Why Ron Paul can beat Obama: He converts Democrats on war & civil liberty

[Expat]

I disagree with him on Israel, but I don't see anything in that article that would make me think his anti-Israel positions are base in anti-semitism, vs a general conviction that the U.S. should be more isolationist.

This story has a bit more to explain why this is an issue. Apparently the crackpots all back Paul. He can't help that though. He has accepted money from them. That could be a troubling sign.

 

[Expat]

Here is another article that hints more of racism than anti-semitism.

Say Anything » Ron Paul: Racist Anti-Semite

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Here is another article that hints more of racism than anti-semitism.

Say Anything » Ron Paul: Racist Anti-Semite

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.""

Ron Paul@Everything2.com

 

[88GT]

Please. No dem/lib will ever vote for a Republican candidate, certainly not in enough numbers to swing the balance. And saying the would for a vote of freedom? Are you daft? Libs don't want freedom. They want what they want, and if it means government to get it, so be it. If it means arguing against government intervention, that's all well and good too. Consistency is not their strong point.

 

[rambone]

I disagree with him on Israel, but I don't see anything in that article that would make me think his anti-Israel positions are base in anti-semitism, vs a general conviction that the U.S. should be more isolationist.

Define "anti-Israel." Define "isolationist."

Promoting free trade clearly breaks the definition of Isolationism. I've never heard him say he wants to stop trading with Israel. In fact, he says he would expand trade to countries currently blocked under federal embargo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDM8US25xXg

This story has a bit more to explain why this is an issue. Apparently the crackpots all back Paul. He can't help that though. He has accepted money from them. That could be a troubling sign.

This is meaningless drivel. Candidates can't sit around researching donors and turn down money from anyone who isn't part of the moral elite. Who the hell would have time for that? Gee I wonder if John McCain did a background check on Joe the Plumber before accepting his money.. I've personally donated more money than the dude cited in that article.

Ron Paul isn't out to screw Israel. He's out to protect American taxpayers. Frankly, I think the real crackpots are the ones who want to redistribute our money all around the world. Global wealth redistribution at its finest. Anyone who says they are fiscally conservative and against globalism but then supports global welfare checks, is a hypocrite.

Here is another article that hints more of racism than anti-semitism.

Say Anything » Ron Paul: Racist Anti-Semite

Yeah that sounds nothing like anything I've ever heard out of his mouth. If anything, he is a champion of minorities. I call on that hit piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU

 

[rambone]

Please. No dem/lib will ever vote for a Republican candidate, certainly not in enough numbers to swing the balance. And saying the would for a vote of freedom? Are you daft? Libs don't want freedom. They want what they want, and if it means government to get it, so be it. If it means arguing against government intervention, that's all well and good too. Consistency is not their strong point.

Left & Right is a con game to keep us fighting in a way that keeps the Establishment in charge. I see just as many hypocrites on both sides. I also see people who truly support liberty on both sides.

Not every 'liberal' loves government intervention. Some are just there because they are sick of war and hypocrisy of the Establishment-controlled Republican Party. They don't all support tyranny of the Establishment-controlled Democrat Party.

On the same token, not every 'conservative' supports the fascist police state that the Establishment-controlled Republican Party has created. They just vote for Republicans because they are sick of welfare and the hypocrisy of the Establishment-controlled Democrat Party. They don't all support the tyranny of their party. I could pick apart their lack of 'consistency' as well.

There are people who would vote for a platform of liberty if they saw it. This is evidenced by a 'liberal' columnist writing the article in the OP, featured on a 'liberal' website. Can't happen? It just did.

And obviously there are also the party-line zombie voters who will keep voting for their party no matter what the evidence shows about the candidate at hand. Such was the case in my county, when the fiscally-conservative DEMOCRAT county commissioner was defeated by the corrupt, collectivist scumbag Republican. In my county, party politics are the complete opposite of what people perceive them to be on a national scale. The Republicans are horrible.

 

[rmabrey]

I love election time. The ingo threads remind me how Obama got elected in the first place

 

[lashicoN]

I love election time. The ingo threads remind me how Obama got elected in the first place

Knew how to give a speech, told lots of lies, and had a terrible opponent?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I love election time. The ingo threads remind me how Obama got elected in the first place

Rock star charisma, giving away many free things, inviting us to go back stage & get !@#$ed in the !#$...

Sometimes I feel like he's Steven Tyler & I'm Julia Holcomb...

 

[chizzle]

Below the belt

Here is another article that hints more of racism than anti-semitism.

Say Anything » Ron Paul: Racist Anti-Semite

Calling Ron Paul anti semitic because he wants to stop giving away money to fund another country's military, seems like a feeble attempt to call somebody "racist" just because he doesn't want to give away money to a foreign country that the US doesn't have. By that same line of reasoning, Ron Paul would be "anti":

Afganistan
Bulgaria
Germany
Iraq
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Kyrgystan
Kosovo
Netherlands
Quatar
South Korea
Phillipines
Portugal
Spain
United Kingdom

When you start saying that Ron Paul is "anti English" because he wants to pull us out of the UK, I think most people can see how ridiculous that line of reasoning is. I'm all for honest appraisals of candidates qualifications for president, but to me calling Ron Paul "anti semitic" just because he's trying to help us balance our balooning military budget, is hitting below the belt.

 

[88GT]

Left & Right is a con game to keep us fighting in a way that keeps the Establishment in charge. I see just as many hypocrites on both sides. I also see people who truly support liberty on both sides.

I didn't say "left" or "right," did I?

Not every 'liberal' loves government intervention. Some are just there because they are sick of war and hypocrisy of the Establishment-controlled Republican Party. They don't all support tyranny of the Establishment-controlled Democrat Party.

Every liberal in the American sense (as opposed to the larger, broader definition of liberal in the historical sense; yes, I am aware of the difference) is perfectly content with using government to achieve his desires, even if that means the use of force against his fellow citizens. And every American liberal is ideologically wedded to the Democrat Party as the vehicle for using the government. They all support tyranny on some level because they all support using the government to force others to live by their moral code.

On the same token, not every 'conservative' supports the fascist police state that the Establishment-controlled Republican Party has created. They just vote for Republicans because they are sick of welfare and the hypocrisy of the Establishment-controlled Democrat Party. They don't all support the tyranny of their party. I could pick apart their lack of 'consistency' as well.

One is not a conservative if one supports tyranny, is he? It's not the label one applies to himself, but the belief system and the actions he takes and supports that defines him. You and mrjarrel seem not to be able to make that distinction very often.

There are people who would vote for a platform of liberty if they saw it. This is evidenced by a 'liberal' columnist writing the article in the OP, featured on a 'liberal' website. Can't happen? It just did.

And when that same "liberal" columnist wants something else done and sees the government as the only means to enforce it, will he draw the line and recognize it for the tyranny it is, or will he cherry-pick his position and conveniently shove to the back burner (or off the farking stove) his recent love for "liberty?" He's either not a dyed-in-the-wool liberal or he's selling newspapers. He cannot be both.

And obviously there are also the party-line zombie voters who will keep voting for their party no matter what the evidence shows about the candidate at hand. Such was the case in my county, when the fiscally-conservative DEMOCRAT county commissioner was defeated by the corrupt, collectivist scumbag Republican. In my county, party politics are the complete opposite of what people perceive them to be on a national scale. The Republicans are horrible.

And despite being the largest chunk of voters for each party, you still think you can get enough of them to move from the one that promises riches to the one that promises hard work? Have you seen the demographics of America today? You're either incredibly naive or blissfully optimistic of our chances. No offense intended.

The sad reality is that the reputation of each party is largely what the vast majority of the population relies on when pulling the lever. Probably less than 5% of the entire American population has anything more than a passing grasp of politics in this country. Half of them probably can't even identify the two major parties. We are in the minority. And of that minority, an even smaller segment is committed the realization of the fullest extent of liberties a man can reasonably obtain within a society. You and I and others on this discussion board are an anomaly; a freak of social nature; anathema to popular and reigning opinions. You give your fellow man way too much credit when it comes to voting, IMO. It's a laudable trait, but a senseless one too.

 

[rmabrey]

Knew how to give a speech, told lots of lies, and had a terrible opponent?

Rock star charisma, giving away many free things, inviting us to go back stage & get !@#$ed in the !#$...

Sometimes I feel like he's Steven Tyler & I'm Julia Holcomb...

You guys are giving him too much credit

 

[rambone]

One is not a conservative if one supports tyranny, is he? It's not the label one applies to himself, but the belief system and the actions he takes and supports that defines him.

I used to think that. But what then, is the difference between conservatives and libertarians? If conservatives support liberty in all cases, then why don't the two groups agree on more things? Most of the heated debates on this website do not involve liberals whatsoever.

Should I go through my list of grievances again? I'm talking about mainline conservative stances that are totally anti-liberty. Is the conservative movement ready to admit that the War on Drugs is tyranny? Every conservative from Ronald Reagan to Rush Limbaugh supports it. Are those guys phony conservatives, or does their conservative platform actually contain beliefs that promote tyranny?

- Rambone, former conservative

 

[Expat]

I'm all for honest appraisals of candidates qualifications for president, but to me calling Ron Paul "anti semitic" just because he's trying to help us balance our balooning military budget, is hitting below the belt.

I think everyone knew I was just posting information that I had found because someone brought up the topic, but perhaps you do not. These are not my personal assertions. I know how politics work. Much of the "spin" that is being used is obvious and fairly juvenile IMHO.

 

[chizzle]

I think everyone knew I was just posting information that I had found because someone brought up the topic, but perhaps you do not. These are not my personal assertions. I know how politics work. Much of the "spin" that is being used is obvious and fairly juvenile IMHO.

My apoligies; I thought you were the person who originally posted the comment that he thought Ron Paul was anti semitic (actually was member "Right Winger") without any facts to back up his opinion.

 

[Lead Head]

No matter what happens, we must never give up.

Freedom is dying.

RP has my vote but if ANY repubicant (Mickey Mouse, etc.) has the lead in the final run-up, I will vote for them. Not so much to vote them in, but to vote the current guy out.

It has become a game of chess.

They think it's a shell game.

Oh hell, maybe Bernie Madoff should be let of prison to run the country instead. At least he could run the Federal Ponzi Scheme successfully.

 

[rich8483]

ron paul is as anti semetic as i am part of the kkk for not voting for obama.

 

[dross]

I didn't say "left" or "right," did I?



Every liberal in the American sense (as opposed to the larger, broader definition of liberal in the historical sense; yes, I am aware of the difference) is perfectly content with using government to achieve his desires, even if that means the use of force against his fellow citizens. And every American liberal is ideologically wedded to the Democrat Party as the vehicle for using the government. They all support tyranny on some level because they all support using the government to force others to live by their moral code.



One is not a conservative if one supports tyranny, is he? It's not the label one applies to himself, but the belief system and the actions he takes and supports that defines him. You and mrjarrel seem not to be able to make that distinction very often.



And when that same "liberal" columnist wants something else done and sees the government as the only means to enforce it, will he draw the line and recognize it for the tyranny it is, or will he cherry-pick his position and conveniently shove to the back burner (or off the farking stove) his recent love for "liberty?" He's either not a dyed-in-the-wool liberal or he's selling newspapers. He cannot be both.


And despite being the largest chunk of voters for each party, you still think you can get enough of them to move from the one that promises riches to the one that promises hard work? Have you seen the demographics of America today? You're either incredibly naive or blissfully optimistic of our chances. No offense intended.

The sad reality is that the reputation of each party is largely what the vast majority of the population relies on when pulling the lever. Probably less than 5% of the entire American population has anything more than a passing grasp of politics in this country. Half of them probably can't even identify the two major parties. We are in the minority. And of that minority, an even smaller segment is committed the realization of the fullest extent of liberties a man can reasonably obtain within a society. You and I and others on this discussion board are an anomaly; a freak of social nature; anathema to popular and reigning opinions. You give your fellow man way too much credit when it comes to voting, IMO. It's a laudable trait, but a senseless one too.

Excellent post. Ideology and politics are two separate things. When you give everyone the vote, most will vote self-interest over principle. That's not going to change in a million years. This is the error socialists make, the belief that we just have to get everyone on the same page and then they'll work for the collective rather than for themselves. Many libertarians share that same flaw. "If we just show everyone how liberty is really in their best interest, then we can all join hands and sing Kumbaya together."

I agree that full liberty as defined by libertarianism is the best way. Newsflash to the World: Ain't gonna happen.

Here's another truth: "Everyone" is an idiot. Most people in this country wouldn't understand this thread if they read it. This is how some of the same people can vote for Reagan and then vote for Obama. You can't take the politics out of politics.

So where does that leave us? Where we've always been - slowing the advance of tyranny and voting for the lesser of evils. Or we can retreat to our rainbow world and raise our unicorns.

 

[rambone]

I agree that full liberty as defined by libertarianism is the best way. Newsflash to the World: Ain't gonna happen.

That might be a person's rationale for voting (R) in the general election. But this is the primary race... and we are deciding whether to change the party from within -or- to keep it on the same repugnant course its been on. A wise move for Republicans would be to attract the liberty movement, instead of infuriating/alienating them with another feckless Establishment candidate.

 

[dross]

That might be a person's rationale for voting (R) in the general election. But this is the primary race... and we are deciding whether to change the party from within -or- to keep it on the same repugnant course its been on. A wise move for Republicans would be to attract the liberty movement, instead of infuriating/alienating them with another feckless Establishment candidate.

I agree with this. I might vote for Ron Paul in the primary for exactly that reason, even though I disagree with him on foreign policy. It would also depend on what the particular politics looked like at that moment.