Why the mad support for crazy Doctor Paul?

According to Ron Paul's election campaign site, which I will NOT post the url for, he has raised something like 2&1/2 million dollars in the last 24 hours in his "Guy Fawkes" day fundraising "surge".

Where is this money coming from? It's coming from individual suckers. People who have spent way too much time on the internet, and not enough time in the "real world".

Ron Paul is dangerous. First of all, he wants to get us out of Iraq. Well, that's fine and good, but he also wants us to get out of S. Korea, Germany, Japan, Turkey, and many other of the 750 military bases we have around the world. That's his idea of "non-interventionism"; this notion that these other countries can defend themselves and stay free without our troops there. This is ludicrous! By withdrawing our military from those areas, we basically give Islamofascists a free hand to take over the world!

Then he wants to take the money away from these bases and spread it around domestically, to fund things like "the people who have become dependent on social security". That's a very condescending attitude. People who payed into social security aren't "dependents", they are holders of a contract with the government. They have a right to their social security benefits, not some "privilege". The fact that he'll pay for their benefits is not relevant, what's important is the terminology he uses.

He wants to get rid of the federal reserve and have the government issue money instead of these private banks. How are the federal reserve banks supposed to make money, then? His idea that we'll tax people and that money will go right into the budget without the intermediary step of borrowing money from the federal reserve banks ... that's crazy! Think of all the bankers that will put out of work! Then on top of that, he wants to go back to coining money in gold and silver. Absurd! If our money is gold and silver, how can the federal reserve ...(oh wait, he got rid of them, right?) ... how can the government expand the money supply if it has to back it with something other than credit? It simply can't! That means that the money in your pocket can't be inflated, so we can't pay for things we don't have the money for. What a ridiculous notion!

He also wants to drastically cut the size of our military. If he does that, how is he going to be ready for the next major intervention we will undoubtedly need? Worst of all, this undercuts our position as the sole superpower. What kind of an America does he envision that's just "another country?" How can we be a leader and bring democracy to countries that don't have it if we don't have the military strength to do so?

On top of all of this, he wants to do away with the Patriot Act, the NSA programs, and various other important parts of our domestic intelligence apparatus. He has this crazy idea that airplanes can conduct their own security, without responsible agents of the Department of Homeland Security even being involved. Absurd. Under this kind of reasoning, expect another 9-11 at least weekly if he's president.

Despite these crazy ideas, and despite the fact that he's a known misogynist and racist and anti-Semite, people keep sending him absurd amounts of money: $4,830,000 as of just now, and that's just this quarter. I guess people want scrooge for Christmas.

There are plenty of republicans out there that figured out that the war's a mess, but are too stupid to vote for anybody but a republican.

That's party loyalty for you.

I acknowlege that behind Dennis Kucinich, he's the most anti-war of the candidates, but that doesn't excuse giving up our place in the world just to get out of one scrape.

Isn't that the basis for the United Nations and most modern international law?

You think it's easy to regain your position as a leader nation or a superpower nation once you give it up? If we pull in our military, the nations that depend on us for their defense will have to build their own defenses, and that means not only an economic calamity for them, but also an unwillingness to let us return.

it's about time we stop being fucking "leaders", World Bullies and Thugs! I'm sick of it!

"By withdrawing our military from those areas, we basically give Islamofascists a free hand to take over the world!"
you tipped off your political leanings. THERE IS NO SUCH IDEOLOGY AS "ISLAMoFASCISM." It is an invention of the rightwing to provoke fear and promote the use of the U.S. military.

Ron Paul is RIGHT to close down our entire overseas military?

Because that's just crazy talk.

There just isn't and if you do think that there is then perhaps DU isn't the place for you. The entire term is a bag of Fox News jingosim and makes about as much sense as strawberries and oysters on the same plate.

There is such a thing as Theocrats...but some folks might say that word could be tied to easily to certain Republicans.

we allow stupid people to coin stupid terms like "Islammmmofascists."

Using these terms helps Republicans.

But Republican's think some fundamentalists are good. Truth is they all s***.

My first take-away after the WTC towers fell on 9/11, once the initial shock wore off, was a new, keen understanding of just how dangerous a blind allegiance to religious dogma could be.

really?

I think they're cut from the same amoral cloth.

It's making some sense now. Sorry.

Not very different from their Christian counterparts, except that in some places they unfortunately have more power.

Theocrats are all pretty much alike - and horrible and dangerous - whether Muslims, Christians, or worshippers of the Greek god Zeus.

n.t.

I would say that perhaps RP goes way too far, and that cutting out 75% to 80% of our overseas bases would make more sense.

Unfortunatly, an American Empire and an American Constitutional Republic are completely incompatible. We can have one or the other but we can't have both.

Even a cursory glance at the history of empires should demonstrate this fact.

Now I think RP is quite wrong on a number of things, but I also think he's right about a number of things, and i think he's an honest person, that he is very up front about what he believes.

Paul is a libertarian on both social and economic issues, I'm democratic socialist on economic issues and a libertarian on social issues.

So while I couldn't support him for president, I believe he brings some very important ideas to the table, and other times some worthless ideas to the table.

There is no Constitutional basis for an Empire.

"Islamofascism" is gibberish. Since you said it then you must be full of gibberish. Therefore Ron Paul must be okay.

There are a number of flaws with thinking in this way.

Getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do. Reducing our footprint to those places where we're both needed and serve our vital interests is also a good thing.

Social security is a contract. Paul is wrong about this.

The federal reserve is a topic about which I'm not smart enough to discuss intelligently, but it is apparent that they have make or break control over our society.

The patriot act and it's cousins are absolutely wrong. Elected officials take an oath to protect the constitution, protecting us is a byproduct of protecting the constitution.

Don't let the idea of ending the war blind you to his other kooky ideas, like monetary ones.

biggest oxymoron in current politics.

First, people who follow Islam are Muslim - not "Islamo," whatever that means.

Secondly, "theocracy" would be more the form of goverment the extremists tout. Fascism is when the corporations rule the government - sort of like the United States is becoming, if you want to get technial.

"Islamo-Fascism" isn't trying to take over the world - but there are more than a few folks out there - Muslims, Christians and Jews - who are trying to stop our goverment from doing so.

toward the end.

Next.

"By withdrawing our military from those areas, we basically give Islamofascists a free hand to take over the world!"

:eyes:

There is still a devoted group of people out there who want to attack us just because of who we are, don't you agree?

In fact, it's our bases in Saudi Arabia that were a big part of the problem in the first place.

...value of having those bases around the world. We have the capability now to strike basically any place, any time, with overwhelming force.

If we surrender that power, we will have to resort to negotiation and diplomacy to make things happen our way, and that's a recipe for failure.

Jesus, man, have the last seven years taught you nothing? WAR is a recipe for failure.

but on foreign policy, the man's spot on.

But if you think we can maintain our standard of living and our status as the superpower we are following Ron Paul's plan, you're nuts.

But maybe those things aren't important to you.

That America-first attitude is why the rest of the world hates us and a radical minority want to bomb the shit out of us. If we saw ourselves as one nation among many while still doing what's best for our national interests (two ideas that are not mutually exclusive), the whole world would be better off, our own nation included.

"If we surrender that power, we will have to resort to negotiation and diplomacy to make things happen our way, and that's a recipe for failure."

You're hilarious.

You think we should go into the "negotiation cantina" and leave our rifle outside on the horse? You don't walk into a gunfight with a knife, pal. We have to hold onto every advantage we have.

The idea that they're serving purpose now.

That's some funny shit.

What is important is their strategic positioning. You should google "confessions of an economic hit man". You will learn that our wealth is not an accident, rather it is the result of a carefully contructed network of strategic economic players. The cornerstone of that network is our military flexibility and presence.

They haven't done a single thing to protect America from Islamic terrorists, or any other sort.

That's our leftover cold war base in Turkey.

Tons and tons and tons.

You may disagree with Bush's exercise of the ability Incirlik provides, and I certainly do, too. That doesn't mean you do away with it.

Imperial militaristic leftism?

Believe it or not, you can be for a strong defense, too.

"If we surrender that power, we will have to resort to negotiation and diplomacy to make things happen our way, and that's a recipe for failure."

Like the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or the Camp David Accords? Or SALT?

Just a head's up for you-- if we fail in our utilization of negotiation and diplomacy, we will have to resort to using military power-- and I think the past few years have shown that's a recipe for disaster.

... "negotiation cantina" and leave your rifle on your horse.

Ron Paul has said very clearly that he will dismantle a lot of our forward bases around the world. He's also said that there are options he will definitely take off the table, like the nuclear option, in dealing with Iran.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, on the other hand, are all playing it the smart way. You go into the negotiation from a position of power, and you get the things you need out of the negotiation. It is better that your opponents fear you. That means keeping ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, which is what the Democratic leaders have done.

They aren't playing tiddly winks, after all.

Despite your penchant for bad metaphors, I have little doubts you've read numerous books and/or position papers on international diplomacy. :shrug: and are well versed in 20th-century international relations and both our actions and reactions.

But just in case you haven't (a very small case, I imagine...), here's a few to get you jump started out of bumper-sticker land...

Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy, by Raymond Cohen

Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin, and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace by Kenneth Stein

America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, by Mark Steyn.




Aggressive posturing is amateurish-- worthy of this administration, but not one which is already grounded in statesmanship and negotiation.

Maybe you've read too many books, my friend.

:rofl:

"People who hate us and want to destroy us because of who we are?"
How simplistic!
If you think the U.S. military is going to solve the world's problems, then you have sipped the kool aid too much.

Having a military is, unfortunately, a necessity. What we do with it is another matter.
John Kerry was right when he said that 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act (the killing of innocents) rather than an act of war. Most of the rest of the world agreed. Instead, Bush turned it into a "crusade" (his word) and ignited a firestorm against us.
Our military should be used to DEFEND our country. Actions taken against other nations should require a U.N. Resolution and only be taken under their auspices.

But if you want to take Ron Paul's military advice, he says you have to go through congress and get, not an AUMF, but a full-scale declaration of war, tying the president's hands, whether it's a Democratic President or not. In addition, he actually says we should re-do our relationship with the UN, and maybe even withdraw from it. That's isolationist thinking, not responsible thinking.

In Ron Paul's view, we should never even use our military except to defend ourselves from attacks that have already happened or that happening right now. That means no way to deal with a nation that says they are going to attack us, and is developing the capability to do so. In the specific case of Iran, for example, Ron Paul's foreign policy would rule out us attacking them, even if they are within hours of building a nuclear weapon.

I don't believe in a policy of isolationism but I also don't believe in using our military as the option of first resort.

The bush thugs chose to "fit the intelligence around the policy" to justify their actions (invading Iraq - which they intended to do from day one.)
There was inteligence that said:
1. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
2. Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction.
Why was that inteligence ignored? Because it didn't fit the policy.
And now our reputation in the world is sullied. How can we repair it? Certainly not by bombing more countries. It's time for the olive branch and the dove.

In fact, Ron Paul has said the same. No wonder he bothers you.

We have openly gay people, movies, reality shows with frank sexuality, women and men in equal roles...

Don't get me wrong. All of those things are a part of our identity. But think of the way that is perceived by a very conservative people who feel their own culture is under assault. In a very real way we threaten their very cultural identity. Naturally they want to fight back, and naturally they use terrorism, the first resort of the powerless.

"We have openly gay people, movies, reality shows with frank sexuality, women and men in equal roles...

Don't get me wrong. All of those things are a part of our identity. But think of the way that is perceived by a very conservative people who feel their own culture is under assault. In a very real way we threaten their very cultural identity. Naturally they want to fight back, and naturally they use terrorism, the first resort of the powerless."

Ron Paul has said:

"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."

Asked by one of the moderator if he was "suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack," Paul replied, "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time ... killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

Now obviously my explanation makes more sense. Ron Paul is saying we asked for 9-11! Ridiculous.

The fact that we asked for it, doesn't make it right.

If I walk into a bar and puff out my chest and start eyeball F*cking people, it is very possible I am going to get punched in the nose and although the person should STILL be arrested and prosecuted for assault and battery, I COULD HAVE easily avoided the situation by not acting like an ass in the bar and I never would have gotten punched.

Its about consideration of consequences. 9/11 is a fairly obvious consequence.

my problem comes in Ron Paul's support for privatizing pretty much everything, abolishing the Dept. of Education, and all of that other the-free-market-will-fix-everything bullshit.

count on our congress to make sure he couldn't get rid of those things, don't you?

What have we been able to count on them for thus far?

And of we can count on Congress to stop those things, then doesn't that shoot holes in your other arguments -- couldn't we count on Congress to also continue to fund massive, bloated defense budgets, regardless of Paul's desire to cut them?

to say than congress does. The danger is that Ron Paul could actually reduce our international presence greatly and limit our flexibility and maneuverability worldwide. That would put us at the mercy of, for example, Middle East nations like Saudi Arabia, who could charge us whatever they wanted for a barrel of oil.

They have this thing called OPEC, you see.

during his run for election in 2000, then governer George Bush made an interesting quote about oil prices. He said that if he were in Clinton's shoes and oil was rising in price, he'd get "the Saudis on the phone and tell them to open up the spigot."

You can google that, my friend, if you don't believe it. Don't think for a moment that our gigantic military overseas doesn't influence things like the prices we pay for oil. If that seems thin to you, and I acknowlege that it should, google "confessions of an economic hit man", and you will see that our overseas empire is much larger and more important than most of us think, that it finances our standard of living, and that at its cornerstone is the military.

George may have said it, but when prices skyrocketed after our invasion, he didn't do shit.

... oil prices go through the roof, Oil Company profits go through the roof, and nobody does anything about it...

Ya think?

First, you say George Bush said he could "get the Saudis on the phone" to lower prices as though that promise had some sort of meaning, then you say he's an oil man who used the country for personal profit. Which is it?

Bush, being an oil man with close ties to the Saudis, when attacking Clinton for his inability to control oil prices, makes mention of his special position as both an oil man and as (at this point only potentially) the President of the US. The point of what he said was that he COULD make oil prices go up or down with a phone call because of his special relationship with the supply side of the equation.

When he became President he still retained that ability, largely through his personal contacts and our foreign aid and our military presence. However, he chose not to exercise that ability because it was profitable to him and the folks who elected him to office for him not to.

You follow?

It's kind of like when Bush campaigned on a "humble" foreign policy and promised "no nation building"; or when his dad said "no new taxes".

Ie - it was campaign trail talk he had no intention of living up to. That doesn't mean he didn't have the power to live up to it if he'd chosen to.

when there is no evidence upon which to base that assumption.

Suppose he pulled our carriers out of the Persian Gulf and took attacking Iran completely off the table. I'm not recommending this, but just suppose.

You'd see an overnight drop in crude prices.

Suppose he actually called up his pal, the King of Saudi Arabia, and said, "look, I'm in a bind. I need you to release more oil." You'd see a drastic reduction in oil prices. Would he have to pay for it through some other concession? Sure. But he could do it if he chose to.

It's not just a bully pulpit. It's a position of real power.

he really splits the Republicans.

They are wooed away by his anti-war message. The end result of a Ron Paul presidency might very well mean we are not only unwilling, but UNABLE to confront nuclear Iran.

ballot.

I want him to do well enough in the Republican primaries to split them apart even more.

Most of us on DU aren't.

how much of this (and your replies) is tongue in cheek and how much isn't.

I swear, everyone thinks everyone has some kind of hidden agenda. Why can't you just read what I post and think about it and honestly reply, without reading some hidden meaning into it?

I think my posts have been pretty straightforward.

I'll wait to see if you're just having a chuckle.

This is an endemic illness sweeping up all of the malcontents in our society, basically. The 9-11 Twoofers, the Islamic sympathizers, the white supremacists, the old-south-folks-who-think-they-should-have-won, the libertarians, the hard core anti-war folks, the people against all foreign aid ...

We should take this threat more seriously. The whole pack of Republican candidates, Fred Julie-ann-McRomnies... They are all in a free fall, in terms of raising money. Meanwhile the lunatic from the fringe doubled his money from the first quarter and looks like he's going to match that amount here in barely the second month of the third quarter; which means he'll more than double it by the end of the quarter.

This is a classic GOP triangulation strategy, and it's a real threat.

While we've been having this conversation, his support has gone all the way to $4,946,000. At this rate he'll be at 5 million before I finish lunch.

How disturbing! What has gotten into the Republican water?

Because he's over $5,000,000

It looks like he'll get $6 million, no problem.

You know, Hillary Clinton has about 100 million.

Ron Paul isn't even earning her interest.

You brought this up. I'm just playing along.

You don't have to keep reminding me of it.

If he stays on this track, he'll hit his "goal" of 12 million pretty soon.

Fortunately, this kind of campaign usually runs out of steam pretty fast.

I'm afraid you are right.

He may well be, I don't know enough about him. But would need to know the facts before I judged him. I hope he is not because he is the only republican anti-war anti-patriot act candidate.

local people to donate to Ron for this 2-3 day period. I heard 3 callers on the WJ this morning promoting that plan, andfrom what they said, all the $$ is coming from small individual donors.

Of all the Pubs, I have to say I like him best, but he has some really weird ideas to reduce the size of the Fed. Gov't. He wants to eliminate the IRS, FDA, FCC, Medicare, Medicaid, and a few other agencies, and establish a "flat tax" for the small amount of revenue that would still be needed. Sorry folks, but THAT'S just nuts!

He wants to get rid of the income tax altogether. That means that our budget would have to be totally cut down to almost a decade ago in size. Then he wants to balance the budget on top of that? With what? Gold coins from leprechauns?

Which should be extremely popular here.

No matter your view on the military or war, no one should think that the time to cut the military is in the middle of a conflict, whether you want to call it a war or whatever, we still have men in harm's way.

. contact local people to donate money.

A visionary candidate would promise to redo the tax system with something simpler.

We need the IRS, and every part of the IRC is there for a policy reason. You may not agree with the reasoning, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I am not advocating throwing out the IRS or a more regressive tax system. I do support a simpler tax system. I truly feel like we need to simplify federal tax laws. They should fit in a book, not books.

I don't like Paul's politics, but I like his candidacy. He's forcing us to discuss issues like the value of money, the size of the military, the role of the military, the federal reserve, the collapsing dollar, and other non-glamorous issues that are vitally important to the long-term welfare of this nation. So, his donors are probably a mix of libertarians, policy wonks, and people tired of the status quo. I wish there were more Democrats talking about these issues.

Paul is popular with young people. I wonder if Paul is creating a new crop of anti-government libertarians. Are we 10-20 years away from many candidates running under his platform? That’s what I want to know.

He's against single payer.

He's against the department of education.

He's against social security (favors an "opt out"; and when those who opt out need SS? Then who pays for it?)

He's against the Federal Reserve (which has kept us from having a depression since 1929)

And he's against all foreign aid, including that to Israel, a nation that is surrounded by enemies.

On top of that, he wants to reduce us to second rate status.

if you're parroting Ron Paul's talking points by playing coy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Pros:

1)Anti-war, more so than anyone but Kucinich(and arguably more so than Dennis)

2)Exceptionally socially liberal.

3)Very anti-big brother, and after 8 years of neo-con rule, how could anyone feel that's not a positive?


Cons:

1)Wants to privatize everything... everything.

2)If he can eliminate the income tax, then the remaining taxes will be very regressive.

3)If he turns out to be full of it, and his action's dont follow his campaign promises, then it's at least another 4 years of republican rule.


My liberal credentials aren't exceptionally well founded, so i always try to tread lightly here. Speaking honestly im about 50% in on Paul, primarily BECAUSE of his anti-war position, and because he's about as far away as you can possibly be from a PNACer.

I also wonder how effective he might be getting anything done, whether the legislative branch stay democratic or goes back repub, he's not going to have a lot of support at that level. I'd hope the democrats would get together on the anti-war part, but i imagine when push comes to shove the republicans are bluffing about being free market. The end results may not be too bad. :)

He says what he thinks, he thinks what he says.

I think a lot of his support stems from his authenticity.

I take it you are a truther of some kind?

Whereas HRC might say that she opposes gay marriage, I really don't believe her. I think she supports gay marriage privately, but publicly opposes it because she is a slave to opinion polls. If the polls said it was cool to do, I bet she would be supporting gay marriage.\
Ditto with the drug war.
Ditto with war with Iraq.


I think that Dr. Paul is authentic. That is much cooler then the rat worm triangulators that we have running on our side.

You probably just sent him money, too.

Scrooge for Christmas.

lol.
I did donate to a couple local dems, and to the right, honorable Bernie Sanders.

I don't fear Ron Paul. And I am a good liberal, not a libertarian.
I respect that he advocates for his beliefs.
I detest politicians that develop their beliefs from opinion polls.

I really doubt any of the 2008 democrats really oppose gay marriage - they are just too cowardly to advocate what they truly believe.

But I hate people who use the term Islamofascists even worse.

Don

... terrorist threat, whether Islamic or any new emerging kind.

I deliberately chose "Islamofascist" because Ron Paul has claimed that term is some kind of propaganda word invented by "neocons" (which is a propaganda word he apparently invented). It gets the Ron Paulunatics raving when I say it.

I should have read the entire thread.

My mistake. Sorry.

Don

all encompassing pronouns, they tend to strangle thought.

... "Islamofascist" is not a pronoun.

It is, but i was referring to "Ron Paulunatics" If you are a single issue voter, and the candidates are hillary and ron paul, and your single issue is the war in iraq, then you'd vote for Paul. That's why people(myself included), are accusing you of satire. The democratic party is a big tent, but you don't often see the combination of socially liberal and warmonger combined...(respectfully)

There's a difference between "talk softly and carry a big stick" and "toss the stick in the woods".

And it's odd that you speak of odd combinations. Because in Ron Paul (who is, after all, the subject of this thread) you have a social conservative combined with a peacenik. Wouldn't that be the opposite and accordingly just as odd a combination as the one you attribute to me?

I'd say paul is socially liberal and economically conservative, or in more classic terms, he's socially and economically Liberal(capital L liberal), so a lot of democrats are going to resonate with roughly half of his platform. A friend of mine, who is a dyed in the wool establishment democrat(he writes copy for the californian democratic parties), agrees that a decent portion of pauls platform is compatible with "textbook" democratic views(by textbook i mean typical). What makes the message compelling, at least for me, is that i believe that he will actually try to deliver. What is scary about the guy, is that he will actually try to deliver his entire platform. But it is refreshing to find a politician that's not entirely full of it.


If you state it simply, he's anti-war, in a major way, and that's compelling for a lot of people. In some people's view that's his only grace, and you're criticizing him for that. now do you get it?

** and sorry for the warmongering bit, it may have been over the top, but a lot of people can get excited about cutting the defense budget by several billion dollars and seeing what can become of that money.

I predict that in 2008 the Democrats will sweep the house and senate with veto-proof majorities. If RP is in the White House through some fluke, the only part of his platform he'll be able to impact is in the area of foreign policy, where, like it or not, the executive seems to be able to do pretty much what he wants.

So if that's your position, you should join his legion of nutcases. That's classic anti-statism, there.

If, OTOH, you see beyond Iraq, and you can see the US fulfilling a leadership role in the world through our strength both at home AND abroad, Ron Paul is a lose-lose proposition.

When he has these extreme anti-abortion views; claims that schools are indocrinating children with 'environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation' and that 'the welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.'

Possibly he's socially liberal if you're a heterosexual male.

He's just denying it.

We're not discussing fish here. Unless you're some kind of "sucker" for Ron Paul.

That's about five times someone has said that being against Ron Paul is some kind of "satire".

You are no fun, sir.

Besides that, many here support some of the things you say Paul supports. Many people here want to shut down the "Military Industrial Complex", withdraw internationally, cut aid to Israel, end the federal reserve, etc. They may not want to do it the same way as Paul, but they want to do it. That's why it sounds like you might be poking fun at DUers. Also, you are so adamant about it that it seems like it might be a joke.

While reading your post I was reasonably convinced that it was simply a poorly written satire.

The value people attach to certain issues is dependent upon the amount of exposure the issue receives, and the amount of exposure a voter gets to it. The issues many are concerned with this election seem to be foriegn policy related, with special focus specifically on the Occupation of Iraq. His stance on this issue appeal to many. Additionally many see him as a man of integrity that practices what he preaches without regard to how others perceive him. After 8 years of lies people want somone whose agenda, and methods are predictable. Many are wondering just where the hell America went wrong, how in the hell did we end up where we are today? Ron Paul seeks to realign the traditional Classical Liberal principles of this country with the government. I think many people feel he will allow us to retrace our steps as a nation.

Just my two cents.

Unless it's verboten.

Then you have to either STFU or do the best you can.

You will do just fine.

Don

Do you want a politician whom you somewhat disagree with, but is truthful...or do you want a politician that lies about everything they say and simply tells people what they want to hear?

that's about it. sure, some may be Libertarians, but i think it's more disiLLusioned repubs and dems.

as to exactly what they are wanting a revolution for, I cannot recall the exact wording but revolution was there with the word like love or something close in the middle with bigger letters.

One thing about Ron Paul supporters is they tend to be fanatics.

I tell you, I'm quite disturbed to find that not only am I not taken seriously, but there are actually people defending that ... libertarian. Right here on DU. And then I find out that he's raised some kind of one-day record in donations? What has gotten into people? Are people so fed up with the war that they'll take any road out of it, even if it means turning abortion back to the states? Even if it means no healthcare reform?

I understand that he and Kucinich are the only anti-war candidates left in the running. So support Dennis Kucinich, if the war is your "issue". So what if he saw a UFO? Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter also have seen them.

or close to it.

There are websites out there that pretty clearly debunk the notion that the federal reserve bumped him off for trying to get us back on silver.

First of all, he wasn't trying to do any such thing. Secondly, if you want to know who killed him, think CIA and George Bush Senior.

All of them ended up in deep shit when they picked a fight with the bank.

That's why we need the banks to be in charge of it. Ron Paul's idea of getting rid of the federal reserve would leave us all at the mercy of market forces with nobody having ANY reins on the economy. That's lunacy.

I think the desire to do so is evidence of sanity.

Doing away with "the Patriot Act, the NSA programs, and various other important parts of our domestic intelligence apparatus" -- Hooray! I'm all for it!

I do hope your post was written tongue-in-cheek.

There are a lot of benefits you gain from our nation's status as the sole superpower, even if you aren't aware of them. The ability to get favorable economic positioning, the respect we command in the United Nations, the fact that we are taken seriously by everyone.

Sure, Bush has abused those benefits, but under the right leadership, an enlightened leadership, we can lead the world to a much more democratic and prosperous existence. If we relinquish that dominant power, all that will be left is a collection of nations with no focus, no progressive agenda, no vision. Where will those nations turn without the guidance of the United States? We have a special role to fill, and people like Ron Paul, who want us just be "another country" want to deny that special place for us and our children.

Arundhati Roy speaks of. I want an end to the power of few elites to dictate the fates of billions. I want an end to the philosophy of dominance and the oppression of the many by the greed and power-lust of the few.

I have a hard time believing that you are serious about the arguments you are making (you call yourself a "leftist"?) -- but if you ARE serious, then all can I say is, imho, you're seriously deluded if you think that the U.S. is a force for enlightenment and democracy in the world.

The long bloody history of U.S. interference with other sovereign nations is a litany of oppression of the common people for profit. I want an end to it.

Here, read up on our history: http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

sw

You probably think it's more important that we end our global empire and our wars of aggression and our torture and domestic spying and restore habeas corpus than that we have a person with a D by their name in the White House. You can hardly call yourself a team player with that attitude, Miss "Scarletwoman". Can you?

to defining the role of government.

I believe that government should function as the expression of the collective will of a society to provide for the welfare and well-being of all its members; by providing infrastructure, judicial institutions, conserving and protecting resources, protecting the commons, and providing for defense.

And by defense, I do NOT mean offense. Someone starts staging gunboats outside San Fransisco Bay; then, by all means, protect our shores. I have long thought that the "well-regulated militias" referred to in the 2nd Amendment really is the ideal way to go -- I mean, the Founders were WAAY against keeping a permanent standing army. And they were absolutely correct: click on the link in my first post to see the evidence of what happens when having a standing army becomes a permanent feature.

So, anyway, it seems to me that the very best way of providing for the common defense would be through "well-regulated militias" -- sort of like what the National Guard should be; volunteers who go through regular rounds of training who could be called up to defend our shores and our soil from foreign military invasion.

Meanwhile, the government would also provide protection from foreign economic invasions by enforcing a highly regulated economic system. What I have in mind is largely influenced by writer David Korten, author of The Post-Corporate World -- Life After Capitalism.

I believe in economic sovereignty. In a country as huge and rich in natural resources as ours, our government -- our collectively consented-to and designed framework for the support of our civil society -- should first and foremost ensure that all its citizens are afforded the means of supporting themselves.

I believe that certain kinds of resource extraction on our soil should be nationalized and heavily regulated -- and those resources which lie within the lands given to the Native peoples by treaty in the 19th century should be solely the property of those soveriegn Nations.

I believe that the government, rather than building more prisons, should have an ongoing WPA-like program, to provide another opportunity for paid employment while maintaining and improving our common infrastructure.

I want national single-payer health care. I want free post-secondary education for everyone. I want massive de-centralization of enegy production; where communities can design and maintain their own power-generating co-ops, using their locally available resources -- whether it's wind power, hydro power, solar power, biomass, methane from lifestock waste, etc. -- to serve their local grid; with excess energy made available to the larger government-owned and maintained regional grid.

I am a whole different flavor of crazy than Ron Paul. We only intersect slightly on foreign policy. I don't think he goes far enough, actually. And I am utterly opposed to "Free Trade" as it is now practiced -- not to mention vehemently anti-corporatist and anti-privatization.

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate of either party that comes even close to my own political philosophy. I grew up a Democrat, the daughter of children of the Depression. I was raised as a New Deal Democrat -- however, that party doesn't exist anymore.

No, I'm not a "team player" when the team isn't playing for the People. Fuck 'em. I'd never vote for Ron Paul -- but I WILL cheer on his foreign policy stance, because I think we really need to take a hard look at this whole empire thing our government has been doing since WWII (the time that marked the establishment of a permanent standing army and national security state -- read some Gore Vidal). Ike warned us.

Our only hope as a free People is to build our own decentralized, community-based social and economic structures from the ground up, so that we have viable systems in place when the inevitable disintegration of the unbalanced superstructure around us reaches the tipping point.

I'll vote strictly for a Democrat in 2008, although I expect it will have to be a write-in vote.

sw

It amazes me that libertarians see no ethical problem with this.

the common demominator among GOP prez candidates - the anti war thing makes the "outsider".

A side note, this must be driving sean hannity out of what's left of his mind.

I hadn't heard of him till I came to DU. Then I looked at his website, and was shocked.
This is from a speech that he made a few years ago, that is still on his website so presumably represents his current policies - AARRRGGGHHHH!!!



'A Republic, If You Can Keep ItDr. Ron PaulU.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representativesdelivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.


....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.

...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.


....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'


One REAL hard-core rightie there!

With Paul you can kiss Roe v Wade goodbye. If that's ok with you, vote for him. Its no where near ok with me.

As a self-proclaimed "obstetrician" he claims to believe in a so-called right to life. On abortion, he says the federal government should leave that kind of issue to the state governments to decide. So abortion would probably remain legal in California, New York, Illinois and any number of other progressive places, but you can expect it to be outlawed again in the nation's backwoods areas like Alabama and Texas.

Which would mean handing off the decision of freedom of choice to the states, instead of the feds. I think we all can agree that ending the current war and stopping the next one from happening is hardly worth sacrificing the right to choose.

Both are batshit crazy.

Of course, I consider libertarians of any stripe to be the worst kinds of citizen. They have no sense of civic duty or a desire to preserve the commonweal.

"Let's tax no one. Weaken any kind of government regulation. If you need something pay for it out of your own pocket. If you can't pay for it, then die."

Yeah, it's simplistic, but then so are "libertarians" or as I generally refer to them, dickheads.

Paul should crawl back under the rock he crawled out from under and leave politics to people who actually give a shit about the people they represent. He's slime.

It is batshit crazy to think that ordinary people are competent to take care of each other, their towns, their communities and their own well-being without the government's friendly help.

If you want to go back to everybody living in small communities of 100 or fewer people - then maybe libertarianism would work! In a large industrialized society, it's just a means for the rich and strong to trample all over the poorer or weaker, without restraint.

is a good reason to destroy whatever there is?

something he could actually do given a president's plenary power in the area of foreign relations; and pulls the money he'd save us by doing so and puts it into the programs you're talking about (which is what he says he'll do), then I think your concerns would be alleviated.

Right up until his overseas negligence causes the next 9-11, that is.

"care of each other, their towns, their communities and their own well-being"


If I ever see that happen in this country on a scale that would validly preclude the use government institutions, I may consider revising it from bat-shit crazy to something less extreme. But I've never seen it, nor probably ever will. So for the time being, 'bat-shit crazy' it is.

the cohesion of the community -- and, therefore, a communal ability to "take care of each other".

That, ideally is precisely what "government" IS -- a structure of communally agreed-upon institutions that provide for the commonweal.

See my post #213, above.

sw

Its funny, I started typing a response to knock these points down one by one and show how someone might think differently and then realized there was a disguised PRO Ron Paul post.

I've explained above countless times that this is not some kind of subversive pro Paul post. We aren't supposed to support GOP candidates in DU, even if they are anti-war and pro-constitution. So if you will, please do lets get back to the agenda of coming up with reasons why Ron Paul is a BAD idea.

He's against birth right citizenship for people of Mexican descent.

That's clearly unconstitutional.

But somehow you only came up with the reasons to vote FOR him and I find that terribly amusing.

You want the reasons to vote against Ron Paul?

He wants to overturn Roe v Wade
He doesn't believe health care is a right.
He doesn't understand the value of immigration in the US.
He believes in complete, unrestricted free trade, which although a great idea in a perfect world, can't happen because it would result in slave labor, child labor, etc.
He voted FOR the bankrupcy bill.
He doesn't understand the climate crisis or believe government should have a hand in solving it.
He has voted AGAINST various campaign finance restrictions
He Supports religion in schools.

The things I posted are reason to vote against him; whereas the things you posted are reasons to vote FOR him.

I get it. Ron Paul is an interesting guy and actually came up 3rd for me in the ABC "candidate picker"

However, I would vote 3rd party before considering voting for him because his negatives far outweigh his positives. BUT, as I said in another post, if forced into a choice, at gunpoint, between (Edwards, CLinton, Biden, Dodd) and Paul, I would pick Paul... luckily, we get far more than 2 choices in the voting booth.

Not three posts ago you claimed that I'm some kind of pro-Paul subversive, and then you turn around and say that you would pick Ron Paul over John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd? They are solid, well-credentialed Democrats, with a long history of supporting the party. What has Ron Paul got on them? He's committed to stopping the war and they won't commit to doing so? He's absolutely ruled out attacking Iran and they're keeping all options on the table?

Ending a war and preventing the next one is hardly a valid reason to walk away from your important party ties, sir.

I think you are the one who is being subversive.

... than a dollar to anybody else if you are seeking to weaken the Republican front-runners and divide the Republican Party.

Of course he won't win the general election. But for now he's useful. Unlike the Democratic candidates, Ron Paul is right there, on stage and on camera, during the GOP debates and directly calling bullshit on Romney, McCain, and Giuliani.

That's a bit of a strategic stretch, don't you think?

Republicans give money to Green Party candidates all the time because a thousand dollars spend on the Green message will siphon off more votes for Dems than that same money spent on bashing Democrats or promoting Republicans will,

It happened last election in Pennsylvania. A Green Party candidate bowed out after it was found out that all of his donations except his own seed money was from Republican donors.

in this case, Ron Paul has, on the issues that are of foremost concern to Americans, the "correct" view. The dissent is both turning public opinion against the Iraq occupation and dividing the conservatives, both of which benefit Democrats. That same money donated to any Democratic candidate would only do the former, not the latter.

Of course, I'm not saying donate tons of money to Ron Paul. But enough to keep him in the spotlight and in the headlines.

Because if you think Ron Paul divides the GOP base, you ain't even begun to see what he does to OUR base.

Especially if Hillary is our nominee (and that looks likely, don't it?) and Ron Paul is, through some fluke, their nominee? Out of all of our folks, Hillary is the most hawkish. In terms of policy, you might not like it, but she's a lot closer to Joe Lieberman than she is to Dennis Kucinich. Where are the seventy percent of Americans who favor ending this war and stopping the next one going to turn?

Just whose base do you think that is?

So if you want a D in the White House in 2009, you might think twice about throwing money at Ron Paul. He's the guy we need most to shut down.

TROLLS.

That or idiots.

There were lots down here gunning for that ignorant comedian when he ran for gov.

No accounting for stupid.

You mean supporting? I assume you're talking about Kinky Freidman, and all I can say is that a lot of people liked him just because he is outside of the "mainstream" "approved" candidates.

Everyone seems to play it safe.

I didn't vote for Kinky (couldn't bring myself to do it) but I appreciate the reasons folks did.

They liked him because they are stupid. Or I'll be kind: uninformed. Put as much lipstick as you want on it, that's what it is.

Because I'll tell you what. In a lot of Texas elections I've felt like writing in the name of my dog.

so I understand that sentiment.

However voting for a bona-fide clueless idiot fucktard for a 'change' is some of the dumbest fuckin shit ever.

bonafide clueless idiot fucktard who happens to be bought and sold corrupt on top of it, that change would actually be for the better.

Hell, he's trying to push mandatory pharmeceuticals on my kids in exchange for campaign cash. I don't care about the efficacy or non-efficacy of the pharmeceuticals. That's bullshit!

he had PR.

I don't know why anyone would put anything past him, honestly.

:yourock:


"voting for a bona-fide clueless idiot fucktard for a 'change' is some of the dumbest fuckin shit ever."

Sadly, that's just too long for a bumper-sticker. Maybe I'll look for a bigger bumper...

Here are a few dozen of them:

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)

Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)

Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)

Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)

Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)

Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)

Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)

Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)

Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

And that's a minor deal compared to things like embryonic stem cell research.

but, in the long run, losing seven years in embryonic stem cell research and doing nothing on global warming and energy independence could have far worse consequences.

... screeching halt if Ron Paul is president or if federal funding for it stops?

I agree. He would be a complete disaster for America.

but, imagine if we started a big Manhattan project style investment in stem cell research in 2001 led by the federal government?

Instead, we get a brain drain where leading scientists have left the country to go to friendlier environs in Europe, Japan, Korea & China.

OMG! You're a riot!

That's what Ron Paul means.

:rofl:

Oh, the crazy... it can be such a source of amusement!

I wonder if he also says we'll have forced abortions...

Oh, the stuff these people come up with! :rofl:

You can't possibly be serious.

Here's what Hillary has said about the war on terror:

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to US, Israel

US Senator and presidential candidate speaks at AIPAC dinner in New York, says 'US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons'
Associated Press Published: 02.02.07, 06:36 / Israel News

Calling Iran a danger to the US and one of Israel's greatest threats, US Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... No option can be taken off the table."

That's a lady who talks sense and understands that sometimes you might have to use first-strike nuclear weapons to prevent World War III.

Now here's your crazy pal, Ron Paul:

Ron Paul Maintains that Iran's Nuclear Threat is Overblown, Insists Israel Should be Able to Defend Itself Without U.S
By MSNBC

GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul touted his non-interventionist prescription for US foreign policy at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies in DC. There, he reiterated his opposition to the Iraq war -- which often makes him sound more like a Democrat than one of his GOP rivals.

Paul distinguished his policy of non-intervention from isolationism, explaining that he still sees a benefit in doing business with foreign countries -- provided currency manipulation does not create an unfair relationship. He added, “Non-intervention is better than assuming this moral superiority.” He went on to talk about today's anniversary. “We don’t understand 9/11,” he said, adding that he believes American intervention in the Middle East over the past 50 years was a “major participant” in fueling the attacks of six years ago.

Now which one of them is better qualified to defend us against the Muslim fanatics and their holy war against America and Israel?

I think the answer is quite obvious.

military bases around the world--I agree with you on that. I'm kind of weirded out by your "holy war" stuff. I'm a Dem who believes that some Muslim extremists DO want us dead, and that concerns me, but not to the point that I'd ever believe they could destroy us as a nation or enforce Sharia law in this country. That's what separates me from the Joe Liebermans and Norman Podhoretzes and Dick Cheneys--although I'm not sure Cheney believes that, he just uses our fear of Muslim radicalism to achieve his goals of seizing executive power. If you submit to that BS, you're not very bright.

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel
Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

With all due respect to your opinion, Ms. Clinton understands our existential struggle with the forces of radical Islam. In this respect, antiwar.com agrees that she's very much like Joe Lieberman and Bush and Cheney. They are people who know the real deal.

Ron Paul, who thinks we can just "tolerate" and "talk to" and "get along" with them is the one with the radical position. We need the capability and the willingness to bomb them. That's the only language they understand.

'90!

They refuse to look at the REAL STORY of their FAILED REPUG REGAN/LIBERTARIAN Policies...and instead of voting Dem...they always look for the "Safe Door." Which never gets them anywere but with folks like the Bushies and Nixons.

That's my opinion, anyway. Rather than realize that we are "All In this TOGETHER" the Repugs and some Radical Lefties always try to go to some "outlier." When we on the Left and folks on the Right who keep looking for alternatives like Nader, Ron Paul or Ross Perot GET TOGETHER...there might just be a COALITION to SAVE DEMOCRACY.

Of course no one on the Left or Right would EVER WANT TO ACKNOWLEGE THAT...:-(

This oughtta be interesting!

:popcorn:

Paul is more of a true conservative, or what is sometimes called a "classical liberal", than any of the other Republicans running. I mean, if a Republican wins, wouldn't you like it to be one who is anti-corporatist? Anti Military Industrial Complex? Against foreign wars? In favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution? I would.

Would you really prefer Guiliani, for example, over Ron Paul? I know that Paul is hard on social programs, and he has a troubling stand on Roe v Wade, but he's not a fascist.

that you meant Dems... if you mean the country... and as compared to another republican, well then sure... he's not so likely to blow gobs of money on a war of choice to profit his buddies... so that alone's a huge point in his favor.

I imagine the majority of his contributions came from the "disenfranchised" republican voter; that is, the angry, white male voter who thinks that fewer 'brown' people in this country is more important than killing 'brown' people in another country. :shrug:

Ron Paul is dangerous. First of all, he wants to get us out of Iraq. Well, that's fine and good, but he also wants us to get out of S. Korea, Germany, Japan, Turkey, and many other of the 750 military bases we have around the world. That's his idea of "non-interventionism"; this notion that these other countries can defend themselves and stay free without our troops there. This is ludicrous!

No, it's very logical. What, can't Germany defend itself without the US military bases??? THAT'S ludicrous! :rofl:

By withdrawing our military from those areas, we basically give Islamofascists a free hand to take over the world!

I'm sorry I have ever tried to debate you rationally. You are a extreme right-wing freeper spambot.

that's why our soldiers have to be there, on the front lines against the Potential Communist Aggressor Nations.

:rofl:

If your post was sarcastic, you need to put a "sarcasm" tag on it.

As for your assertion that the Germans don't need our bases there, we've been there for sixty plus years, and they've stayed free. Not only that, the East Germans have become free, too. Maybe you are okay with a return to Iron Curtain days, I assure you I am not.

Germans CAN fight:

Because you list ideas of Paul that are great and then give right-wing freeper 'answers' to 'discredit' them, THUS THEREBY legitimizing Paul's ideas.