Since the last thread by this name did (finally) manage to ferret out a Ron Paul Tea Party type, let's see what manages to fly through internal flack attacks a second time around.
The missing thread on GOP and Tea(party) plans,probabilities and possibilities for 'Merica (and us) II
Tue, 2011-01-25 10:05
#1
The missing thread on GOP and Tea(party) plans,probabilities and possibilities for 'Merica (and us) II
Tue, 2011-01-25 10:07
#2
I learned that Libertarians like Paul can cause great confusion among the average masses. Anyone else pick that up? : )
Tue, 2011-01-25 11:50
#3
Picking things up, and reading too. You're asking a lot aren't you? Libertarianism to my mind is a half-assed ideology at best. If one were to contemplate doing away with centralized rule, why stop at elected officials and leave the unelected corporate rulers to go begging for their just desserts.
Tue, 2011-01-25 12:08
#4
Since the last thread by this name did (finally) manage to ferret out a Ron Paul Tea Party type..
So, what you're saying is that the G-man got the T-man?
Tue, 2011-01-25 12:23
#5
SO...what I have to admit to is having a dialup connection. Sorry. I'm sure it's a giggle.
Tue, 2011-01-25 12:34
#6
No need to get all dialed up.
Tue, 2011-01-25 12:47
#7
Yeah, the link isn't really necessary anyway.
Tue, 2011-01-25 12:59
#8
Ok, so yes, since I am probably the 'ferreted' one you refer to (and I hope you don't mind my spam). As I mentioned, I am in the middle of reading Ron Paul's book "The Revolution - A manifesto" and learning more about him without jumping to serious conclusions. I will let you know if I am a believer when I am done. See, guys, I am a practical man. We can all have great philosofies about utopia in the world and America in particular. Yet, we are where we are. And yes, I also nearly concluded that the American polticial merry go round is pretty much F.. UP Beyond All Repair. So, but what do we want? A new civil war, a second American revolution? Or substantial change from within the system? Being a pacifist (when not attacked by nazis) and a democrat, I prefer the latter. Name me one other viable alternative within their system that you can actually see will make a positive change.
Tue, 2011-01-25 13:12
#9
And that is supposed to mean?
Or is it time to scuttle away again, having dropped your marker.
Tue, 2011-01-25 13:14
#10
Learning to spell would be a helluva good start.
Tue, 2011-01-25 13:32
#11
And that is supposed to mean?
Or is it time to scuttle away again, having dropped your marker.
Gee, G, is that an invitation to stay?
Tue, 2011-01-25 13:40
#12
Nope. Just the offer of a penny for an explanation of what the hell you're up to this time with the fatuous crap
Tue, 2011-01-25 13:58
#13
Oh, I see, now it is time to pick on the language abilities of immigrants... That is a great way to change the subject. American and to a lesser extent Canadian politics work exactly the same way: first play the man, then the ball. Well, I told you: we are where we are for a reason. Maybe, as a European immigrant I am simply des-illussioned with the lack of the quality of the North American debate. However, given web-sites like these, I still have not given up hope...
Wed, 2011-01-26 00:18
#14
Looking at the third party dynamic for 2012
Americans think both major political parties are ideologically extreme. And 37% of them say they'd be open to supporting a third party candidate for President next year. Will 2012 be the year that finally sees a viable candidate from outside the two party system? Probably not.
37% of voters may be open to supporting a third party candidate but there's considerable division within those ranks about what kind of third party candidate they'd want to support. 14% of them want someone who's to the left of the Democrats. 29% want someone who's to the right of the Republicans. The largest group at 48% does want a centrist- someone more conservative than the Democrats but more liberal than the Republicans- but that only accounts for 18% of the overall electorate even open to supporting a middle ground third party candidate for President. That's not going to pick you up too many electoral votes.
There's no doubt that Americans might like options besides the current parties. 47% of them think the Democratic Party's too liberal to 34% who think it's about right and 10% who think it's too conservative. And 45% think the Republicans Party's too conservative to 29% who think it's about right and 18% who think it's too liberal. But there's not going to be any one size fits all alternative to the parties that's going to please everyone who thinks they're too extreme. And that's why we'll probably have yet another election next year without a serious third party candidate.
Wed, 2011-01-26 00:23
#15
You are forgetting the numer of folks here who parted with a "libertarian" progressive self-description a couple of years back, as though it was a key to the crown jewels. There's something about "liberty" with its connotation of "freedom" and capacity to express "self" that a psychologist could explain as rooted in our childhood, before an idea of "social" kicks in, surely. But as you say, unexamined, it's "half-assed" at best.
My political philosophy for what it's worth, is that there are civil libertarians and economic libertarians.
I'm a civil libertarian. Issues that are very important to me are (grass roots: "Power to the People") democracy, egalitarianism, human rights, civil liberties and antiwar/anti-interventionism. I also couple this with progressivism as I see the value and benefits of child care for our children, quality education for our young people, universal health care for everyone; for a healthy society, welfare for our poor and less fortunate citizens, employment insurance for those with the misfortune of having lost their jobs and pensions for our senior citizens.
To sum up, I want a welfare state, not a warfare police state.
Wed, 2011-01-26 10:13
#16
Nope. Just the offer of a penny for an explanation of what the hell you're up to this time with the fatuous crap
Geez George, if you don't get it, fine, but must you be so insulting all the time?
Wed, 2011-01-26 11:40
#17
37% of voters may be open to supporting a third party candidate but there's considerable division within those ranks about what kind of third party candidate they'd want to support. 14% of them want someone who's to the left of the Democrats. 29% want someone who's to the right of the Republicans. The largest group at 48% does want a centrist- someone more conservative than the Democrats but more liberal than the Republicans- but that only accounts for 18% of the overall electorate even open to supporting a middle ground third party candidate for President. That's not going to pick you up too many electoral votes.
There's no doubt that Americans might like options besides the current parties. 47% of them think the Democratic Party's too liberal to 34% who think it's about right and 10% who think it's too conservative. And 45% think the Republicans Party's too conservative to 29% who think it's about right and 18% who think it's too liberal. But there's not going to be any one size fits all alternative to the parties that's going to please everyone who thinks they're too extreme. And that's why we'll probably have yet another election next year without a serious third party candidate.
These numbers leave me little hope for a progressive politics emerging in the Excited States. About 90% of the American public believes they have the right to lead the world. Their politicians mirror that with the biggest arsenal ever amassed in human history. I love the anti-imperialist voices from inside America but they are very marginalized and not a political force.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Wed, 2011-01-26 13:50
#18
Yeah George, listen to al-Qa-bong and cheer up! I used to be a naive, leftwing idealist when I was young, but now I feel it is time to grow up and face the fatuous crappy music: power hungry elite US fascists, their neocons and related powerhungry puppets do not respond to endless chatter! They can only be confronted through real-politiek: money and real power (and in a democracy - something that the US is trying hard to be even though it is badly failing at the moment): great ideas, supported by votes for candidates who work to reform the system. I still haven't heard what alternative great ideas people have for them. Nader had his chance and the American public did not bite. I think the puppet Obama sounded good to us all. I even understand that 80% of the Canadian population is still in love with him. But, as we all should know by now: he is in the pocket of the same special interests that got us into this mess and who only want one thing: to perpetuate the elite's establishment (war machine) agenda. An agenda that only benefits 5% of the US population. Don't worry George, I am not set on the tea partiers, (in particular when they will attract some seriously corruptable loonies like Palin), but for crying out loud, give me a better alternative than the Republicats! American patriots: vote for some real change we can all believe in next time, will ya OR simply conclude that your system is FUBAR and that you should stop telling everyone else that FUBAR = great!
Wed, 2011-01-26 15:07
#19
So Prince what are your views on imperialism? It is at the central core of the corrupt system you speak of. As a Canadian I have no time for any American politician that believes that by virtue of the fact they are American they get to set the rules. Which of course means there are no American politicians that I could support. I was never enamoured of Obama because from the start he just sounded like your typical American imperialist with their "duty to protect the world for democracy" crap.
I do not think you can dismantle the rule of the elite in your country through the pseudo democracy you live in. Given that corporations are treated as equals for the purposes of freedom of speech they are unlimited in their ability to attack any individual politician they choose. Your system was already awash in corporate money to a greater extent than most other western countries and then your SC last year kicked open the flood gates. I of course look at that and wonder where your society will end up if corporations are given the rights advocated by the Ron Paul's of this world.
Wed, 2011-01-26 16:15
#20
Good point, Kropotkin. See, Obama yesterday talks a great all-American game with his shining city on a hill blabla inspirational talk. Coming from him and knowing the dismal State of the Union, it sounds like a joke. In a healthy situation a good example is not necessarily something I am against: if you can be a great example that others want to follow, great, be one (and don't talk about it). IF on the other hand you can only try to be like that because you BS a lot and are a nazi bully, you lose automatically.
Corporate fascism believes in the golden rule: those who hold the gold (and buy the government's guns), make the rules. This is where things are (nearly) at. A civil, libertarian society must know how to curtail such excesses and how to put limits on the political influences of the corporations without castrating them and make them unsuitable for their main purpose: to create jobs and wealth. I agree that a first order of business in the US should be to put limits on what corporations can contribute to the political circus or the (corporate) elite will continue to buy who they want as their President and 'democratic' representatives.
In a Ron Paul world, yes, we would continue to rely on people and corporations as a tool of good; recognizing all the cynicism here about that, this may be naive. It may be hard to believe, but I continue to be a stubborn believer in the goodness of men and women. Don't forget, there are already a lot of rules for corporations, all they need is to be enforced. One example: The US has very high official corporate tax rates, however, the majority of multi-national businesses operating in the US do not pay taxes. This is where corporate fascism gets out of control.
btw: I may talk like an American, but i am a new Canadian, born and bred in Europe. From where I sit, within the system, tea party Ron Paul types are willing to call a spade a spade and are anti-imperialists who are ashamed of their current state of the union. That is a start. BTW: the politics of personal destruction based on rumour is another refined (North)American sport. Do I know if Paul is a racist? I assume based on what I have read of him he is not, but based on the comments made here, I will investigate some more.
Wed, 2011-01-26 16:46
#21
A civil, libertarian society must know how to curtail such excesses and how to put limits on the political influences of the corporations without castrating them and make them unsuitable for their main purpose: to create jobs and wealth. I agree that a first order of business in the US should be to put limits on what corporations can contribute to the political circus or the (corporate) elite will continue to buy who they want as their President and 'democratic' representatives.
Personally I think Ron Paul is not an overt racist it is merely that he doesn't care that the constitutional framework he advocates would negate the rights of minorities in favour of the property rights of owners.
I disagree fundamentally with the idea that corporations main purpose is to create jobs and wealth. The corporation has only one purpose and that is enhancing the shareholders stock value. If that means cutting jobs and destroying the wealth of a town so be it because it makes money for the stock market players.
The top 10% of the american population controls over 80% of the stocks in the rigged game. The top 1% own more than 40%. The stock market is control mechanism not a freedom machine.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:26
#22
Wyoming Will Try To Outlaw Sharia Law Too
State Rep. Gerald Gay (R) is proposing a similar ballot measure that would prevent judges from using sharia, or Islamic, law in their decisions. Like the Oklahoma measure, it would also block "international" law -- which could cause unseen effects for Wyoming's American Indian population.
And, again like in Oklahoma, Gay admits that sharia has not been a problem in his state. Echoing the works of Okla. State Rep. Rex Duncan (R), he calls it a "pre-emptive strike." He told the Billings Gazette that he doesn't want judges using Islamic tenets in cases involving honor killings or arranged marriages.
According to one 2000 estimate by Penn State's Association of Religion Data Archives, there are fewer than 300 Muslims in Wyoming.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:29
#23
U.S. House Votes to End Watergate-Era Finance System
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Republican-controlled U.S. House voted to eliminate public financing of presidential campaigns almost four decades after the Watergate scandal that led to its adoption.
Today’s 239-160 vote was primarily along party lines. Republicans said the U.S. can’t afford the program in an era of trillion-dollar budget deficits. The legislation would save $617 million over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
...
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, introduced the legislation in his chamber today. “In a time of exploding deficits and record debt, the last thing the American people want right now is to provide what amounts to welfare for politicians,” McConnell said in a statement.
The legislation is unlikely to advance in the Democratic- controlled Senate. Republicans are pushing it as part of their focus on reining in the federal deficit, which totaled $1.3 trillion in the 2010 fiscal year.
Under the financing program, the government matches the first $250 of each individual contribution for presidential candidates who are willing to limit their spending in primaries. In the general election, the major-party nominees receive a lump sum if they agree to forgo private fundraising except to cover legal and accounting costs.
The government also pays for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominating conventions.
Watergate Break-In
The program was enacted in 1974 after President Richard Nixon resigned from office amid revelations about his role in covering up the break-in of Democratic political offices at Washington’s Watergate Hotel. During probes of the break-in, reports surfaced of secret slush funds and illegal activities funded by some of the unregulated private donations to Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign. That spurred Congress to create the public financing system.
Democratic Representatives Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and David Price of North Carolina yesterday introduced legislation to overhaul the system. The legislation would increase spending limits, provide a greater federal match of campaign donations, and allow nominees to raise money in small amounts for the general election even after receiving a federal grant. It would also require candidates to disclose their top fundraisers.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:33
#24
Poor Sal Russo. The Tea Party Express leader had a rough day. Booked on MSNBC's "Hardball" to discuss Michele Bachmann's upcoming State of the Union rebuttal, instead he found himself confronted by Bachmann's idiotic whitewash of American history in a speech in Iowa over the weekend.
Bachmann's history was fractured from start to finish. She repeated her rant about "21 generations of Americans"; as many have pointed out, with our 235-year history, that makes a generation only about 11 years. But it got worse: Bachmann said the story of America was the effortless melding "of different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions." She went on:
How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting point from people groups all across the world. It didn't matter the color of their skin, it didn't matter their language, it didn't matter their economic status. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable?
Now, she didn't leave out the history of slavery; she just prettied it up: Slavery was a "scourge," she admitted, but "we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
...
Confronted with Bachmann's cracked history lesson by an irate Chris Matthews, the practiced Russo stumbled; "I think Michele Bachmann has been one of the best members of Congress," he started out, but Matthews cut him off to get him to respond to her slavery falsehood. Russo wouldn't even venture an answer as to when slavery was abolished -- is that a trick question? -- he just wanted to talk about the deficit, and he insisted that's all Bachmann was talking about too. Matthews wouldn't let him off the hook (the video is below).
Thu, 2011-01-27 02:56
#25
So... [libertarians] what are your views on imperialism? It is at the central core of the corrupt system you speak of. As a Canadian I have no time for any American politician that believes that by virtue of the fact they are American they get to set the rules. Which of course means there are no American politicians that I could support.
Some U.S. libertarian anti-interventionist politicians are Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Denis Kucinich.
Thu, 2011-01-27 07:09
#26
You are forgetting the numer of folks here who only reluctantly parted with a "libertarian" progressive self-description a couple of years back, as though it was a key to the crown jewels. There's something about "liberty" with its connotation of "freedom" and capacity to express "self" that a psychologist could explain as rooted in our childhood, before an idea of "social" kicks in, surely. But as you say, unexamined, it's "half-assed" at best.
Thu, 2011-01-27 11:56
#27
So... [libertarians] what are your views on imperialism? It is at the central core of the corrupt system you speak of. As a Canadian I have no time for any American politician that believes that by virtue of the fact they are American they get to set the rules. Which of course means there are no American politicians that I could support.
Some U.S. libertarian anti-interventionist politicians are Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Denis Kucinich.
Bullshit to that unless you mean he feels as an elected politician he shouldn't interfere in the military
As we turn to foreign policy, Paul says it is on this front that he finds himself most at odds with the GOP. However, he confides that he seldom talks about his foreign-policy positions, because what the voters really care about is economic matters. On the campaign trail, he says, “I’m not thinking about Afghanistan; foreign policy is really a complete non-issue.” He hopes that if he makes it to the Senate, there will be “room for discussion” on foreign-policy issues within the party, especially on Afghanistan. “Within Republican and conservative circles, the position is somewhat monolithic,” he says. “But how long is long enough? It’s too simplistic to say there is never a time to come home, or that it’s unpatriotic to debate. There are reasonable people, conservatives like me, who believe that defense is the primary role of the federal government, but do not believe that you can make Afghanistan into a nation. It never has been one.” If he had the chance to ask General Petraeus some questions, he says he’d ask, “Is there an end? How can it end? And is it still in our interests?” Nonetheless, he believes that Congress “should not micromanage war” and that efforts to control aspects of military policy, like troop levels, “may be unconstitutional.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243464/reeducation-rand-paul-robe...
Thu, 2011-01-27 12:11
#28
Here is an article about Haiti that confirms my beliefs about "libertarians." Wolves in sheep's clothing is the nicest thing I can say about the ones who overtly run as such. Baby Doc the true face of libertarian capitalism.
Barr, who represented Georgia's 7th District from 1995 to 2003, and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee, said Saturday that the allegations against Duvalier are just that.
"I deal with allegations all the time," he said. "They are the cheapest commodity on the market."
Barr said he returned to Port-au-Prince for the first time in nearly 30 years because he believed Duvalier is genuinely interested in alleviating Haiti's suffering. He said the Caribbean nation was in worse shape now than it was when Duvalier was at the helm.
"I also am reminded of others who have risen from the ashes," Barr said. "The city of Atlanta is the Phoenix city. The people of Haiti, likewise, will rise from the problems created by last year's earthquake and emerge stronger and better than before. That I know is Mr. Duvalier's deep wish and something that he knows in his heart."
Thu, 2011-01-27 23:18
#29
As we turn to foreign policy, Paul says it is on this front that he finds himself most at odds with the GOP. However, he confides that he seldom talks about his foreign-policy positions, because what the voters really care about is economic matters. On the campaign trail, he says, “I’m not thinking about Afghanistan; foreign policy is really a complete non-issue.” He hopes that if he makes it to the Senate, there will be “room for discussion” on foreign-policy issues within the party, especially on Afghanistan. “Within Republican and conservative circles, the position is somewhat monolithic,” he says. “But how long is long enough? It’s too simplistic to say there is never a time to come home, or that it’s unpatriotic to debate. There are reasonable people, conservatives like me, who believe that defense is the primary role of the federal government, but do not believe that you can make Afghanistan into a nation. It never has been one.” If he had the chance to ask General Petraeus some questions, he says he’d ask, “Is there an end? How can it end? And is it still in our interests?” Nonetheless, he believes that Congress “should not micromanage war” and that efforts to control aspects of military policy, like troop levels, “may be unconstitutional.”
Yes, that is Rand Paul.
Here is the father, Ron Paul:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/01/21/ron-paul-on-the-effects-of-our-wars/
Why I am an antiwar libertarian veteran:
http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2010/10/11/are-veterans-our-only-hope/
Fri, 2011-01-28 16:08
#30
n/m
Fri, 2011-01-28 16:56
#31
Ron Paul on Abortion:
- Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
- Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
- Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
- Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
- Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
- Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
- Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
- Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
- Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
- No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
- 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 NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
- Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
- 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 funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
- 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)
- Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
- Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers. (Apr 2009)
Ron Paul on Education:
- School prayer is not a federal issue. (Apr 2008)
- Private funds for arts work better than government funds. (Apr 2008)
- Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
- Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff. (Dec 2007)
- Don’t impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007)
- Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
- Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
- Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
- Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007)
- Voted NO on $40B for green public schools. (May 2009)
- Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
- Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
- Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
- Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
- Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
- Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
- Sponsored bill for private scholarships to public schools. (Feb 2003)
- Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
- Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Ron Paul on Energy and Oil:
- Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
- Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
- Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
- Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
- Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
- Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
- 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 passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
- Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
- 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)
- Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
- Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Ron Paul on the Environment:
- Neglected property rights during the industrial revolution. (Jan 2008)
- Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
- Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
- Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009)
- Voted NO on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009)
- Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008)
- Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
- Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
- Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
- Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
- Give tax breaks for start-up farms for 10-year commitment. (Jan 2008)
Ron Paul on Families and Children:
- Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005)
- State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
- Voted NO on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees. (Jun 2009)
- Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
- Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
- Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Ron Paul on Gun Control:
- Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)
- Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it’s not just a “collective right”. (Mar 2007)
- Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
- Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
- Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
- Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
- Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
- Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
- Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Sponsored bill against United Nations taxation on firearms. (Sep 2003)
- Individual right to self-defense at home and as self-defense. (Jan 1999)
- Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
Ron Paul on Health Care:
- Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care. (Apr 2008)
- Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling. (Apr 2008)
- Insurance companies & gov’t make healthcare unaffordable. (Oct 2007)
- Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007)
- Socialized medicine won’t work; nor managed care. (Oct 2007)
- Managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (Sep 2007)
- Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)
- Not government’s role to protect people like Terri Schiavo. (Sep 2007)
- Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)
- Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
- Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
- Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
- Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008)
- Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
- Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
- Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
- Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
- Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
Ron Paul on Immigration:
- If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007)
- Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
- Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)
- No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
- Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
- No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important. (Jun 2007)
- We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)
- Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
- End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2006)
- 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)
- Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. (Jan 2003)
- Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
- Government services in English only. (Mar 2008)
- Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)
Sat, 2011-01-29 02:48
#32
Which raises the question:
What does one do?
Does one work with the "best" there is, even though it is far from perfect and try to improve it?
Or does one wait for one's ideal that doesn't exist and may never exist - at least not in one's lifetime?
Sat, 2011-01-29 12:15
#33
Which raises the question? What does one do? 
I thought Stargazer's eulogy for libertarianism was just the neatest thing. 
Sat, 2011-01-29 13:42
#34
Yes, it is easier to remain a nay-sayer, an arm-chair patriot, an anti-American "we are superior" snob. I have not heard a single alternative (within their system) yet. Maybe the alternative is to forget about this discussion, forget about the US, stop supporting their economy and war machine ideologies and tell them to call us again when the revolution is over.
Sat, 2011-01-29 13:57
#35
Prince, I'm one of the very, very few attempting to make contact with the real world of the U.S. It should not be too difficult to understand that, given that I'm the author of the OP for this thread.
Tell us more about the U.S.economy and Tea Party expectations and where the partiots are coming from/going to. Do you read Joe Bageant by the way? Really love to have your take on his Deer Hunting With Jesus. It's cheap like borscht, out of Amazon. It might even give you something to talk about.
Sat, 2011-01-29 14:03
#36
Thanks George, I was quite fond of it as well :)
I think it's pretty clear that Ron Paul would be horrible for women, people of colour, immigrants, the poor, the state of medicare, not to mention education.
Prince, what about Bernie Sanders. There is a man whose policies and positions are worth supporting. Unfortunately the entire country is moving further and further to the right. Can anyone possibly claim the US is the bastion of "freedom" with a serious face? Bernie Sanders is only one man.
Aw, I missed the anti-American dig. How convenient to trot that out when pointing out the reality that the US is a hot bed of racism, anti-poor bashing and on a sure collision course with the rest of the world. The real anti-Americans are working in government, big mulit-nationals. The tea baggers are simply doing their dirty work for them.
I'm not sorry I don't have a lot of nice things to say abut America. Not when a large chunk of my friends live there, and they are denied essential services and a safety net. No, my fight is for the people I care for. You can call me anti-American all you like. It makes absolutely no difference to me.
Sat, 2011-01-29 14:17
#37
Yes, it is easier to remain a nay-sayer, an arm-chair patriot, an anti-American "we are superior" snob. I have not heard a single alternative (within their system) yet.
You want an alternative "within their system"?
Seriously?
"Within their system"??
Ok, let's see. Their system includes capital punishment, foreign wars of aggression sometimes run with conscription, government-run census, mass media, and inferior or no health care for tens of millions. I think I got that right, no?
All right, next. We run a census to determine how many people have died directly or indirectly because of being denied access to available health care.
Then, we identify the chief financiers and spokespersons for the movement aimed at maintaining the health care status quo or degrading it still further. Right?
Now, we charge them with mass murder and convict them based on the evidence we amassed, ok?
All right. Sentencing. Here I think we need to be charitable, just as the perps are. I'd offer them a choice, all "within their system": 1. Lethal injection; OR 2. Forced service on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't like it, none of it, but since you appear to think that solutions must conform with their "system", I guess our options are limited.
Sat, 2011-01-29 14:27
#38
Thanks guys for those ideas, I had not heard of Joe Bageant or know the finer details of Bernie Sanders; I will investigate and report back. For clarity; I moved to Canada 23 years ago from the country where the US got their ideas for their constitution and freedom of religion (Netherlands - then called appropriately: the United Provinces). It saddens me to see this experiment in good intentions and freedoms in the US go in the toilet. I agree: at the moment it is an unruly puppetshow, swayed by many superstitions and bought and paid for by the 5% running the show as well as their war machine and no-one (barring a few real patriots) seems to really notice or care. It is a massive disappointment, yet, we must remain hopeful.
Sat, 2011-01-29 15:25
#39
Sure George, I like provocative ideas like this one from Mr. Hunting with Jesus http://www.greanvillepost.com/?p=6761 as I do like Peter Joseph and his series of Zeitgeist productions, another what I would brand as a 'good patriot'. And yes, Bernie Sanders: Vermont always seemed to me one of the more saner States in the union. YET, within the confines of the Republicats system, those saner forces may actually be magnified when the Federal Government and its war machine takes a step back and that is where the tea baggers come in. I believe they are willing to shake down and call an end to the twisted elite's "money printing and buy whatever Presidential puppet the MIC wants game". If that happens, every well meaning person in the US can finally pursue their own brand of happiness. Also, under their watch the US will stop telling people around the world how to live their lives. I know, I am a naieve optimist. Real power usually winds up getting corrupted somehow.
Sat, 2011-01-29 15:41
#40
Since you have been a Canadian that long maybe you need to read some history from sources other than American. Please read some more history starting with the place of the Mohawk confederacy in the framing of the constitution.
You are aware as well that many of the Dutch colonists fought on the Loyalist side in the first american civil war. Here is a good article about the "losing" side of that first civil war. The American Revolution did not increase the franchise of the vote it merely brought about "home" rule. That revolution is alot like the current tea bag movement. The mob was instrumental in the American "revolution." Before the actual war broke out in the winning hearts and minds phase the mobs burnt to the ground all the Loyalist presses. The good Bostonians used Puritan methods on all who opposed their project of independence. The mob was used by the business leaders just like the tea bag movement today. I think it is important to understand the underlying history of the symbols this group uses.
II. The Loyalists and the American Revolution
The United Empire Loyalists (estimated by historians at about ten to fifteen percent of the population of the Thirteen Colonies, or roughly 250,000 people) came from every class and walk of life. Some were colonial officials or wealthy landowners or prosperous merchants or professionals for whom the British connection was of great personal importance. But the majority were ordinary Americans – farmers, craftsmen, fishers, tradesmen, and volunteer soldiers. They were of many ethnic groups, including German, Dutch, English, Irish and Scots, and of different religious denominations, including Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Roman Catholics and Jews. There were also black slaves who were freed if they took up arms on the side of the Crown, and various Amerindian tribes, particularly the Mohawks, who remained loyal allies of the British/Loyalist forces throughout the War.
The Loyalists opposed the Revolution for a number of reasons. Some believed that the British government had the right to ask the colonies to pay half the cost of their own defence even without having direct representation in the British Parliament. Other Loyalists opposed parliamentary taxation, but did not consider violent opposition justified. Even if they had some sympathy with the revolutionaries, they often became Loyalists out of outrage at the excesses of the "rebels" and the persecutions they suffered for refusing to actively support the rebellion. At the hands of the “Patriot” (i.e. revolutionary) authorities, Loyalists (contemptuously called “Tories” by their enemies), on refusing to swear allegiance to the revolutionary government, faced confiscation of their property, imprisonment, torture and/or execution. Where the Patriots were in power, Loyalists were denied the right to vote, sell land, sue their debtors or work in certain professions or trades. They were also subjected to the tyranny of mob rule. Typical of their attitude was that of Rev. Mather Byles, who mused “Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?”
During the War, many Loyalists left their homes, often coming north to Canada to join one of 50 or so colonial regiments fighting for the Crown (regiments such as the King’s Royal Regiment of New York). They had to endure tremendous hardships in making their escape and in the ensuing struggles. Their wives were often left to manage their farms or businesses and care for their children, with little sympathy from their neighbours, who regarded them as traitors and as real or potential spies for the British. They frequently chose to make their way to Canada, in great distress, to rejoin their husbands. Many
Loyalists flocked to New York City, a place of refuge which remained in British hands until the end of hostilities.
http://www.learnquebec.ca/export/sites/learn/en/content/curriculum/socia...
Sat, 2011-01-29 15:43
#41
PofO: "If that happens, every well meaning person in the US can finally pursue their own brand of happiness. Also, under their watch the US will stop telling people around the world how to live their lives. I know, I am a naieve optimist. Real power usually winds up getting corrupted somehow. "
I dunno. Still sounds awfully libertarian to me. 
Sat, 2011-01-29 15:46
#42
You'll just have to trust me on this one - there is no way in hell the tea party people are going to usher in a movement to end the "twisted elites money printing". The Tea party people ARE for unfettered corporatism and last time I checked, assisting the top 2 percent in their quest for greater riches is not exactly helping the average person. Not too mention the hard core religious who wish to stop all public education, eliminate taxes completely and end any and all forms of assistance unless it is church provided.
The tea party s backed, funded, supported and paid for by multi-millionaires (Limbaugh, etc.) and billionaires (see Koch brothers).
I have absolutely no clue where you get the idea the tea baggers will somehow usher in a revolution "for the people". I would really like to understand how you came upon this conclusion.
Your misplaced optimism about the tea party is sort of scary. I assumed you would know exactly what they stand for. Look at my Ron Paul on the issues list (above). These are the EXACT same things the tea party believes in. How can you possibly consider them to be the bringers of anything even remotely good?
Sat, 2011-01-29 16:13
#43
Stargazer
Thanks for the quotes. The "Puritan" model is alive and well within the real movers and shakers of the tea party. Like the original Boston tea party organizers they are racist, intolerant and willing to use violence to terrorize people into compliance. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was a genocidal regime and its Puritan roots are not a shining light and example for the world. The Puritan politics of rule by terror was what got them "persecuted" in Britain to begin with.
Sat, 2011-01-29 16:47
#44
I think PoO is confusing Ron Paul's antiwar stance (which isn't really that anti-war) with the tea baggers.
The tea partiers love war. They can't wait until the End Times, when they'll be raptured into heaven while the rest of the people die a miserable death.You may also want to consider the fact that the Left Behind series, which is all about how the religious wrong will go to heaven and leave this earth for the heathens to burn, has sold millions upon millions of copies, and this is taught in many schools.
Have a look at this particular brand of Republican-Tea Bagger here:
http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?155320-Egyptian-Political-Unrest-and-the...
Wonderfully marvelous to see the nations lining up according to prophecy! 
This is a quote from a Rapture Ready member. It's about the crisis in Egypt
About Left Behind:
In 1998, the first four books of the series held the top four slots simultaneously,[1] despite the fact that the New York Times ' Bestseller's list does not take Protestant bookstore sales into account. Book 10 debuted at number one on this list.[1] Total sales for the series have surpassed 65 million copies. Seven titles in the adult series have reached #1 on the bestseller lists for the New York Times, USA Today, and Publishers Weekly.[2]
From Wikipedia.
These are the people you think will save America???
Sat, 2011-01-29 19:56
#45
You know that saying that people like Ron Paul 'love war' is a perversion. Yes, I am also uncomfortable with populist movements yet such is the nature of democracies. We will always have religious loonies and demagogues with us, but that should not prevent us from remaining rational or working hard for progress within the system. My view is that at this point the US does not have a meaningful democracy. The Republicats cater to the corporations and related power brokers who buy them. That this group represents maybe 5% of the population and includes criminal elements who control the MIC and are connected to financiers on Wall Street is the biggest problem of them all. We are talking problems like the JFK assissination, 9/11, the financial crisis (i.e. having foreknowledge and not doing anything and/or even planning such big events in order to advance an elitist, pre-determined agenda that mostly includes feeding a war-machine, creating more money and power for a small elite establishment.
Where we likely differ in opinion is wrt the potential benevolent role the US Federal Government can play at this moment in time in all this. I think less is more at the moment; Obama (who initially I also believed could be a reformer) has shown that more Goverment does not mean more power for the people, but more power for the elitists. The Federal Government's power and its business elite ties need to be broken. End or reform the Federal Reserve, end corporate contributions to the political process. Unless those issues are tackled, it doesn't matter what else is debated or what laws are passed by the Republicats; the war machine will over-shadow anything good that Government may do; at this point it is on track to bankrupt the nation. Ron Paul is the only Federal politician who I see taking on this critical issue in a meaningful way. He says this will require a (bloodless) revolution. I agree. Do I believe anything good will come out of that?
I believe in the goodness of many Americans and at this point do not expect that from their Federal government. Their Federal government needs to be cleaned up and downsized. The CIA splintered (as JFK wanted to do). State laws can protect people's rights. If this Federal monster can be slain or controlled, the saner voices and the goodness of America may finally come more to the foreground again.
Sat, 2011-01-29 20:12
#46
Prince, you've been shown Paul's other positions. Read Bageant in detail(don't just google something up, for chrissake) and observe how the "federal monster" was made a monster by naive, poorly educated people late in the postwar period who wanted nothing more than a job and a pickup truck to go hunting . "Good" people, but as Joe will explain, "dumb as a bag of hair," and now like putty in the hands of the Pauls. Clueless and dangerous as hell.
Sat, 2011-01-29 21:05
#47
PoO, nowhere did claim Ron Paul "loves war". I merely pointed out to you that the people you think are leading the revolution DO love war. They love it because it fits with their version of a strong America. They love war because it whips up the ultra patriotism that binds these people like glue to their corporate overloards. They love war because it creates massive wealth for the military industrial machine. There will not be one penny taken from the nearly 70 percent of money that goes towards funding the war. You have the tea baggers and republicans to thank for that (with help from the Blue Democrats)
At this point though I leave you to do your own research. You can pin your hopes on a strangled false democracy. I chose to live in reality and understand just what types of monsters can be bred from propaganda and anti-government rhetoric and why these people advocate for a system that is completely against their best interests.
I think it is healthy and democratic to question government. I do not think it is healthy to destroy education, eliminate any and all assistance, promote hatred and intolerance, elevate corporations to the status of "personhood" and cheer for the destruction of the environment. Not to mention the whole "take back America" BS. Take it back to what? pre Civil war?
The birthers, the militia movements, Blackwater mercenaries, neo-nazis, evangelical christians - they are all in this together. These people are set to destroy whatever democratic systems are left, and it seems to me you still do not fully understand this.
Sun, 2011-01-30 11:15
#48
Oh, and about all other (but economic/national security) issues. A true freedom lover allows people choices. No-one should be imposing those choices on anyone else. I think we will all be much better served if the power to choose for this or that (who to be with, reproduction issues/how to have sex, religious freedoms, what to smoke/drink, etc etc etc) is kept out of the Federal debate. It only serves to a) inflame the masses and with it perpetuate a divide and conquer game around issues that are of little material interest for the well functioning of the US Federal Government b) with it take up valuable time and divert people and money from the issues where the attention should be focussed on: the financial/special interest mess, after that, we'll talk about other things. Ultimately though, as with religion, that discussion is not likely going to lead to any specific conclusion. And why should it? In a land of true freedom, people are allowed their own wacky beliefs (as long as they do not bother anyone else).
Sun, 2011-01-30 11:22
#49
Allright George, I will put "Deer Hunting with Jesus" on my to read list.
Stargazer, I am talking about taking back America from its insane special interests. MIC and its financiers and power elite first and foremost but I am also talking about many well funded others - big corporate interests mostly - who greedily take (Paul calls is looting) from their society under the guise of some sort of beneficial government program. Here is a section from Ron Paul's "Revolution" book (which hopefully also answers to the critics that he as a libertarian will only benefit business and screw the little guy): 'Now, whatever moral and philosophical attractiveness, the free economy I have just proposed, in which no one is allowed to use Government power to loot anyone else, is sometimes critized as a "pro-business" philosophy that favors the well-to-do. This criticism could not be more off target. As I have said, business, too, want special favors from government and lobby energetically for all kinds of wealth transfers for themselves'. This is exactly what is wrong with America now.
You could be right: anyone attempting such revolution will be violently repelled (as JFK was) and possibly sucked into the mainstream system or spit out. It is quite possible that a yelper like Palin etc will be embraced by these special interest to subvert a good idea. Yet, my point is: if we stop trying, we basically have given up and are letting the bad guys win, as is the case now (perhaps one reason why 50% of the electorate is turning itself off from the process). Even though they may have great ideas, I do not see Nader, Bageant, or Sanders start this revolution.
The useless left-right Republicat paradigm will automatically be invoked in this struggle as a way to divide and conquer the struggling yet well-meaning middle classes who want change. IF, however, the more saner parts of America's middle class bind together and rally around a strong principled leader (and I am not talking about the collection of blackwater mercenaries etc or a puppet like Obama who are hired guns for the 5% lunatic, greedy fringe controlling the game right now), we may see progress. In that context it was actually very good to see people like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader in discussions about how to work together.
Sun, 2011-01-30 15:04
#50
Okay, well, I'm done here. Anyone else?
Sun, 2011-01-30 15:38
#51
Ron Paul wants to take things backwards not forwards. I would prefer Obama over Ron Paul.
Despite all his talk about freedom and government invasion into civil rights, he doesn't seem to have much of a clue about the right to personal sovereignty over our bodies. So despite what critical things he may be saying about the military-industrial complex, I don't find him very credible. I don't believe that Ron Paul ha a very developed sense of what freedom is.
Additionally Ron Paul does not seem very comfortable with diversity. Paul can eliminate the Federal Reserve all he wants, (or talk about it at least, I have yet to see any kind of a plan as to how it could happen), but if he does not understand what unites us all as humans then nothing could change.
If Ron Paul wants to be taking seriously as an alternative to the money powers then why is he still in the Republican party? What a coward.
Not that we Canadians matter one bit to our rulers, but I'd prefer Obama over Ron Paul any day.