An Orchestrated Attempt to Smear Ron Paul Through Slander and Mud Slinging - My Two Cents.

58 posts / 0 new

Comments

My take on Ron Paul is pretty similar to this one:

"With Ron Paul as president, at least we’d be done with all the wars, the people of the rest of the world would be finally free of US military interference, including attacks by US drones. The long-suffering Constitution and its Bill of Rights would mean something again. We might even get a Supreme Court justice or two who actually believed that Congress should declare any future wars before we could fight them, and that citizens who were arrested had an absolute right to a speedy trial by a jury of peers. And we’d be electing someone who appears, especially for a politician, to be that rare thing: an honest man who says what he means and means what he says — and who doesn’t seem to be owned by the banksters."

"We’d have a hell of a fight on our hands in a Ron Paul presidency, defending Social Security and Medicare, promoting economic equality, fighting climate change and pollution, defending abortion rights and maybe fighting a resurgence of Jim Crow in some parts of the country, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about being spied upon, beaten and arrested and then perhaps shipped off to Guantanamo for doing it." - David Lindorff

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/27/why-the-establishment-is-terrified-of-ron-paul/

It's a trade-off. How important is it to not live in a developing full-blown police state?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I would love to see Ron Paul be the Republican nominee and run against Obama if only to get the Obama campaign to deal with real domestic agenda reform while ending the empire. He will never get that nomination, and running as a Libertarian will insure Obama another term.

I don't buy into the "smear" where Paul actually has to come clean on his past. I would be amazed if he had not grown up with the racism of his time and place; and if he also has homophobic or misogynistic attitudes of shared culture, duh. The issue is what he has done about them as he has learned, and how he has squared his policies with his principles.

I think Paul is generally good on individual rights issues, and if he can get out from under the culture war he could go back to choice and even gay marriage as a civil right. Out of the bedroom, but where does Paul let us go into the Boardroom other than to get rid of the Fed? I think his money ideas are not the best; and like other Libertarians, he is weak on social issues.

Ending the wars and the empire is a fine idea, and if that would be all Paul could actually do in four years in the White House, it would be OK. But there is the Supreme Court. Would he nominate a civil libertarian or an anti-democratic Constitutionalist? Would it be about the protection of individual liberty and equal access for all citizens, or would it be why we cannot do anything useful through government?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:
You are just remarkably ignorant of economics, no offense. What you fail to understand is that under a libertarian society, there is an extremely necessary and vital function that the government plays. They have to protect people. They have to give us a sound currency and have just laws and fair courts. They have to protect property and enforce contracts. They have to protect the environment and prosecute fraud and corporate crime.

This is really good news!!!! We haven't heard about any of these functions from any Libertarians I have heard, or how these things would be accomplished without Government "intruding" into somebody's life.

I believe that Progressives do a pretty good job of describing how they think Government should be working. In fact, they do so until they are blue in the face. The Libertarians seem to want to keep their methods a closely held secret. All we hear is "keep Government off our backs". I don't expect to be reading any Von Mises. Perhaps this is where these secrets are held.

I think that many libertarians do a poor job of articulating what functions government should provide. But I don't think this applies to Ron Paul. Many Progressives seem to think that to shrink government or reduce regulations automatically means that you end up empowering corporations or allow crime and lawlessness. I understand how this understanding comes about if one only looks at things superficially.

To me, the difference comes from the function of government to prevent aggression. Once a person harms another, they can have their rights abdicated through the courts. Thus, government force is permissable to punish those that have harmed others. But that harm must be proven through a court of law. Fair laws and just courts are essential for a fair society. Any inequities in the legal system, of which there are many, need to be ironed out. Wealthy individuals and white collar criminals should not be given special treatment.

What libertarians reject is prior restraint types of preemptive regulations that infringe on the liberties of businessmen and all Americans without respect to whether they have aggressed against another. Bureaucracies and agencies of government that add paperwork and red tape hold back an economy through adding to the cost of doing business and are easily subverted to benefit certain industries at the expense of others. Many, if not most of these agencies like the EPA and FDA contribute to corporatism and crony capitalism and are administered unfairly.

Ron Paul and other libertarians believe that there is a great deal of discipline that is imposed on business behavior in a market economy. The fear of bankruptcy is a tremendous regulator. What we need to do is prevent benefits from being handed out by governments. We need to focus more of prevention, to keep corporations from "gaming" the system by getting subsidized and getting free money at nearly no interest from the Federal Reserve discount window. It is the system that is inherently unfair. So many progressives think that more regulations will compensate for these problems but they simply won't.

I think it is wrong to have government come down and make all these demands on businessmen who have not done anything wrong. Small businesses who are operating on a very small margin of profits are being killed with prior restraint mandates and regulations that do nothing to protect their customers. In fact, quite often these regulations are imposed at the bidding of larger corporate interests in an effort to drive them out of business and create a monopoly. It does no good for any of us to hurt the economy and prevent businesses from starting in the first place.

Now, the government needs to be a "referee" in the economy. They have to enforce contracts and prevent fraud. There are laws against fraud already on the books but they are not being enforced. In a libertarian society, the key difference from the types of regulations typically promoted by progessives, is that there has to be some evidence of harm and the identification of a victim (or victims) before force or coercion is waranted.

I think the truth is that government has gotten so large and the spending so out of control that people who want to "get government off their backs" shy away from discussing things the government should be doing because it seems nearly impossible to get any progress at all in cutting back government. But I think Ron Paul has discussed how market regulations and laws against fraud and reforming the monetary system would be able to better prevent corporate crime and fraud from taking place. I will look for some videos to share on that subject.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote polycarp2:

My take on Ron Paul is pretty similar to this one:

"With Ron Paul as president, at least we’d be done with all the wars, the people of the rest of the world would be finally free of US military interference, including attacks by US drones. The long-suffering Constitution and its Bill of Rights would mean something again. We might even get a Supreme Court justice or two who actually believed that Congress should declare any future wars before we could fight them, and that citizens who were arrested had an absolute right to a speedy trial by a jury of peers. And we’d be electing someone who appears, especially for a politician, to be that rare thing: an honest man who says what he means and means what he says — and who doesn’t seem to be owned by the banksters."

"We’d have a hell of a fight on our hands in a Ron Paul presidency, defending Social Security and Medicare, promoting economic equality, fighting climate change and pollution, defending abortion rights and maybe fighting a resurgence of Jim Crow in some parts of the country, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about being spied upon, beaten and arrested and then perhaps shipped off to Guantanamo for doing it." - David Lindorff

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/27/why-the-establishment-is-terrified-of-ron-paul/

It's a trade-off. How important is it to not live in a developing full-blown police state?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Well, I welcome a coalition with people such as yourself on the vitally important issues that we agree on. I think your concern about Ron Paul getting rid of entitlements and other such things are vastly overblown. Ron Paul has a plan to protect Medicare and Social Security. Yes, in an ideal libertarian world, these things would not be Federal funtions and Ron Paul believes that these entitlements are not technically constitutional, but his case is that if we don't reform other parts of the government and cut things like military spending, then a dollar crisis will wipe out these programs and people will suffer greatly. Paul has said repeatedly that cutting child health care or help for the elderly who have no alternatives would NOT be on his agenda. In fact, it needs to be understood that his budget to cut $1 Trillion dollars in one year and have a balanced budget in three years would not touch entitlements. In the long term, Paul envisions allowing some young people to opt out if they choose and by providing a far healthier economy and greater prosperity, people could thrive without having to rely on social welfare provided by the government. This hardly seems heartless to me. But you can rest assured that Medicare and Social Security would be safe in a Paul administration. And Paul is not against fighting pollution. He just doesn't have faith in Cap and Trade. He promotes the idea that we should prevent pollution through the protection of property rights. No one should have the right to pollute the property of others, that includes the air, land or water if it has deleterious effects on any individual.

There is really zero chance of any resurgence of Jim Crow anywhere in the country. While I don't doubt that there are still pockets of racism in some backwater areas of the country, I can assure you that this population will not tolerate that kind of thing in 2011. As far as abortion goes, Paul does not support the issue being a federal matter. Therefore he does not accept a federal ban on abortion. He DOES suggest that some states could have more restrictive policies about late term abortions but he has stated that no law will affect the number of abortions performed in the country. He IS pro life as an OBGYN who has delivered thousands of babies, but his views are that only changing moral attitudes of the people can reduce abortions.

All in all, I believe that on balance, even from a Progressive standpoint, the good far outweighs the bad from a Ron Paul presidency.

And think about this. If our government is moving us towards a police state, denying us the rights of habeas corpus, engaging in illegal wars without limits, spying on Americans and even claiming the right to assassinate US citizens without a trial, how can we possibly expect them to administer social welfare programs and be a force for "progressive" values?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote DRC:

I would love to see Ron Paul be the Republican nominee and run against Obama if only to get the Obama campaign to deal with real domestic agenda reform while ending the empire. He will never get that nomination, and running as a Libertarian will insure Obama another term.

I don't buy into the "smear" where Paul actually has to come clean on his past. I would be amazed if he had not grown up with the racism of his time and place; and if he also has homophobic or misogynistic attitudes of shared culture, duh. The issue is what he has done about them as he has learned, and how he has squared his policies with his principles.

I think Paul is generally good on individual rights issues, and if he can get out from under the culture war he could go back to choice and even gay marriage as a civil right. Out of the bedroom, but where does Paul let us go into the Boardroom other than to get rid of the Fed? I think his money ideas are not the best; and like other Libertarians, he is weak on social issues.

Ending the wars and the empire is a fine idea, and if that would be all Paul could actually do in four years in the White House, it would be OK. But there is the Supreme Court. Would he nominate a civil libertarian or an anti-democratic Constitutionalist? Would it be about the protection of individual liberty and equal access for all citizens, or would it be why we cannot do anything useful through government?

I just want to focus on the highlighted sentance for a minute. What you need to understand is that democracy is a very dangerous form of government. The founders warned us against democracy leading to tyranny of the majority. Black Americans understand how dangerous democracy is, when the white majority decided they could deny blacks any rights whatsoever simply because they were numerically superior.

The only qualifications a Supremer Court nominee should have is a correct interpretation of the Constitution. By definition, all supreme court justices should be constitutionalists. And you should be very hopeful that any supreme court nominee will protect your rights. If they did, the Patriot Act would be deemed unconstitutional. All these abuses of our rights would be overturned if our Supreme Court was full of constitutionalists.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Art:
You are just remarkably ignorant of economics, no offense. What you fail to understand is that under a libertarian society, there is an extremely necessary and vital function that the government plays. They have to protect people. They have to give us a sound currency and have just laws and fair courts. They have to protect property and enforce contracts. They have to protect the environment and prosecute fraud and corporate crime.

This is really good news!!!! We haven't heard about any of these functions from any Libertarians I have heard, or how these things would be accomplished without Government "intruding" into somebody's life.

I believe that Progressives do a pretty good job of describing how they think Government should be working. In fact, they do so until they are blue in the face. The Libertarians seem to want to keep their methods a closely held secret. All we hear is "keep Government off our backs". I don't expect to be reading any Von Mises. Perhaps this is where these secrets are held.

I think that many libertarians do a poor job of articulating what functions government should provide. But I don't think this applies to Ron Paul. Many Progressives seem to think that to shrink government or reduce regulations automatically means that you end up empowering corporations or allow crime and lawlessness. I understand how this understanding comes about if one only looks at things superficially.

To me, the difference comes from the function of government to prevent aggression. Once a person harms another, they can have their rights abdicated through the courts. Thus, government force is permissable to punish those that have harmed others. But that harm must be proven through a court of law. Fair laws and just courts are essential for a fair society. Any inequities in the legal system, of which there are many, need to be ironed out. Wealthy individuals and white collar criminals should not be given special treatment.

What libertarians reject is prior restraint types of preemptive regulations that infringe on the liberties of businessmen and all Americans without respect to whether they have aggressed against another. Bureaucracies and agencies of government that add paperwork and red tape hold back an economy through adding to the cost of doing business and are easily subverted to benefit certain industries at the expense of others. Many, if not most of these agencies like the EPA and FDA contribute to corporatism and crony capitalism and are administered unfairly.

And this is where libertarians lose people.

If my choice is between

A) trucking companies being required to operate safe trucks, driven by safe drivers who get regularly screened for drugs,

OR

B) My child getting killed by a big truck, with faulty brakes, driven by a tweeker, and then I get to spend the next 2 decades fighting that big corporation in court....

I, and the vast majority of peoplle will choose A.

If all that red tape can hold back the bad actors who choose to go cheap and put me and mine and risk, then so be it. We know that some company will choose that path, because they always do. And, then we are back on the race to the bottom. And we join Brazil and Sudan.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Are Paul-aholics paid by the word?

For folks claiming to be for less governance, their explanations sure come with a lot of overhead.

My SenseToo: His strongest opponent is his own record (B.O. has same problem).

Rep. Paul spoke out strongly against the Protect America Act of 2007. Then he didn't bother voting when it came time to (Roll Call Vote 836, August 4, 2007).

Chose not to vote again on the FISA 2008 bill (Roll Call Vote 437, June 20, 2008).

I hear K is available - and N could probably be persuaded to join with him or maybe McK. That's a ticket I could get behind (brainy and honest).

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system