opinions on so many subjects is that he's largely viewed as a joke. If he ever actually managed to transcend joke status and reach the mainstream of candidates the increased scrutiny of his positions and past statements would quickly force him to scuttle back to the shadows.
Hi Ashley. A brief skim of the negative comments reveals exactly what you would expect: Ron Paul attracts true religious fanaticism and there's no arguing with that. In fact, to argue with it instantly brands you, in their minds, a fanatic on the opposing side.
Whenever one of my friends starts getting all glowy about Ron Paul I trot out this tired, but very apt analogy: he's like a stopped clock, right twice a day, but you still can't use it to tell the time.
Anyway, I just thought you needed a thumbs up after all the rabid Paul fanatics (inevitably) showing up to call you names.
You missed his 2003 missive where he writes:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.
*In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America" (Ron Paul)
So far, the vast majority of responses have been from folks who are either attacking the writer, attacking other responders, or attacking Ron Paul. Only a small handful of us seem able to stay on topic and answer the question directly. Which means, only a small handful of us should be voting in the next election. If you did not answer the question directly, please do not vote as you are clearly incapable of focused intellectual rationalization and are most likely sociopaths with the manners of a dung beetle.
Thank you and good night.
Wow. That last sentence there sounding remarkably like…an attack 🙂
What an angry ?? you are. Why so full of piss and vinegar, do tell?
Oops. Next to last sentence…
Just pointing out the obvious Sage and Box. The sky is blue, most grass is green, and most of the folks who responded here frighten me when I consider the fact that they are voters. I suppose this thread is a great example of exactly why we have an Electoral College.
That's all.
@David, with all due respect, I don't believe that is all.
Obviously you are free to be frightened by whatever in fact naturally does or whatever you choose through your life experiences and/or other choices you make, frighten you.
Your credibility, meaning your ability to be taken seriously however, in my opinion, is greatly diminished when you use what could be viewed as attacking words/energy to criticize people well…people you have assessed as using attacking words/energy (e.g. I know very few people who would consider being called a sociopath a compliment nor having their manners being compared to that of a dung beetle). It becomes a pot calling the kettle black kind of thing.
And there are other "issues" I have with your statements as well. There is no monolithic definition of "attack." So statements you may consider to be attacking in nature could reasonably or even more accurately be considered constructive criticism by another. It is unclear to what extent you may be including those type of comments in your grand sweep of "attacking responses."
Also, you come on this thread making valid, more or less, observations about the conduct of "some" of the people on this thread, while evoking something of a peacemaker type persona (yes, that is one of the accurate descriptions of the persona of someone making the observations you made in the way in which you made them). However, rather than understanding that all attacking behavior conjured up by anyone and directed at another is at base a cry for help and an expression of spiritual and emotional woundedness and therefore is in need of some sort of compassion as a response, you resort to name calling yourself. This does not bring healing and also has a high probability of doing the exact opposite—causing more pain. No one who is truly spiritually whole or mostly so would find it necessary to say some of the things that have been said on this thread, especially some of the almost universally considered vile things that have been directed at Ashley. And a true peacemaker or healer would understand this and somehow find a creative way to evoke compassion while making the observations you made. Instead, what you do is use your valid observations and potential opening for healing on this thread as a springboard for advocating the taking away of one of the fundamental rights anyone on the planet has—the right to vote. Thankfully, in all countries on the globe that are even attempting to present something akin to democracy in their governmental structures understands these are not rights that are afforded only to those we like nor to those whose behaviors we endorse.
With all due respect the idea of a ruling class of voters making decisions for the majority of 'idiots' or whatever it is you've decided appropriate to define the majority of people here is more scary than letting all of the 'idiots' vote.
remember this IS the internet
From what I understand, historically, philosophically, RP was for open borders. He eventually acknowledged that we couldn't have open borders with our current entitlements, but he still doesn't vote for measures that would strengthen the border because they are all somehow unconstitutional. Personally, this is the one area where I could stand a little less philosophical consistency.
Other than that, I like RP because I know he will veto lots of bills so that it's harder for the government to make things worse, and that presidents have a lot of power over the military.
I'm reading RP's book 'liberty defined' just to get an idea of his domestic beliefs. However if we focused only on foreign policy, are there actually problems?
For the ones here that could not refrain from %$#@ words and attacking the host Ashley, you should see the new "how Ron Paul supporters are idiots blog" made from direct quotes here (with IP addresses and e-mail addresses). Maybe next time some can try to be courteous AND still get their point across.
Who do you think is a good candidate and a little of why?
factually inaccurate at many points.
Nothing like distorting the facts aye? Let's just take the issue of the Fed. Greenspan had nothing to do with what it has become. When it was founded it was to be backed by Gold and Silver. FDR killed the Gold Standard and a succession of three presidents killed the Silver standard. Kennedy when he abolished silver coins in 1963, Johnson when he killed the silver certificate in 1968 and Nixon put the final nail in the coffin of the silver standard, when doing so he declared "We are all Keynsians now"
1968 was the highest earning power for minimum wage earners @ $10.00/hr in 2008 dollars. I could go on and on but I suggest you check your facts.
I'll second Colin's comment: drug war and foreign policy are the two areas I think Paul is on track.
However, ending the Fed, returning to a gold standard, and eliminating government regulators are all terrible ideas in my opinion. I think people are really wrong to worry about the debt so much, mistakenly thinking of it in the same terms as personal debt.
Of course the racist/fundie bits are despicable as well, but his view of the Fed alone is cause for me to oppose him & his supporters.
And to those proponents hurling ad hominem attacks at Ashley Miller: you're hurting your cause—refute the message, don't mock the messenger! If Ron Paul is so great you should sway us with his greatness! Not insult us with petulant cursing!
Also, to people like ben, claiming many factual inaccuracies, it'd help if you could elaborate, links to prove it—the claim alone is not convincing.
@ Cody, could you please elaborate on this quote or post a link that clarifies this?
"I think people are really wrong to worry about the debt so much, mistakenly thinking of it in the same terms as personal debt."
Thank You
Though only digital in nature with nothing to back it up. The bankers misuse it and abuse "we the people" with undo illegal Taxation without Representation.
Sorry for the delay Mitt, following are links to posts by Paul Krugman that describe the differences between public government debt and household debt.
I put them on my wikipedia user page, under "Government Debt" and "Inflation".
where did you get all of the information on what he voted for?
Nice article. Ron Paul is obviously a racist sociopath (of course sociopathy is intrinsic to libertarianism), but the repeated cry of consistency is one you've nicely debunked.
And don't sweat the rude RP fanatics. They show up every time an article is posted on the web with anything unflattering to say about him. They always have pretty much the same thing to say, only varying the insults the tiniest bit to fit the author and the article. I suspect the RP campaign employs a small number and the rest are idol-worshipping sheep that feel empowered to behave more and more rudely as they follow the set example.
Racist sociopath? Sheep? You are out of your mind. Did you read this blog and take it as fact? Did you actually follow up on any of the claims Ms. Miller has made? Doesn't seem so, which would make YOU the sheeple. Most Ron Paul supporters I know (save for those who just want to legalize marijuana) are incredibly informed people. Those of us who support Ron Paul don't do so because he's the candidate the establishment has provided us and we were born and raised rep/dem so we just go with it, but because through personal education have decided that he is the best choice for America. Simply ask yourself "what role do I want the government to play in my life?" If you want to be spoon fed, support our current structure. If you believe in personal responsibility, then vote Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the epitome of a RINO, he said so himself….."I am running as a Republican because I can't win as a libertarian". I Hate to be the bearer of bad news….you ain't winning that way either. Winning requires winning states. You can stock all the caucuses and straw polls you want. You will win NO states!!! that means NO nomination.
Amazing how neocon brainwashing sticks like glue . You guys refuse to look at anything beyond the words of the party lline. Take a look at the economic sstate of affairs brought on by dems and phony republocrats. Lincoln, Clevelamd Goldwater, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams to name a few. Seriously look at what the constitution says about entangling alliances and constitutional money. The see who acts in the light of a true republican. But I am sure you already know that you are prob. a plant just to spew hate and lies!
larryy, such blatantly ignorant (or deceitful) demonisation will find you no friends outside of the US where left-libertarianism tends to be the norm (apart from the UK where it is closer to the common US variety).
"Left-libertarianism […] stresses equally both individual freedom and social justice."
Aside from Larry's comment about sociopathy being intrinsic to libertarianism, everything else he said, specifically in reference to Ron Paul supporters, is spot on as far as my very extensive experience with them informs me. Because that part of his comment is so correct, I don't want what is probably his overgeneralized expressed opinion of libertarianism which, from a global perspective, has many different expressions and is quite diverse throughout the world, to get the focus here. That comment was embedded in an otherwise extremely accurate set of observations about Ron Paul supporters at least in general. So I don't want those comments to get drowned out and for the "sociopathy" comment to get all the attention here, precisely because of the spot on accuracy of the comments about Ron Paul supporters. Larry's one comment about Ron Paul himself is probably somewhat overstated but also probably basically true enough to let fly.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Thank you.
You have grossly misrepresented so many of his beliefs. I was ready to go on a tirade, but I see that others have already addressed your uninformed claims.
You are correct in may ways. I was drunk and flew off the handle with my second response. And you are also right about my "cry for help" although it is not one in the traditional sense of needing some sort of validation or consolation before I jump off a bridge but rather a cry for folks to realize the futility of ad hominem attacks and harsh language. I sometimes forget that this is a terrible medium for those of us who wish to use irony in our point-making. There is no way for others to see my eyes or hear the inflection in my voice and so no way for them to properly receive my ironic vitriol.
What can I say? I goofed.
But my point(s) is(are) still valid. I just tried to answer the question. And in my opinion the reason folks like me have a respect for RP is fundamentally grounded in anger at a system which rewards PC speaking and dismisses those who actually call out the facts.
Although I am aware RP is a greatly flawed human, I am also aware so were most of the founding members of our nation as well as most of us.
And really, my selfishness just wants to see a debate between him and BO. NG would be bored with the position and JH would be too pro-China for most people's comfort.
Sorry for showing my ass and thank you for not handing it to me as harshly as most.
Wow, I see the Paullowers have pooped all over this story already with their lovely comments. So after this guy drops dead, who the hell are you guys following next? His weird ass son Rand? LOL
This article is based on ignorance of economics (does not understand free market theory or regulations) and ignorance on theory of government (collectivism vs constitutional). Or it is deliberately disingenuous propaganda planted by his political opponents.
If you are not supporting Ron Paul then you are probably supporting one of the other main candidates. All are moderates. This mean that they do not represent your best interests. They are all funded by Wall Street and AIPAC (Israel lobby). This also means that they wish to preserve the status quo of inching this country deeper into fascism.
How is Obama working out? He is a moderate just like all other republican candidates. And, he too is heavily financed by Wall Street and AIPAC.
Ron Paul is not funded by them.
Jules Manson, your comment there contains almost nothing but sweeping generalizations, opinions masquerading as facts ("This article is based on ignorance of economics (does not understand free market theory or regulations) and ignorance on theory of government (collectivism vs constitutional). Or it is deliberately disingenuous propaganda planted by his political opponents.") and unproven assumptions ("If you are not supporting Ron Paul then you are probably supporting one of the other main candidates.") As a result, they cannot be taken seriously at all by anyone with even half a brain.
That's the most IGNORANT article EVER written!
& why are there so many replies being left in anger..Think it has to do with the fact people just don't care anymore as anger is what many people are filled with do to years of scumbag politicians blatantly ass raping the American public & the majority of the public are too caught up in Jerry Springer Oprah & American Idol to see reality.. And for what started out to be few which now seems to be many, the voices of the awake are finally getting louder & being heard a lot further & waking many more individuates up after years of seeing the same scumbag politicians opening their mouths spewing the same old same bullshit & you know everything about them is a lie you finally find one, yes one, honest truth speaking down to earth tells it like it is genuine person that has been voicing these issues for decades which have been spot on as of today & when you find him in this deep dark ugly murky pit of politics he gives you hope & an actual answers on how to resolve it or & most importantly hell put all that aside he is all about freedom..our constitution..you know that thing that those scumbag politicians have been blatantly shredding as we speak so then we come upon a fairytale of a blog like this with it filled with total ignorance.. honestly 1 can hardly refrain themselves from unloading on the ignorance as were tired..really really tired..we want a change and we know the path that we have been on will not change & will not work as it only works for the fat bankers & the corporations that they own & the political puppet show needs fixing so I guess I'll leave this as… please…WAKE the !@#$ up & join reality as the world is tired of ignorant people
Ron Paul HATES the poor! THERE I SAID IT!
corrupted wasted mind you!
Ron Paul defends the US Constitution, including your right to draft this piece of garbage you wrote. McCain sponsored NDAA and Obama signed it into law. Dr. Paul is one of very few who opposed that bill. Time to get your facts straight.
The NAACP is practically owned by Scientology and voting for Ron Paul is pretty much mandatory if you're a Scientologist.
Nuff said. Now shut up about the NAACP, besides it's not like they can't make mistakes.
You got that from ah, Tom Cruise may be? You lie and deceive just like Satan!
Since the political decisions of the past 40 to 50 years created a mess, we need to go in a different direction. Why would you want more of the same. Ron Paul is the only candidate that does not pander to the party. I think that the American people have had enough watching all the politicians dancing the "Potomac DC Two Step".
Ashley, I agree with you. If Ron Paul gets in, he will seek to destroy all of our progress over the past 50 years. High unemployment, high taxes, inflation, the dwindling dollar, high energy prices, erosion of the Constitution with increasing human rights violations, more war with more "weapons of mass destruction", leading to more of our youth being slaughtered for profit.
WOW!!! This is twilight Zone speak . One could insert any Democrat or Republican in the blank and speak truth to those words. Any candidate that is excepting Ron Paul. Where did you get this information if you do not mind telling?
You people are really rude. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but to make such low, offensive remarks speaks volumes of your class and level of intelligence. Then again, you're supporting Ron Paul so I guess that explains it.
Why does anyone like Ron Paul?
Umm…maybe because they're much smarter than you are?
Looks like this site is fluttered with paid government disinformation agents. How can you people live with yourselves? Of course the country would be worse if Ron Paul got into office, but eventually it would be a billion times better than it is today because he would get rid of the 50 or so years of complete and utter corporate greed, corruption, and fascist war-mongerers who want to arrest people for drugs and invade other countries because of their bigotry and stupidity.
You owe it to yourself and to your readers to be more honest, Ashley. It seems almost every point that was made here is a misrepresentation. I'm glad to see some honest debate, and I'll accept people who have differences of opinions, but to portrait someone as that which they aren't either suggests you aren't aware of Ron Paul's true positions or you are attempting to discredit him by publishing one-sided or flat out incorrect information about him. Either way, I call on your to familiarize yourself with his positions and make the necessary corrections to your article. Whether or not you choose to do this will speak for your integrity.
I think its funny that all ron paul debates talk about abortion. Before my opinion I will tell a story. Before me and my twin brother where born we where supposed to be aborted. My mom was 100 pounds at 5'6″and pregnant with twins. After 6 months she started having complicatiins and was rushed to the hospital. It turns out my mom was not big or healthy enough to support twins and we where going to an emergency procedure to save her life. The doctor then suggested an abortion because the chance of all 3 of us living was slim. My mom fought the desition and risked her life to have us removed from her body un harmed. Imy brother and I came mout after only 6 months and where fully aware living babies. We then had to but in an incubator for 3 months to finich development. I am now 22 years old and all 3 of us are a happy family. Now for my opinion before 04 many abbortions happened to babies just as developed as I was. This is inexusable with all of the available birth controll and 5 day emegencycontraceptives it is just irresponsible for people to get abbortions. There is no excuse why people can't take the pill. Yes the pill is 40 dollars but just as an abortion its covered under most health insurence and only a fraction of the cost in respect to abortions. Every baby has the right to life and the only exception should be risking the mothers life to birth the baby. 90percent of abortions are done because people don't want responsability. The same irresponsible people not practicing safe sex. Ron paul has supported the constitution 100% and for those who think he's crazy read the constitution you will see that what ron paul talks about is written in there. If ron paul is crazy than our founding fathers where crazy. Ron paul is the only canidate that believes in the constitution and his economic ideas have been proven in every instance that it has been tried (ie hongkong for example) our problem is not free market because noone is still alive from when the us actually had one unless you where born before ww1 what u see in the us is govt failierdue too intervention in the market and socialist policy. Sorry for my horrible spelling and grammer I'm texting on my phone.

subset: commoncrawl