Why would any progressive promote Ron Paul's worldview?

[ProSense]

Why would any progressive promote Ron Paul's worldview?

by Bob Johnson

I just don't get it.

I read David Mizner's diary that was the rec list earlier today and saw all the folks I know who recced the piece and all I could think was, "What the fuck is going on here? Ron Paul doesn't agree with us on these issues (stop the wars, restore civil liberties). He believes we should stop the wars and restore civil liberties for his own, twisted, tortured and perverse reasons. (Namely, a bunch of crazy shit, like "The Jewish bankers run the world!" and "Israel controls our foreign policy!" and "We should all be left to our own devices, including the poor, the elderly and the infirmed!" etc.)"

And there have been other diaries of late shining a light on Paul and making his positions on ending wars and restoring civil liberties appear to be rational. His positions, while we may agree with them, are decidedly not rational. Not in any way, shape or form.

It is really puzzling to me why anyone who calls her/himself a progressive would do anything, in any way to promote Ron Paul and his worldview because his world view is an anathema to progressive thinking.

He is sick, racist, anti-Semitic lunatic. He's a John Bircher, and for those too young to remember the heyday of that sick, sad, racist organization, I can only say, "SNAP OUT OF IT!"

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/05/1051974/-Why-would-any-progressive-promote-Ron-Pauls-worldview

[FarLeftFist]

1. Note to Progressives: He wants to DISMANTLE the Govt and vaporize social safety nets.

Seems REgressive to me.

[Kahuna]

40. This also includes programs that give financial grants (i,e,, PELL) to college

students. I guess all those college students that support him are so well to do, they don't think they will ever need assistance from the government that paul so depises. Must be.

[i was a cathar]

83. He WANTS to do it. CAN he do it?

If not, then it's just his political wet dream. No harm, no foul. But what about the Prez's powers as Commander-in-Chief? If we have a president who will start wars (even with a stripped-down military full of drones), then isn't that a threat on every level? A threat to our nation, not to mention the world.

*This post in no way endorses any candidate.

[FarLeftFist]

89. First you have to believe Ron Paul's BS that he WOULDN'T start wars. He will do what corporations

Tell him to do.

[ClassWarrior]

2. A progressive wouldn't.

Period.

NGU.

[frazzled]

3. True: only people who mistakenly believe themselves to be progressive would

People who think the single issue of legalizing marijuana makes them "progressive." Or people who think a narrow civil libertarian agenda, to the exclusion of everything else, makes them "progressive."

These people are not liberal or progressive. They're just confused single-issue voters if they support Ron Paul (with blinders on to the disgusting things the man stands for).

[nevergiveup]

5. Exactly

I know quite a few progressives/liberals and they all, without exception, think Ron Paul is wacko.

[ronnie624]

31. Exactly.

A progressive would examine everything Ron Paul stands for and find severely wanting.

On the other hand, opposing Ron Paul does not necessarily make one a progressive.

[Laelth]

67. Precisely. A progressive wouldn't support Paul's world view.

This is a straw man argument.

There's a big difference between "supporting a world view" and recognizing that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Paul is on the right side of a few issues, and the Democratic Party is on the wrong side of some of those issues, and that's the only reason progressives are talking about Paul. If the Democratic Party got on the right side of those issues, this discussion would be moot.

-Laelth

[Uncle Joe]

77. I totally agree, Laelth the ironic tragedy is that in spite of Paul's racism, he's the only major

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

candidate coming out against an obviously racist "War on Drugs" policy.

The tragedy isn't that Paul has so many flaws but is correct on a couple of issues, the tragedy is that the supposed Party of the People hasn't come out more forcefully on the right and just side of these issues.

Paul's rise in spite of the corporate media's ignoring or diminishing of him is because the major parties have for too long abandoned the best interests of the people.

When Republicans want to be facist loving corporate supremacists and "moderate" Democrats want to be Republicans, the lines become blurred, De Facto making Paul and his ilk more mainstream in the people's eyes.

Uncle Joe

[Laelth]

78. Hear, hear! n/t

-Laelth

[CoffeeCat]

4. I find some of Ron Paul's views very appealing...

...and some of them horrifying.

The most important issue in our country--in my mind--is the corporate corruption that has engulfed our nation.
We no longer have a democracy. The corporations purchased our politicians and now those politicians belong
to our corporations--who get lower taxes, deregulations, corporo-friendly policies and legislation tailored to their
every whim.

I like that Ron Paul would break this corporate sickness up--within the first nanosecond of his Presidency. I like that
he would tell the corporations to go to hell. We'd have our democracy back. That's for sure. I like that he's all ready
told the military-industrial-complex that he won't be bankrolling their little war games any longer. I like that he would
stop the illegal surveillance and give us back Habeas Corpus.

Those are some big, big things.

However, it's difficult--because Paul does not believe in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps or even unemployment payments. He'd apparently dismantle the EPA and the DOEducation. Frightening.

So yeah. It sucks. If Obama would do the things that Paul would do--regarding the corporations, the war-profit machine
and our civil rights--we'd have ourselves a perfect candidate.

So yeah--Some of Paul's big ideas are so important. In fact, he's the only candidate who is willing to stand up to the corporations, not fill his rosters with Goldman Sachs mafiosos and tell the neocons to suck gravel. That's big in my book.

Why could you not understand how a Progressive would find those things attractive? Our country is swirling down the drain. Our
democracy is GONE. It is not off the wall for a Progressive to like that Ron Paul would break up the corporate corruption.

And just because I likes Paul's stance on breaking up the corporate corruption--doesn't mean that I agree with him on those other things.

I find some of the anti-Ron Paul stuff a bit over the top. Lots of reasonable people admire the fact that he's willing to pour water on the corporate fire that is burning down our entire country.

Does that mean I don't support Obama? No, it doesn't. I am disappointed that Obama has not tackled the corporate corruption issue and maybe he will. I am upset that Obama appears to be moving forward with the PNAC/neocon agenda--which said years ago would target Syria and Libya next. I'm a Democrat, so I'll vote for Obama--but I obviously don't agree with everything he's doing or saying.

We can admire or support certain policies of candidates--even though we don't agree with everything they say, can't we?

[ProSense]

6. Paul

"find some of the anti-Ron Paul stuff a bit over the top. Lots of reasonable people admire the fact that he's willing to pour water on the corporate fire that is burning down our entire country."

...is one of the biggest corporate tools around.

Paul signed Grover Norquist's pledge.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/120111-federalpledgesigners.pdf

He signed it in 2008 too: http://www.atr.org/rep-ron-paul-signs-presidential-taxpayer-a1489



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/02/395363/gop-economic-agenda-for-the-one-percent/

[Quantess]

39. I like that chart. (no text)

[HughBeaumont]

53. +100. NO fucks given for Economic Darwinists, and Ron Paul very much is one.

[Saving Hawaii]

9. All of this Ron Paul garbage about sticking it to 'corporate welfare' is a bad joke.

Oh sure, he'll flip the bird to the military industry. Sucks for Lockheed and the rest of the bunch. Big deal.

But in the same breath, for the same reason, he's gonna wave the starting flag at every single chemical company that needs an easier time getting rid of their waste. Why not make the rivers burn in Chicago again? We don't need no stinking environmental regulations crimping on FREEDOM. You want corporate welfare? That's corporate welfare of the worst variety. Giving big corporations the 'right' to pollute the water we drink and the soil we live on.

It's my FREEDOM to dump sludge in a river. It's my FREEDOM to crap in the street (so long as the corporate ownership, hopefully me, doesn't object and call the police to beat me up). It's my FREEDOM to call the police and have them beat up black people who won't leave my lunch counter. That's what FREEDOM is. And it's not a good thing. Progressives hear Ron Paul talk and think he's a good ol' civil libertarian like them, but he's not using these words the same way that you do. They don't mean the same things. With libertarians, property rights come first and foremost and everything else pretty much doesn't matter. And that has big implications.

And oh, sure, the whole libertarian schtick is to bring the army home. But when Exxon Mobil is off in some third-world country and stops liking the government... when it feels that the government is using force against it. Well, the libertarian schtick at that point suggests self-defense is a justified course of action. And once we're there, we're in East India Company territory. And that's a whole helluva lot worse than the crap we have going on today.

Edit: Just wanted to point out that I capitalized FREEDOM to emphasize that Ron Paul isn't using the word the way many progressives do.

[DevonRex]

11. Exactly.

That sums it up perfectly.

[Dewey Finn]

27. Thank you!

Please post more.

[boxman15]

66. The scary thing is, I could see Ron Paul reading what you said

at a speech.

Fuck Ron Paul.

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. Oh Snap!

[MH1]

72. Well said! nt

[11 Bravo]

84. Welcome to DU, Saving Hawaii!

If this is any indication, I eagerly await hearing more from you!

[BootinUp]

25. please spare me from going to Ron Pauls web page and just tell me

what policy change(s) specifically Ron Paul would make to stand up to corporations. Telling them to go to hell won't work of course. He would actually have to get some laws passed. So what are the laws/changes to laws that he is proposing?

Also, please tell us what his position is on the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation?

What is his position on the new consumer protection agency?

[LeftishBrit]

34. 'Pour water on the corporate fire'?

Er, no, he's not. He wants to get the government out of almost everything; get rid of virtually all regulations; cut if not abolish taxes - how would that harm corporations? He may be against corporate-controlled government; but that's because he's against government, period. (Though it doesn't stop him wanting to ban abortion!)

He's against the Federal Reserve, not because he wants to replace it (as do some progressives) with tighter, more direct government regulation, but because he wants to replace it with no regulation.


'The corporations purchased our politicians and now those politicians belong
to our corporations--who get lower taxes, deregulations, corporo-friendly policies and legislation tailored to their
every whim. '

So when there are NO taxes, NO regulations, and almost NO government to pass legislation, the corporations won't even need to purchase politicians! They can cut out the middleman, and ride roughshod over the country (and thereby, to an even greater extent than now, the world), absolutely untrammeled. It won't lead to democracy - it will lead to a jungle, where survival of the fittest (i.e. richest and most aggressive) is the only rule. If things are bad now, they'd be FAR worse under such as Paul.

This is not to say that the other Republican candidates are anything other than complete menaces, either. Santorum was on Newsnight, saying how Britain has been 'devastated' by having an NHS, because it prevented Thatcher from totally rolling back the state. And Romney accused Obama of turning America into a 'Europaean welfare state', as though that were a bad thing, apart from not being true. They are ALL vile creatures, enemies of all the things that I most value. But so far as I know, no progressives are expressing any sympathy with Santorum or Romney; some are defending Paul - who is also a monster of pure evil.

[Kahuna]

42. Yep, yep and yep! nt

[HughBeaumont]

68. "European Welfare State" is truly laughable.

We have one of the weakest social safety nets in the industrialized world, and Obama strengthening them for the workers by 0.0001% probably equals "WELFARE STATE!!!" in Mitt's puny little mind.

"Quarter of a Billion" Mittens, BTW, is doing quite well regardless of who's running things.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. I love this thread, and the great counter arguments to the left's Ron Paul fetish.

Thank You.

[grantcart]

81. You got it backwards

Ron Paul wants to decimate govenment so corporations will have freedom to be predators at will.

You right about the corruption though, having eliminated the government as a meaningful regulator there will no longer be any need ofr corporations to bribe, they will have gotten everything they want, they will become the dominate force in society.

He's not pouring water on the corporate fire he's handing out kerosene to make it grow bigger and brighter, the only concession is that they won't be able to get any subsidies from the government.

And the poor? The disposessed? The sick?

Paul's solution is to get help from their neighbor.

[Doremus]

90. So, you believe he'll end war and corporatocracy and basically do what he says he'll do?

You're far more trusting than I.

The guy is a Libertarian who's been quite happily occupying his seat as a Republican for years.

Sounds to me like he's no different than 9/10 of the rest of Congress who would happily fly foreign flags so long as there were something in it for them.

[DevonRex]

7. No progressive would. No progressive would believe

he is even telling the truth about anything he says He's a racist homophobe. He's an antisemite. He's disgusting.

[Rex]

8. I don't think any do.

Why would they?

[DevonRex]

12. Take a look at #s 4 and 10. Nt

[sabrina 1]

10. Lol, Bob Johnson. Now that is someone who would convince me of anything.

[Rex]

13. Who might Bob be?

Dare I ask?

[SunsetDreams]

14. So you think Ron Paul is great?

That's the opposite of what Bob Johnson is saying.

"Now that is someone who would convince me of anything."

Do you need convincing that Ron Paul is bad?

[ProSense]

15. Exposed!

"So you think Ron Paul is great?"

Defending Greenwald was a cover. It's Ron Paul who shouldn't be criticized.

[Rex]

22. Actually I think she is laughing about the cred

of Bob, not an endorsement of Ron Paul.

[SunsetDreams]

24. What is the cred of Bob?

I would like to know.

[quinnox]

16. What's not to get?

What Greenwald's and other progressive blogers point is, is that Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about these issues such as being against the ever encroaching police state and the supposed radical view that we should end the always on state of war footing and start to wind down the militarism that we have been at, especially since 2001.

What is really crazy is to continue to think we should be the policeman of the world and keep cracking down on basic freedoms in this country based on phantom security threats.

It's simplistic thinking to say whatever someone stands for or says, that you have to disagree with them if they are not 100% pure. For instance, if Ron Paul says he loves his mother, does that mean we all have to say we hate our mother's or else we are a Ron Paul supporter?

Let's at least go to level 1 thinking folks.

[ProSense]

17. Hey

What Greenwald's and other progressive blogers point is, is that Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about these issues such as being against the ever encroaching police state and the supposed radical view that we should end the always on state of war footing and start to wind down the militarism that we have been at, especially since 2001.

What is really crazy is to continue to think we should be the policeman of the world and keep cracking down on basic freedoms in this country based on phantom security threats.

It's simplistic thinking to say whatever someone stands for or says, that you have to disagree with them if they are not 100% pure. For instance, if Ron Paul says he loves his mother, does that mean we all have to say we hate our mother's or else we are a Ron Paul supporter?

Let's at least go to level 1 thinking folks.

...Farrakhan loves his mother!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002127174

Farrakhan 2012!

[cthulu2016]

18. But without simplistic thinking there would be no argument.

For some arguments simplistic thinking is a feature, not a bug.

If the only people who will be persuaded to your argument are simple-minded then a simplistic argument is most effective.

Consider a population of 100. If argument X were examined fully in an intelligent and principled way only ten people would agree with it.

So the most you can get on the merits is ten.

If those ten are simplistic then they will not object to simplistic thinking and more sophisticated arguments will not net any additional agreement. Honesty and rigor and such are literally a waste of time.

[ProSense]

19. Yup

"But without simplistic thinking there would be no argument."

...simplistic thinking is how Paul convinced some people that he's anti-war and has a plan to end the war on drugs. All he has to do is repeat it.

What's his plan: eliminate the government, you're on your own.

[quinnox]

21. true

what you say does make sense, I remember you did a thread on this a few days ago and I agreed with it.

[cthulu2016]

23. At scam seminars like EST (or scientology or whatever)

At scam self-improvent seminars fronting for pyramid schemes and cults they do things like telling the audience to raise their hand if they need to go to the bathroom.

A few people walk out, recognizing that it is insane for some clown to tell adults they need his permission to go to the bathroom.

And the people running the seminar are glad those people walked out. They were supposed to. They were the same people who were going to ask probing questions and end up not signing up for the thing anyway.

[Saving Hawaii]

20. If Newt Gingrich comes out tomorrow and says that climate change is happening and that we need to do

something for the sake of future generations, I'll applaud him for the courage to stand up to his own party for a progressive cause.

But that's not what Ron Paul is doing. Paul isn't standing up for progressive causes. He's standing up for libertarian causes. The difference here is that progressives say that certain things are wrong and nobody should be doing. The libertarians just want to stop the government from doing them... sometimes. Not always. An exception would be for example racism. A progressive would tell you that a business shouldn't be able to refuse you service just because of the color of the skin. Ron Paul thinks that a whites-only laundrymat should be able to call the police and have government arrest you for trying to use the laundry machine. And shoot, the laundrymat owner might as well pull a gun on you for refusing to leave too.

If Ron Paul says he loves his mother, I like that, because we both love our mothers for the same reasons.

PS: In Ron Paul world, sure... the government stops looking at you funny as much as they do today, but remember that he takes a completely laissez-faire approach to corporations or powerful individuals that would like to do the same. The problem with libertarians is that they don't actually want to fix the problems of excessive power... they just want to change who wields that power.

So no, I can't get behind Ron Paul, even when he sounds kind of right, because he's still very wrong.

[ProSense]

26. But

"But that's not what Ron Paul is doing. Paul isn't standing up for progressive causes."

...to some, pretending he is means they're the true progressive.

I mean, nothing says progressive like hyping the propaganda of a racist.

[Dewey Finn]

28. And again, thank you!

And again, please post more. You can raise the collective IQ of the whole place.

[joshcryer]

30. Ron Paul was asked about pollution, climate change, etc, his answer was that you sue people...

...over it, so if you want to get damages, you have to prove that generational effects of climate change are hurting you now, etc. The Bhopal disaster, for example, would be perfectly OK in Ron Paul's world, and if your lawyers aren't as well paid as the enemy, then tough luck!

[joshcryer]

29. As I wrote on GG's blog:

I understand where GG is coming from, and it makes perfect sense. Ron Paul is perceived as having overlap with progressives, and therefore his ideas are important since he's the only candidate espousing those ideas. That's the entire argument. Seriously. All those thousands of words and insults, summed up. But it's very sticky territory. I myself refuse to acknowledge even a potential 'overlap' with Ron Paul's ideology. I don't want to risk the possibility that my ideas get conflated with his. My idea of anti-war is different from Ron Paul's idea of anti-war. He's not anti-meddling-in-other-states, he's fully behind globalization, that's automatically pro-meddling-in-other-states or... imperialism.

The very heart of capitalism *is* imperialism. So everything Ron Paul says is filled with untruths. You look at his anti-drug-war stance, sure, wonderful, I'm against drug criminalization, myself. But I'm also against drug cartels, which Ron Paul would not regulate. See how this works? There's no overlap for me, there's no compatibility for me, and I refuse to accept that I'm wrong for not wanting to take the chance that Ron Paul's perceived positions are actually rooted out as basically Libertarian lies.

[kenny blankenship]

60. That's too much to ask. This forum is not for "discussion"

Continue in this vein and you will be destroyed.

Just stick to making Santorum jokes and you will be left alone.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. We could co-opt ALL of em in 5 minutes w/ some long overdue SANITY on the drug war & the military.

Oh, yeah, we couldn't have that, now, could we.

[craigmatic]

33. Libertarianism is a wierd ideology to place on the political scale. It takes its economic

theory from conservatives but its social, foreign policy, and military ideas from liberals. That's why people like paul but I don't trust him because too often what results from their economic policy will ruin domestic policy and all the freedom they claim they're for.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. It suits their needs.

[lib2DaBone]

36. Anti war is appealing.. however, his bone crusing economic austerity plans...

Ron Paul will gut Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare.. while only tapping the military fat cats on the wrist.

He will push a weak and suffering economy into total depression. (if we are not there already).

[cstanleytech]

43. Nah we arent suffering from depression

but we will be if a republican wins the whitehouse in this upcoming election so it might be a good idea to have medication on hand that can help depression like say a good stiff drink for some or something prescribed by a doctor.

[ixion]

37. One could ask the same question of Obama

because if you support Obama, you're supporting the Bush Doctrine by proxy.

[cstanleytech]

44. Has Obama dismantled or supported the dismantling of social security, medicare or any of the varies

social programs?

[ixion]

54. The Constitution and Bill of Rights take precedence, but

yeah, he's helped, if only by 'compromising'

[cstanleytech]

65. There is no "if", either he has or he has not pushed or supported dismantling the varies social

programs like medicare.

[ixion]

79. What a great example of binary black/white thinking.

There's a thing called context. You should look into it.

[cstanleytech]

86. I'll think about it................maybe.

[LanternWaste]

55. In part, or en toto?

"you're supporting the Bush Doctrine by proxy..."

In part, or en toto? Appears to me to be a relevant distinction...

[ixion]

74. Well, not really. That is spin.

The Bush Doctrine is the basis for pre-emptive (and illegal) invasion, detention without trial or charge, and torture, Obama, through his actions, not his rhetoric, has supported all these things.

[MadHound]

38. Because his military stance is appealing,

Somebody who actually wants to end, and not get involved in endless imperial wars is rather refreshing, not to mention necessary for our survival as a country. Furthermore, Paul's stance on drugs and civil liberties are also appealing and refreshing.

It's just that the rest of his schtick is so crazy. Crazy as a regular Republican, and in some cases, a Dem.

[Spazito]

45. Can you explain to me what the bill put forward by Mr. Paul...

means? It read to me as if Mr. Paul has no problem with war, he just wants the military privatized, public money going to companies like the former Blackwater Security:

"SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL.

The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3216:

[cstanleytech]

46. "not get involved" that there can be a problem.

We tried that idea back before WWII and it didnt turn out so well, I'm not saying we should be invading at the drop of a hat or be so aggressive but just trying to pretend its not our problem if x is happening in x country has been proven to be a failure just as trying to do to much has proven to be a failure.
We need a balanced approach on this issue as well as others that our country is facing now and that we will face in the future.

[ProSense]

47. Sure

"Because his military stance is appealing, "

...it is if you like propaganda.

Ron Paul wants to decrease foreign aid and proposed spending $40 billion on a private army of mercenaries http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

Ever wonder why Paul wants to get rid of most of the agencies that help people and keep the Defense department?

"Furthermore, Paul's stance on drugs and civil liberties are also appealing and refreshing."

So legalizing every drug, dismantling safety net programs, eliminating government regulations, giving them the freedom to prey on the poor, sick and elderly sounds "refreshing"?

Is Rand Paul a libertarian too? I see him out campaigning with his father calling others war mongers. Yet he created a budget proposing more in war spending that Obama and bragged about it

War funding from 2001 to 2010 has cost the taxpayer $1.109 trillion. That amount doesn’t include the $159 billion that will likely be spent funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY2011. The proposal seeks to reduce war funding for FY2011 by $16 billion, in other words to provide $144 billion (President Obama has requested $117 billion for FY2012, $27 billion dollars below our proposed level).

http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf

How exactly does one justify increasing defense spending on war, but eliminating foreign aid? The Paul's can because nearly everything they advocate is anti-government propaganda.

[Blue_Tires]

41. Good read, although the irony of it is

the Paul posters were all over kos back in '08...One of the main reasons I'd stopped reading the site on a regular basis

[99Forever]

48. ANOTHER Ron Paul thread from you?

Want to ask me again, as you did in the one and only thread that I have commented on Ron Paul on this board, AND I QUOTE:

"...why keep mentioning him? He is where he is because people keep mentioning him."

Those are YOUR exact words, yet here you are, again and again, doing exactly what you FALSELY accused me of.

Feel free to apologize at any time. Or not.

[ProSense]

49. Yes

enjoy!

[99Forever]

50. Paranoia..

... will destroy ya.

[ProSense]

52. Well

"Paranoia..... will destroy ya."

...stop practicing it. The Republicans are repulsive in varying degrees, Ron Paul included.

In fact, I think Paul is batshit crazy. No one would find an excuse to hype any other Republican.

If you believe there should be a quota on calling out lunacy, keep it to yourself.

[99Forever]

58. What's with that big chip..

.. on your shoulder? Your constant false accusations of others is really quite disturbing. And no sir, I won't be silenced by you or anyone else, "keep" your attempts to do that "to yourself," thank you very much.

[ProSense]

61. Hmmm?

What's with that big chip.... on your shoulder? Your constant false accusations of others is really quite disturbing. And no sir, I won't be silenced by you or anyone else, "keep" your attempts to do that "to yourself," thank you very much.

Your very first comment in this thread was, "ANOTHER Ron Paul thread from you?"

Irony: That comment is reflective of your current criticisms.

Now, feel free to ignore the next " Ron Paul thread " from me.

[99Forever]

62. What utter nonsense.

[ProSense]

63. Why the chip? n/t

[99Forever]

64. Thanks

[ClassWarrior]

91. I find it curious that many self-proclaimed Obama super-supporters...

...go out of their way to make it look like there's major opposition to Obama amongst Dems, even when it's virtually non-existent.

Makes me wonder.

NGU.

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. Legalized dope

[NNN0LHI]

56. Let me answer this question because I have been thinking about it

The reason that Paul won't shoo away his supporters with white supremacist views is because if he did that there wouldn't be anyone left to vote for him.

That I am convinced of.

Don

[_ed_]

57. I don't understand

Criticisms of Ron Paul all center around the fact that he has disgusting views on race, gender, and sexual orientation, and would try to dismantle many important gov't agencies. The argument supposedly goes that a liberal could never support Paul because of this.

But how can this same liberal support Obama, who has doubled down on the Bush tax cuts, escalated Afghanistan, claims the power to assassinate Americans (and has done so, including teens), etc.

If you're making a purity argument against Paul, wouldn't that same argument apply to Obama?

Just take gay rights, which are very important to me. Paul is clearly a bigot, but views gay rights through a libertarian lens. Obama is on the record saying that marriage is between a man and a woman "because god is in the mix."

If you care about gay rights and gay people, you shouldn't vote for either, right?

The whole point about Paul is that he's excellent on about 5 issues that he could actually have power over as President. On those same issues, Obama is just the same as the Republicans. That's the point: that Obama is so bad on war, civil liberties, drug policy, and gay rights that liberals are actually considering a libertarian crackpot.

[ProSense]

59. Please

"The whole point about Paul is that he's excellent on about 5 issues that he could actually have power over as President. "

...list the "5 issues" that Paul is supposedly "excellent" on.

[_ed_]

94. Here:

1) End Afghanistan
2) Pull troops out of most foreign countries
3) End drug war
4) Legalize MMJ / stop fed enforcement of MMJ laws
5) Banking policy

[ProSense]

99. You

1) End Afghanistan
2) Pull troops out of most foreign countries
3) End drug war
4) Legalize MMJ / stop fed enforcement of MMJ laws
5) Banking policy

...can't be serious? Is there any Democrat who doesn't want the Afghanistan war to end?

Also, you think Ron Paul's version of an economic policy is something to brag about? Nothing about Paul's economic policy is progressive. In fact, it's sheer lunacy.

This is the problem: People advocating Paul's positions without a full understanding of his views.

As for his position on the war on drugs, start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135956

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. WTF?

[_ed_]

96. Thanks for your detailed and reasoned response

.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. I think my response was more than equal to the inanity of yours.

[Ikonoklast]

80. Good luck getting a sandwich at the "No Gays, Blacks, Or Jews Allowed Lunch Counter", then

Freedom means I get to oppress people I dislike, that's Paul's attraction.

[_ed_]

93. Good luck breathing if you happen to be suspected of terrorism

and Obama sicks a drone on you and your teenage son.

Freedom means Obama can kill whomever he wants without judicial oversight. I guess that's Obama's attraction.

Can you really say that racism is more important than the President assassinating our citizens?

[SidDithers]

69. Anyone who promotes Ron Paul is not a progressive...nt

Sid

[_ed_]

97. No True Scotsman

Glaring logical fallacy.

[Zorra]

73. The correct answer is: They would not. Anyone that supports Ron Paul

is too ignorant to be considered a progressive.

Sorry. There's just no way around this fact.

[_ed_]

95. No True Scotsman

Thanks for using the oldest logical fallacy in the book.

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Could they possibly be "fake" progressives and/or stealth Republicans? .

Lot of that going around these days.

[NSojac]

82. Wake me up

When opposing racist interventionist foreign policy, racist drug wars, and exploitive big-business practices is once again progressive.

Actually, I'll just set my alarm clock for the letter 'D'.

[ProSense]

87. You

probably won't see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002127038#post6

[Logical]

92. You realize the subject line allows more than one word? Just a tip.

[ProSense]

100. I

had no clue. Thanks for the tip.

[Survivoreesta]

85. If a progressive has a kid in the military maybe?>

Otherwise, I don't know.

[DonCoquixote]

88. Here is what happened

"A drowning person will grab even the hilt of a sword." Many of the left, those who have been Hippie Punched, see that Obama will NOT go left, and that the alternatives (Clinton) would not do so either. They are so desperate to upset the apple cart that they are willing to risk the storm, as they hope that they would have a fighting chance in the chaos, that maybe when Yanks lose their comfrt, they can open their mind.

The sad fact is, History disproves that: Russia has become the arch capitalist, as has China. The masses will tinhk even LESS when they are umcomfortable and starving, something Unions understaood, but many activists have forgotten. I understand they are so hungry for anyone who will entertain the end of militarism that they eat garbage, but we all know that Wall Street would go right on, even if they had to take tax money to fund their own militaries (and you know they want to, ask Blackwater).

[mdmc]

98. I've always t thought of myself as a liberal

A tax and spend, big government, bleeding heat l liberal.
I support Ron Paul in the gop primary. Who better?
In the end it will be Romney vs Obama.
Nothing to really snap out of..