ron paul is a boob

[ncteechur]

[karynnj]

1. I never understood why people here liked him just on the war

he is a disaster otherwise.

[tekisui]

2. Starvation for leadership.

I can't stand him or how he duped so many. But, they were hungry for something that didn't sound like b*sh.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Because of the war and because of his anti-partisanship stance....

... if ONLY we had someone on OUR side who was willing to speak out against partisanship!!! Please!!!! Let us find someone!!!!! lol

[karynnj]

6. Many really good Democrats spoke against the partisanship

Your signature has one - Obama. Before him, Kerry did - even in 2004. In 2006, he spoke on how faith informs his political views at Pepperdine. He explicitly spoke of the need to end the partisanship - he was speaking there not because he thought they would vote for him, but to get them to see that the stereotypes are wrong. It was also, I think, what Dean was getting to when he spoke of wanting to win some of the people who have confederate flag bumper stickers - which created controversy and was spun to be more controversial than intended.

I'm sure other can add to this list - and all these men share our value that there is a moral need for government to help people in need. We believe in a safety net. ron Paul doesn't.

[Clio the Leo]

7. lol, that's not my signature.

I put that in my post on purpose. ;)

[karynnj]

28. Making the same point - with more subtlety than I did

sorry for my being brain dead. :)

[snowbear]

10. I've always thought that any thug that uses the term "Democrat Party" was definitely partisan..

.
.

And Ron Paul (just like the other wingnut assholes) does just that..

Glenn Beck: OK, real quick, just do two quick questions: Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of Treasury? Any comment of that? I mean… Secretary of State?

Ron Paul: I think policy is going to remain the same. I think foreign policy is dictated by individuals who control both the Republican and the Democrat party, so don’t expect any significant change in foreign policy.

He does it ALL the time.

Ron Paul of the Republic Party SUCKS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBaSBkp6JTw

-

[Clio the Leo]

27. But one of his big talking points is that.....

.... "the Democrats and Republicans spend all of their time fighting and not trying to solve the nation's problems...."

And a BIG chunk of the population agrees with that notion.

[Cha]

39. He sounds like fucking

ralph nader except maybe nader says "Democratic Party".

[bunkerbuster1]

50. Yeah, hard to cut him or anyone else a break when he/they does/do that.

Rule one of discourse is treating the person you're speaking to with a modicum of respect.

Electing to call that other person a name (or a slur) is another way of saying "I consider you sub-human."

[anonymous171]

22. I hope you are joking. He is only "anti-partisan" on one issue.

Other than that he is a first class randroid republican.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Some didn't realize his positions on other issues. He's a no-govt libertarian.

An interesting man who speaks plainly and boldly about what he thinks without being overly hostile or hateful. Still, he has a strict no-government philosophy, and it is scary. No Social Security. No Medicare. Don't know about public schools or roadways.

[snowbear]

15. He's a dirty RACIST

.
.

Plain and simple.

-

[Numba6]

19. Against civil rights and for gov't to intrud on the choice of an abortion, he's advocated to outlaw

choice, by any means necessary

[TheBigotBasher]

37. I thought he was not anti abortion

which caused much hate towards him from the Fundies.

His views on the Federal Reserve male a lot of sense.

[Exilednight]

48. His views on the Federal Reserve are a complete joke. If Paul had it his way, we would ..........

be using sea shells and beads as money. There is nothing illegal about the federal reserve, but there is also no doubt that they demand more oversight.

[alwysdrunk]

47. I liked him for a while

Yes, mainly because of the war, but also for some of his Libertarian views that do make a lot of sense to me. Him, Cynthia McCKinney and a few others were the small minortiy looking after American's privacy right when Ashcroft was up there running wild. He takes it much to far as others have said, to the point of being almost anti-government, but I hope to see more libertarian voices on the right, and more concern for our privacy on the left where to many dems never stopped being "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush.

[Doctor_Horrible]

3. one of my favorite coworkers LOVES this man. she's so gifted and awesome in other ways, I just have

to ignore the "paul-love"

[inthebrain]

5. Did he try to say FDR was responsible for the great depression?

Overall this guy was no different than Bush.

He's a free market capitalist clown that likes to point to all these problems but refuses to acknowledge that capitalism is the reason for them. Instead of tossing the capitalist system you need more of it.

Totally ridiculous.

[4lbs]

8. He said that what FDR did with the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

He also said we need more ..... tax cuts!

Also less regulation. After all, I guess too much regulation is what's been the problem for the last decade.

He also wants to let all the banks, lenders, and homebuyers that are in financial trouble just "fail". Also, any business that has economic problems (i.e. Detroit) should just be allowed to go under.

Who cares that it would throw millions more into unemployment and homelessness.

[GoCubsGo]

51. He was spouting that revisionist crap on "Real Time" this week

He never bothered to mention that the "recessions" of the late 1930s that he brought up were not because of the New Deal. Rather, they were from FDR listening to the republicans and balancing the budget. And, to no surprise, Maher didn't really call him out on that. But, to Paul's credit, he did come out and say that the "War on Drugs" is utter bullshit and a huge waste of money. It's one of the few places where I agree with him.

[Chulanowa]

9. Hey now, I've seen some very nice boobs in my day!

Ron Paul goes beyond that. He's a Feudalist. Funny thing is, I don't think he even realizes that. It's the natural outcome of his economic and foreign policies, however - Plutocracy mingled with isolationism.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Great post; that's exactly what he is. A Feudalist.

I hadn't thought of it in quite that way; but I think that some people like Paul because he is critical of modern Republicanism - without realizing that he represents something that *precedes* modern Republicanism.

[Baikonour]

11. I wish more republicans were like him, to be honest.

He believes in what he believes in, and he doesn't go about it smugly or through hateful comments. Yes, he's a free-market capitalist to the bone and believes in as little government as possible, but he doesn't act like an asshole to get his points across. If more republicans were like him, at least I'd feel we'd have worthy opponents instead of the scumbag opposition we have now.

Oh, and he wants to decriminalize drugs and end the drug war. Which makes him alright by me.

[snowbear]

13. Yeah, he's a ....

.
.

...pretty cool guy.

--------------------NOT!!

From Ron Paul's own personal newsletters:

"I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.")

?

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment."

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby."

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?"

And soOOoo much more-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
-

[Baikonour]

16. I'm not saying the man doesn't have his problems, either.

But as silly as a lot of his beliefs may be, he still comes off as pretty classy, articulate and all around nice. Something 99% of other repukes could learn from.

I know I'll be chastised for it, but whatever. I don't care.

[snowbear]

17. Yeah... he's an extremely racist, David Duke loving, Gay bashing hate-spewer.. but oh so classy..

.
.



Ok.. whatever.

-

[Baikonour]

18. He has repudiated the David Duke connection, by the way.

I'd also love to see some of his hate that he spews, especially compared to the vitriol of someone like Pat Buchanan (who, by the way, actually has articles on Duke's website).

Whatever is right, though. I'm not here to defend the man, nor am I endorsing him.

[snowbear]

20. Yep.. after he learned he could lose votes during his failed primary..

.
.

-- he decided to (try) and disown his nasty past by blaming it on others.

It was covered pretty well during the primary.

But yes.. I know you're not defending him.

..

[Baikonour]

21. You honestly think he thought he had a chance in hell of winning, regardless of a scandal?

Come on now.

His views on race and sexuality, especially in past written works, are absurd at best. But when I think of a vehemently racist, "hate-spewing" right winger, my first thought isn't Ron Paul. It's usually, like I mentioned earlier, Pat Buchanan or maybe Jesse Helms when he was still alive.

My point is, you don't see Paul getting on TV, or any other medium, yelling, being confrontational or acting like an all around ass like Boehner or Jindall. Before the repugs can work on the content of their message, they need to work on how to deliver it. But believe me, I'm not minding the easy opposition from Michael Steele and his cronies.

[LeftishBrit]

34. I agree that Jesse Helms is worse; however the difference is..

that I've never seen a progressive defending Jesse Helms, whereas I have seen progressives defending Paul. (And Pat Buchanan, in fact.)

I am concerned about the dangers of progressives making common cause with, and strengthening, the anti-establishment Right, because they think that anything that opposes an awful Establishment must be good. Not always. Fascism got some of its impetus from such people; and Sir Oswald Moseley was at one time a Labourite.

[Ratty]

38. But...but ...Jesse Helms fought AIDS in Africa!

He teamed up with Mary Bono to get PEPFAR passed. He's saved thousands of HIV positive babies and their mothers. Oh, plus he stands up for his principles. He never compromises what he believes in and says what he thinks. Gosh, how refreshing to see that in a politician. I think we can ignore all those other little quibbles we don't necessarily agree with and recognize Helms as a classy guy. What a great POTUS he'd make.

Oh, and for the sarcastically impaired: :sarcasm:

[Exilednight]

49. I think he believed he had a chance. He tapped a part of the Republican party and DINO's who ......

believed in every word he was saying. He also lead the Republican party in small donations. Something that a lot of people seem to forget; the average person does not follow politics on a regular basis. It's funny how many of my friends want to argue with me over Obama, but their knowledge goes no further than a headline of a newspaper.

But when I think of a vehemently racist, "hate-spewing" right winger, my first thought isn't Ron Paul.

Paul is the first person who springs to the forefront of my mind.

I was watching Morning Joe one morning and Paul was their guest. Scarsbrough, Buchanan, and Tucker Carlson were falling all over themselves. I think Mika had to wipe the drool from their face during the break.

[anonymous171]

23. Me too. They would be much easier to defeat.

He's basically Mr. Potter if Mr. Potter were a gynecologist.

[Ferret Annica]

12. I don't agree with many of Dr Paul's views

But he is an honest man not trying to bully, lie, manipulate or intimidate.

He would make a decent POTUS, and I would vote for him over some Democrats and Repugs I am closer to politically because he is a leader and I trust him.

I make it a point to look at character and ability before agreement with views and policies. I don't agree with this one line wanker of a thread at all.

[camera obscura]

24. Funny, because that reminds me of a Stephen Colbert quote about Bush --

"When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday, no matter what happened Tuesday."

[Ferret Annica]

35. Well excuse me then for my mirth at your pointless point

as Ron Paul does not blow in the wind assuming new political direction like a weather vane. He has strong beliefs and will defend and explain them, no matter what the political cost is for doing so.

I don't see Smirk or Snarl as having this sort of integrity or grit. I always have seen them as controlled and bought out. So Bush sticking to a position he takes because he is given a direction to do so as not to alienate or lose the support of handlers or the shallow minds of the FReeper or Fox News fan mindset is hardly the same thing as what a Ron Paul does. This Congressman is more like those President Kennedy wrote about in his book, 'Profiles in Courage,' as he obviously stays true to his well thought out belief system despite what it costs him in terms of support from his party.

I like this sort of integrity, and I respect this about him.

[anonymous171]

25. No he would not be a good president. How can you trust a man who named his son after Ayn Rand? nt

[Ferret Annica]

29. Trivialities like this you mention usually come from a conservative mindset,

so that means you are probably not a trustworthy sort to talk to, right?

Relax, just making a point. That only makes me like thee guy, though I am no fan of the ideas in the woman's books. I like those books by the way. They made me think and I enjoyed them. They were fun reads and made me think out thoroughly why and how I disagreed with her.

No, Dr. Paul is the real thing, a leader who actually believes what he thinks and says and is owned and controlled by no vested interest.

He reminds me of Wayne Morse of Oregon, the old Tiger of the Senate, one of two men to vote against the Gulf of Tomkin resolution. He is an independent minded sort who has tangibly shown high leadership ability and the courage to not abandon his belief system.

Repugs need to stop being so partisan and closed minded to the point they create the danger of destroying the political union of these several states. But this works both ways, many of you Democrats need to do much the same thing.

I supported Dr. Paul in the primaries, and donated to him. Not as much as I ultimately gave to Barack Obama, but I like Dr. Paul, and have enthusiasm and respect for the man.

And nothing anyone says here will change that. Thanks for sharing your notion of a minor point of order.

[LeftishBrit]

30. I disagree - character and ability are important, but not above fundamental differences in policy

They may trump minor differences, but not basic ones. If someone wanted to blow the world up, or put all minority group members into labour camps, or allow all the poor to starve, would you still vote for them if you thought they were more competent and honest than someone with better views?

And Paul does want to do the last of these: allow all the poor to starve.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. Exactly. Someone who is wrong but believes in their wrong ideas with all their heart is still wrong.

[jeanpalmer]

26. I like his positions on foreign policy

Quit the empire, bring our soldiers home, quit making war on people, cut back on defense spending. Use our moral and economic influence instead of the military. Those are my views also, and I would hope a party of peace would have those same objectives/values. But unfortunately, Obama seems to want to continue the policy of military intervention, global empire, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, and big defense spending. His Afghanistan policy is a disaster. He's totally wrong there.

We need people to speak up for foreign policy change. Militarism is bankrupting our country. Dr. Paul is saying what Democrats should be saying and doing. I don't agree with Paul on much else, but we need his voice on foreign policy change. Unfortunately, outside of Dennis Kucinich, Dr. Paul is the only one saying it. Obama should have appointed Paul as Defense Secretary. If he had done that, and had allowed him to implement the changes he advocates, this country would be on a course of peace and demilitarization. Instead, he appointed Gates the war hack. Along with a bunch of other foreign policy hacks like Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Holbrooke, etc.

[SoxFan]

36. Abolish the Peace Corps? Evict the UN?

No foreign aid? No international cooperation on climate change?

[sniffa]

33. He's a circle dot

[Blue_Tires]

40. I'm surprised he doesn't emigrate to Zimbabwe

he'd love it: small ineffectual government, worthless national currency, governent services that exist in name only, cheaply bribed cops and soldiers(in foreign currency of course), and an economy propped up by graft, black marketeering, robbery and murder...paradise on earth

[GeorgeGist]

41. He's a politician ...

that's what they do.

[AnnieBW]

42. You'd think he'd be more concerned with his district

About half of which got wiped off the map last summer.

[PBS Poll-435]

43. I saw a creepy *NEW* billboard for "Ron Paul in '08!" today.

Took a drive to extreme NE Texas.

Did his campaign have more money than it spent? :shrug:

[Soupy Liberaltarian]

44. Confession: I almost voted for Ron in the Maryland closed primary.

Since an Obama victory was all but certain, I almost went through with registering Republican and casting my protest vote against McCain and the neocon wing of the GOP.

Even if I had gone through with it, rest assured, I would've taken a scalding hot shower as repentance for registering Republican.

If there is a lesson to be learned it should be that open primaries are the way to go, even if they are a double-edged sword.

[MiniMe]

45. Don't boobs usually travel in pairs?

Seems like he is a loner to me. :evilgrin:

[Soupy Liberaltarian]

46. Paul and Kucinich are an odd couple. Before the stimulus, I might've also said Mark Sanford. n/m

[Reader Rabbit]

52. Please don't insult mammary glands that way.

My "girls" are very offended.