Originally Posted by Huey P. Freeman
That ain't right!!!
Gold Member
That ain't right!!!
Galaxy rays; Powerful!!! =D
Diamond Member
Correct. It ain't right. It is ad hominem (he was attacking the speaker instead of logically arguing against the proposition).
Diamond Member
Maybe people in NH aren't as willing and eager to give a racist hypocrite a pass for superficial entertainment reasons as you are?
Diamond Member
Maybe. That's a brilliantly insightful bit of analysis! Thanks for your contribution.
(Now back to the grownups)
Does losing notably libertarian NH indicate that Paul's libertarian positions could never win enough support countrywide? Will religious Repubs be more comfortable holding their noses and pulling the Romney lever than hawks would be holding theirs and pulling for Paul? Is the conventional wisdom that Paul is too fringe to ever win the general election an unassailable belief for strategically thinking mainstream party members?
If Paul wins Iowa by a hair and places second in NH (where he is in the polls), I think SC is possible, but would require some top-level (not grassroots) strategic organizing. To make his anti-interventionalist foreign policy position work in the Old South, he's need to really spend some money there? And he probably needs to go Swift Boat in terms of Romney's religion for social conservatives, especially as the candidate field dwindles.
Will be interesting to see how the national polls play out after the campaigns of a few contenders crumble in Iowa's aftermath.
If I were Ron Paul's campaign manager, I would be working hard to co-opt both Tea and Occupy support - 2 movements he could position himself as having long shared ideals with. And two movements that would play well in states that allow unaffiliated voters into primaries. And with the Dems seemingly unable to figure out how to use Occupy effectively, it would be a great coup before the general election for Paul to co-opt and frame as in-line with many of his beliefs—a populist position none of the other Repub candidates could ever hope to pull off. With the gap so long to Romney, he should save his ducats and head to SC with a heavy round of advertising spelling out his foreign policy ideals in a way that plays well in a state with lots of service members, and proving his Christian creds before Gingrich gets to town. Unfortunately, looks like Paul is going to blow a bunch of money in NH on attack ads... too little, too late there methinks.
If Romney wins SC, it's all over imo. Excepting a scandal, a good placing in Iowa and wins in NH and SC provide unstoppable momentum going into FL.
I think an Obama v Romney general election is probably the worst possible outcome for American democracy. The scripted, predictable, cliche, non-substantive blah of such an election would bring no real debate, no possibility for catharsis, no new ideas and would ultimately just make the already disillusioned public a billion times more hopeless about political evolution.
Diamond Member
Moksha
You make some good points about Paul. Philosophically, he should be someone that attracts my type. However, I will never get past the newsletter that he published many years ago. His excuses don't cut it for me and the commentary is a deal breaker. I will say that his ideas are worth discussing
Peace
As for the charges against me, I am unconcerned. I am beyond their timid lying morality, and so I am beyond caring.
Diamond Member
My bad. Only grownups like you whine about cutting and pasting after they've done it themselves. Hypocrite. Only grownups like you whine about ad hominem attacks then make them themselves. Hypocrite.
I wouldn't say my analysis is brilliant. That implies that I'm seeing something that others aren't. You made you case for Paul based on superficial entertainment reasons as clear as day. You're having a hard time owning your words ITT. You should work on that.
Insightful? I would agree with that.
Last edited by bomb cola; 01-02-2012 at 06:00 PM.
Diamond Member
I would agree that his ideas are worth discussing. However, after discussing them the only rational conclusion is to reject them. The vast majority of Paul's ideas are ridiculous, IMO,and have no possibility of being implemented. The POTUS is not the King. President Paul couldn't get a single thing done because he needs Congress (and to a degree, the courts) to work with him. His dismal record of getting anything passed (I think he got 4 bills he sponsored passed in 24 years) is direct evidence of this inability.
But, yeah, he wants to get rid of the Fed and fiat currency. He also wants to end ALL foreign aid (WTF??!!???). He's also completely tone-deaf when it comes to race in this country, at best, and a racist at worst. He's also a giant hypocrite on things like earmarks (says he's against them, yet lards up bills with them), term limits (says he's for them, but has served 12!!!!! terms), and personal choice( says he's for it, but that states should be able to outlaw abortion).
Great pick Moksha!
Last edited by bomb cola; 01-02-2012 at 06:20 PM.
Administrator
I think it's a sad day in this nation when people are willing to promote someone like Paul to be a nominee for President of the United States knowing full well that they wouldn't want him to win, but just want to nominate him to give the election a little pizzazz.
<cfif isDefined("session.user.sense") and ('#session.user.sense#') eq '0'>
<cfset option = delete>
</cfif>
Administrator
Constitutional theory?
The guy only thinks Amendments are legal if they are in line with his antiquated and racist views. When was the last time you heard Paul arguing the 2nd Amendment was illegal? What about the 26th? What about the 20th? What about the 17th? You don't. The only argument you hear is about how the Civil Rights infringe upon private property and blah blah blah. I don't understand how you think someone with such an obviously skewed and self-serving ideology can bring about a healthy, meaningful debate.
Nah, save for drug laws and POSSIBLY national defense, his policy positions are not far different from the standard Repub line:
Cut capital gains & estate taxes
Privatize social security
Privatize wide swathes of the federal government
Do away with entitlements like welfare & medicare
Overturn Roe v Wade
Deregulate corporations
Repeal Civil Rights
and I'm sure there are more.
They've disowned him for so long because they know he's full of shit. He's selling fools gold to racist fringe of the tin foil brigade that he's been cultivating for more than a decade. He's cultivated this persona of a "aww shucks" good old boy when what he's really done is fanned the flames of disillusionment with the federal government & then co-opted that disillusionment with a well crafted angle that belies his clearly racist, homophobic views.
But hey, a debate with Romney would be boring. We need some pizzazz up in here.
How ironic that a homophobe is being willed to nomination because he's flamboyant.
<cfif isDefined("session.user.sense") and ('#session.user.sense#') eq '0'>
<cfset option = delete>
</cfif>
Diamond Member
Sorry to come back as french again, but Ron Paul is just a populist. He reminds me of the guys representing the Communist party for France elections: "We're gonna change the system, at the expense of the majority."
Idance
Diamond Member
Except I think the French communists have a better shot of winning then RP!
PS: I just met with a company that was nationalized by Mitterand in 1982. Amazing stuff.
Diamond Member
Obviously you didn't see who the NPA chose for their 2012 candidate! Mr Poutou is totally unknown by the public, at 5 months of the election.
Idance
Diamond Member
I'm taking away from this that something needs to be done to move us away from this two party system back and forth, that's pretty clear to me. If it's coming from the far right that's upsetting to me, I hope far left can do something, anything to push more candidates into government. None of this is about voting for ru paul
Diamond Member
Can totally understand that sentiment. And I'm certainly not trying to get anybody to vote for him in the general election.
My thesis is simply that of the choices in the Republican primary field, his candidacy would be the best possible outcome for reasons beyond the "it will help Obama" rationale.
As far as race goes... putting the newsletters aside (stay with me here), I'm not convinced that he's too far off from any other primary candidate. Aside from the very limited number of controversial words in those newsletters (and he has sought to counteract those), it's impossible to use mind police tactics to get too deep into the personal beliefs of him or any of the candidates. And, on a policy, I don't see any of their policies being more or less colorblind than others. Yeah, he's probably a total racist. The rest of them probably are, too. But all of this is aside from the point of the thread.
Diamond Member
If you think I want to nominate him simply for "pizzazz", then I've done a terribly poor job communicating myself in this thread. My "entertainment" thing in the initial post was meant to be a lighthearted throwaway bit of colorful writing, not a serious rationale for my support of his his candidacy. I would have thought you would have got this...
Administrator
You keep trying to write off those newsletters as being unimportant (first he never wrote them, then he never read them, now it was only a very limited number of words and he's sought to counteract them and lets ignore them) but most of that isn't actually accurate & IMO, they expose the very core of who that man is and I do not understand how anyone could responsibly wish for someone with that kind of vitriol have center stage in hopes of elevating any sort of discussion.
At his core he is an ass-backwards man who doesn't believe in upholding the constitution, he believes in tailoring WHICH PART of the constitution should be valid based on his closedminded viewpoints and he doesn't deserve the pulpit from which to incite further seperation, hatred and outrage. If you go online (on FB for instance) and interact with Paul supporters, they are a rabid, vapid bunch full of racist hatred for Obama (and anyone not like them) who are being whipped into a frenzy by his "grassroots" campaign. It's like saying David Duke should get the platform because his ideas are provocative.
Things like spreading disinformation about the NDAA, etc is how they are trying to whip up anti-government sentiment in hopes of it rubbing of on him as the "anti-government" candidate. The racist uptick is just a side-effect, until you consider his rantings and ravings for years in those newsletters. Quite frankly, I don't think it's an unintended side effect.
BTW, before we put those very limited number of words that he's sought to counteract aside:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...t-newsletters/
"Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters. "
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...5-4532a7da84ca
"But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."
and as for there only being a very limited number of words:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...ters-exclusive
Those articles ran between 1988 and 1995, if not longer.
He doesn't deserve a platform from which to spew his mess IMO, even if it is flamboyant.
<cfif isDefined("session.user.sense") and ('#session.user.sense#') eq '0'>
<cfset option = delete>
</cfif>
Administrator
As was my pizzazz comment, sorta.
I get what you are saying about hoping for a more interesting, more important and broader scope discussion about our government, it's roles & some new ideas to counteract the stagnant indifference we're dealing with now where our Congress is completely corrupted and unaccountable & we're on track for eventual collapse.
I simply do not understand what useful input he, specifically, can bring to that kind of discussion because IMO, his viewpoints move backwards, not forwards. I can not support providing a pulpit for someone who IMO openly incites racial and anti-government hatred in order to garner votes, has no forward thinking agenda & generally maintains policies of the Republican party I strongly disagree with.
I just don't understand what positive input a person like that can bring to a debate.
When Palin started inciting racial hatred/violence at her little rallies, everyone thought it was disgusting. IMO, what Ron Paul is inciting is going to eventually be FAR more destructive to this nation.
<cfif isDefined("session.user.sense") and ('#session.user.sense#') eq '0'>
<cfset option = delete>
</cfif>
Diamond Member
In regards to the argument I'm making, they are unimportant.
I disagree. As stated in my initial post, I don't agree with a whole lot of his policy positions... but I do think he's an intelligent guy who is genuinely interested in upholding the Constitution... even if his interpretation of the document differs from mine.
describes everybody
As somebody whose ideas are variously shared by lots of normally gagged portions of the population, I think he's way more deserving of the pulpit than the corporate-sponsored, conventional wisdom-spewing, sound-bite conscious people who dominate the vast majority of public conversation. And claiming that debating his ideas in the general election, rather than those resulting from a Romney matchup, will result in "seperation [sic], hatred and outrage" is ridiculous scaremongering.
Almost word-for-word claims were made about Obama and his supporters 4 years ago. (Indeed, the Obama acolytes on DHP I've witnessed rival the blind loyalty of even the most frothy-mouthed Paul supporter.)
Debating the NDAA sounds like a fantastic topic to me... proof that Paul is indeed bringing a different kind of debate about democracy to the table...
Diamond Member
from The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...the-state.html
ENEMY OF THE STATE
by*Nicholas Lemann*JANUARY 9, 2012
For the past six months or so, the Republican-primary electorate has had a polite, patient, reliable, steadily employed suitor chatting with Mom and Dad in the parlor, while a series of more exciting but less appropriate rivals have come knocking at the back door. Mitt Romney will probably win in the end, but each of his serially surging competitors enjoys more immediate access to some essential region of the Republican soul. Herman Cain is the tough, no-bullshit businessman, Rick Santorum the devout pro-lifer, Rick Perry the hypermasculine cowboy, Michele Bachmann the evangelical populist, Newt Gingrich the swashbuckling geostrat
It seems fitting that the final surge should belong to Ron Paul, who speaks most directly to one of his party’s deepest emotions: hostility to government. At seventy-six, Paul has aged perfectly into his personality. He’s a white-haired, wide-eyed prophet—it’s easy to imagine him in white robes, instead of a business suit—who must rail against the outrages he has witnessed. To a pinched, stressed, war-weary, declinist nation, he offers the clearest program of any of the candidates. Five federal departments gone in Year One. Ten per cent of the federal workforce laid off. Income tax abolished, along with the I.R.S. Regulations and social programs repealed. No more foreign wars; no more foreign aid; not even very much foreign policy.
Especially to the self-selected group that comes to the Iowa Republican caucuses, Paul’s positions are pulse quickening. If you are antitax, Paul has that sentiment nailed more than any other candidate. If you are antiwar, Paul is right there with you. If you fear for your personal freedoms, Paul has you covered. And if you want a sweeping philosophy, deeply grounded in fundamental texts (Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard), Paul is your man. Nobody has a better claim to be a protest candidate. He’s the only one who has ever run for office from a third party. He’s not about passing bills; he’s about root-and-branch change. His popularity, even if it’s temporary, demonstrates that all politics isn’t necessarily local—that big ideas can exert a pull on voters, too.
Paul’s baseline obsession is with currency: President Nixon’s decision, forty years ago, to take the United States off the gold standard is what brought him into politics. His hatred of the Federal Reserve Board is related to a mistrust of currencies managed by governments. Underlying everything is, of course, a larger mistrust—the sense that in some hushed Washington conference room highly consequential arrangements are being made that will help a few privileged insiders and hurt ordinary Americans. Although Paul has spent most of his life directly benefitting from one or another federal payroll or program, starting when he served in the Air Force, he isn’t just striking a pose when he describes government as the enemy of freedom. He means it.
The other candidates ignored Paul until he looked like a serious threat, and then they began attacking him. He doesn’t care whether Iran has nuclear weapons. He wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden. He’s the only Republican candidate who is not an ardent supporter of Israel. He suggests that the 9/11 attacks were comeuppance for our misguided interventionism, and doesn’t think they justified a declaration of war. He has given at least silent assent to full-on paranoia and racism among his supporters. Gingrich has declared Paul’s views to be “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”
Yet what is and isn’t part of the mainstream is something that political campaigns determine. And the truth is that Paul’s vision reveals—with candor and specificity—what the G.O.P.’s rhetorical hostility to government would mean if it were rigorously put into practice. A minimal state, without welfare provisions for the unemployed. A quarter of a million federal workers—as a first installment—joining those unemployed. Foreign policy and national defense reduced to a few ballistic-missile submarines. The civil-rights legislation of the nineteen-sixties repealed as so much unwarranted government intrusion. As for the financial crisis, Paul would have countenanced no regulation that might have prevented it, no government stabilization of the financial system after it happened, and no special help for working people hurt by it. This is where the logic of government-shrinking leads.
Even if Paul wins in Iowa, his campaign will almost surely falter; don’t count on seeing him deliver a prime-time address at the Republican National Convention. Still, Paul’s brief heyday will—like the Tea Party, itself a rather Pauline affair—have an effect, on both parties. For the Republicans, the question is whether Paul’s enumeration of the minimal-state particulars will entrench the appeal of government-bashing or serve, instead, as a vaccine that protects the Party against taking politically disastrous stands in the future. Would a President Romney be able to operate under the rules that applied to Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes—as long as you say you’re for limited government, you can expand government freely as the need arises—or would the lingering effect of Paul’s campaign curtail his options?
For the Democrats, Paul presents a different problem. In politics, there’s the small set of issues that draw public attention and then there’s everything else—ninety-five per cent of what happens in Washington. When anti-government rhetoric meets big issues like war and economic disaster, it’s usually good for the Democrats, because they can make the argument for action without being hypocritical. On the small issues, though, the triumph of anti-government rhetoric has been a real impediment for President Obama. It gives the Republicans a justification to oppose, by rote, every appointment and every expenditure, which helps make their belief in public-sector inefficiency self-fulfilling but otherwise doesn’t do anybody much good.
Right now, it must be tempting for Obama to let Ron Paul’s moment play out as long as possible: it usefully draws attention to the less seemly aspects of Republican political culture. But silence doesn’t solve the problem of day-to-day, full-bore Republican resistance. Obama would do well to take Paul’s success as an opportunity to engage in a debate about fundamentals. He’ll have an easier time governing in practice if he can defend governance in principle.
Last edited by Sal Paradise; 01-03-2012 at 04:01 PM.
Diamond Member
Great piece! Thanks for sharing! Just got my new copy in today.. haven't cracked it open yet (I have an impossible time trying to keep up with the NYer)
Diamond Member
I just read it a half an hour ago while I was waiting for some sandwiches to be made. I know what you mean about keeping up with NYer issues.*
The cut and paste job was a little weird. Don't know why it kept messing things up a little when I would paste.
Administrator
I would disagree.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're arguing that him being the nom would help bring about high level, detailed discussion on the macro level core issues at the heart of our democracy. I'm saying the scope and tone of his musings over the past 25 years would indicate otherwise.
So it really is just about being SO disillusioned with the current state of politics in this country that you're willing to grasp at the hope that Paul can stir it up. Even if all he does is promote ineffectual foreign policy, a disastrous financial policy, and tinge of racism obscured by constitutional talk & legalizing heroin.
Like I said before. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when that's what our government has come too. That wasn't a dig on you, it was a dig on our overall situation.
Yes, it is definitely a different kind of debate. It's one based in falsehoods, fearmongering & conspiracy theories. The grassroots Paul campaign is debating the NDAA by saying that the ability to indefinitely detain american citizens is still in the NDAA, which it isn't. It's been widely publicized to have been removed.
For two months (or longer) political operatives, grass roots campaigners & (by some accounts) paid political activists for Ron Paul's campaign have been inundating Obama's Facebook wall. Any time the Obama camp posts something, these clowns post hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of messages about how Obama signed the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of American citizens. When someone points out the error, another one jumps on and immediately posts the same NDAA bullshit again.
Over and over and over, all day long. The hope is that they can create enough confusion and doubt that people will think it's true and not vote for Obama because he signed the bill.
This is at the core of the problem I have with Ron Paul. It's not an intelligent debate. It's like arguing tax code with Alvin. It's bullshit.
<cfif isDefined("session.user.sense") and ('#session.user.sense#') eq '0'>
<cfset option = delete>
</cfif>
Administrator
Moksha - Re: ridiculous scaremongering:
This is the kind of stuff being posted up all over the net by Ron Paul supporters:
You can read the rest of the incredible goings on in “A House without Doors” – but Ron Paul People take note: THE POLLS ARE BEING FALSIFIED right now in 2011 -- to make it look like Newt Gingrich is “the bandwagon.” I believe Romney’s numbers are also being inflated, as Romney has SO LITTLE support on the ground that he didn’t even compete in the Iowa Straw Poll a few months ago.
Was listening to Neuts Iowa campaign chair (she's an Iowa state senator). Most everybody who follows Paul knows two things:
1) The final tabulation is being done by a contracting firm that works for an Israeli flagged corporation.
2) The final tabulation will be done in a secret location. The latest buzz is that it's the town light on the feet Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff for Obambi, is mayor of, Chicago.
It's awfully funny that the media will spend a half hour or more interviewing Michele Bachman who is only in the race to attempt to take votes away from Dr. Paul. Bachman also spends a great deal of time during those interviews promoting Mitt Romney. I don't know about others, but Mitt was never the sharpest pencil in the box and is responsible for sending a lot of US manufacturing jobs over seas.
The other day I heard a "sermon" by Chris hedges titled "Calling all Rebels". During that sermon on line stood out: "Our salvation will be an armed resistance that will destroy all power structures, including the democratic party".
It was followed by a presentation from Salons Glenn Greenwald, a Dr Paul supporter, who realized during a debate 5 years ago he was speaking a foreign language. That language, he asserted, was "the rule of law".
OWS tried to warn the establishment. Now we see arson in Hollywood. IMO: It as already started. The only man that has the credibility and moral courage to prevent a total breakdown and full blown armed revolution is Ron Paul. These Ken Dolls in the Barbie house have sold us out. Everyone knows the difference between a Ken Doll and a man.
God save us if Ron Paul is cheated out of being able to protect our republics legacy the politics of avarice, greed and genocide.
Mr Obambi - stay in Hawaii - you committed treason when you signed the NDAA - you know we know it. Contact you local constable's office - ask if they intend to follow their sworn oath and protect and preserve the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Ask them if they will allow the military to kidnap and detain, without due process, the constituents that employ his services.
Several years ago a Regan White House official, Kevin Phillips, said that what the country needs is a temporary provisional government to give us (my words follow) the time to clear the rats from the sewer moat that surrounds and connects Wall Street to DC.
Our responsibilities go beyond the grave. We are obligated, under the preample to the constitution, the Declaration of Independence, to do a thorough house cleaning. The rank and file in our civil and uniformed services will stand with us. Do not be afraid - our mistake was that we allowed this moment to arrive. The 1%'s mistake was that they failed to realize that 10,000 is nothing compared to 300 Million spawn of baby killers and king disembowlers. Our only obligation is the well being of generations that follow.
We cannot standby and only look forward. Justice denied by not demanding it for past transgression is the same as lawlessness.
Peace - God be with us all.
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/fo...tml#msg-784975
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/fo...tml#msg-784954For his action to commit these Crimes against Humanity, Barack Obama must be impeached.
Count V
Conspiracy to violate the separation of powers provision of the U.S. Constitution
Title I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, mandates that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Section 8 declares that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
Despite this mandate, President Obama has taken the powers of the Hitlerian Unitary Executive, to pre-empt the powers of the Congress in economic policy, on behalf of imposing fascist austerity measures. The most recent and flagrant example is the so-called Budget Control Act, which sets up a Super-Congress to usurp the powers of the House over economic policy, even denying Congress the ability to amend decisions made by a committee of 12 (along with Obama).
The establishment of the Super-Congress follows the same pattern of usurpation Obama pioneered with his proposal for an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to dictate the terms for what medical procedures are to be covered, and what they should cost. In the name of "removing decisions from politics," Obama would prevent Congress from defending the general welfare, and implement policies like those carried out by Adolf Hitler's "non-political" panel of experts at Tiergarten-4, the center of the 1939-41 Nazi euthanasia program that resulted in the mass death of the disabled and elderly.
<cfif isDefined("session.user.sense") and ('#session.user.sense#') eq '0'>
<cfset option = delete>
</cfif>
Diamond Member
Oh, trust, I have no interest in supporting the wacky views of Paul supporters (or the wacky views of any other supporters, for that matter).
That said, I am interested in supporting a much wider diversity of views in public debate in what has become dualistic system. The market of public opinion will discard the wacky ones... if you believe in the concept of democracy, anyway.
Also, I think there is a real danger in writing off Paul and his supporters as morons. There are lots of people in his movement, including Dr. Paul himself, who are certainly very intelligent, well versed in history, Constitutional law, and political theory. (He surely does attract a comparatively high proportion of crazies... but I'm not sure they are any worse than the majority of voters who sent George Junior back for a second term...)
Diamond Member
Were they writing about Ron Paul or the general DHP membership?
*rimshot*
As for the charges against me, I am unconcerned. I am beyond their timid lying morality, and so I am beyond caring.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks