Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Storch

Yet you are here promoting a very right-wing politician and his rather right wing ideas?

Can you actually explain why you think you are not right wing (other than just denying you are that is)?

Wow man please calm down - in what way did I emotionally interpret it as a full-out assault on common sense politics?

I’m just saying that it doesn’t matter if Ron Paul is getting support the question is should he be supported and then pointed to this thread where a number of Ron Paul supporters have been totally unable to defend his right wing libertarian ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them.

Who is to say I have one or should have one? I think most people have noticed by now that I’m not quiet in giving an opinion so why do you think I haven’t? Because I don’t have one.

As I keep repeating I thing the US political system is dysfunctional, it isn’t working, and I and many others believe that it is because wealth has gained too much power. I think Americans should fix it, but that’s not going to happen if they give support to people like Ron Paul who’d make a bad situation worse.

Please stop getting so het up man – it wasn’t ‘emotion’ it was just pointing out my credentials as an opponent of warmongers as a response to your rather emotional accusation that I somehow was in favour of them and as you put it the wholesale slaughter of human beings.

Something I notice you are still rather melodramatically if not hysterically accusing me of.

 

Has it occured to anyone that Paul , once he loses the rep. nomination . Which he will . Won't switch to libertarian , or Independant ? Sort of like a straw party platform . The only question is , which mainstream party has more to lose in that case? Both for sure but I would think the rep. party does . He may indeed end up being a real nightmare to the rep. party .I would guess he would at least take 25%. But judging from the poll here with 63% support for a CONSERVATIVE on a LIBERAL leaning forum is shocking to say the least . I would never vote for a conservative or support one . Their side is directly the reason we are in the state we are in . A nd I have to say the Dem. aren't helping the situation much either .

When the best either side can produce is Romney or Obama . This election could be interesting . If he splits the rep. base , Obama can only gain . Not to mention Obama , will have a lot more female support now . The question is will Paul be willing to do it ?

 

Papa

The problem here is what do these people think is liberal, because you can’t be a political (left leaning) liberal if you support economic liberalism (in its recent incarnation called Neoliberalism)

Political liberals once supported economic liberalism because they believed it would undermine the political authority of the few. Then many political liberals realised that economic liberalism had led to an economic authority that curtailed ‘liberty’ as much as political authority did and began to turn against economic liberalism - just at the point when wealth began to realise that economic liberalism granted them more power in the shape of an economic authority that favoured them.

So political liberals became seen by those on the right as ‘left-wing’ opponents because they wished to undermine the power and wealth of the few (although many on the left see ‘liberals’ as being right leaning as they are still great champions of capitalism).

In the UK at the moment we have a right wing government made up of Liberals and Conservatives.

In an American context ‘liberals’ are seen as ‘left wing’ only because much of left wing thought has been systematically purged from US society over the last 50+ years.

In neoliberal terms that is why many outside the US believe that Americans have two right wing parties with a centre right Democratic Party and are more right wing Republican Party. Right wing libertarians like Ron Paul are in this to the far right of the equation.

 

No, Balbus, I am not a right-wing libertarian, no matter how badly you need for me to be one. If I'm going to promote anyone, it will be the candidate who will stop the theft of America and the illegal wars. You are pretending to not understand that. You dislike warmongers, yet you display a knee-jerk reaction to the one who will stop the theft and the illegal wars. You contradict yourself.

You dislike stealing, I'm sure, so am I to superimpose a Baptist face onto you and condemn you for being one? Even you know better than that.

You think I need to calm down? Really? What a lame attempt to turn the tables. I'm not the one who calls everyone who is tired of theft and war a confused right-wing libertarian. You are.

I think you need to re-read the paragraph I wrote concerning your irrational response to me commenting on someone's observation that the media distorts a candidate's progress and my video showing the reaction of people at a convention. These things are simply facts. You go off on little tangents whenever you hear what you believe to be support of Ron Paul, when in fact, all that was expressed was a criticism of the mainstream media and a video showing people's reaction to Mitt Romney. Calm down indeed!

But anyway, am I to assume that you don't support any of the canditates?

Oh, and Papa wolf's commentary on the divisions created by all of the bullshit names attached to people when it comes to politics was spot on, in my opinion. But that's just my opinion.

 

Think of the U.S. as like unto a house. Now think of that house as already on fire. What good does it do for you to flail away at some guy down the road who might have matches? That's what you're doing.

There's an ongoing, blatant theft of the people of the U.S., and you stand in opposition to someone who says the fire should be put out, meaning the theft should be addressed and dealt with. None of the other candidates are going to address the problem and deal with it. And they certainly aren't going to do anything about illegal wars or withdraw their support of other nations building illegal settlements in contravention of international law.

So, I don't understand your reasoning when it comes to someone who says they'll stop the illegal activity that current leaders are unwilling to stop--illegal activity done in the name of the people of the United States--including the financial drain on the country done in contravention of constitutional law. I don't understand that at all.

 

Storch

Yet you promote a right wing politician who’s neoliberal ideas would serve the interests of wealth to the detriment of everyone else?

I’ll ask you again - Can you actually explain why you think you are not right wing (other than just denying you are that is)?

Storch when you accuse people who opposes your views as wanting war and the wholesale slaughter of human beings – then yes you come across as a tad hysterical.

Rather than just spitting out slogans and unfounded accusations why not try and think things through and debate in a rational and reasonable way?

I’ve explained calmly and at length my opposition to the neoliberal ideas of right wing libertarians like Ron Paul and shown that they would seem to only serve the interests of a few rather than the many.

You haven’t addressed these criticisms let alone refuted them.

WOW what is it with you and the Baptists all of a sudden?

I’m just saying that it doesn’t matter if Ron Paul is getting support or not the question is should he be supported and I was just giving as an example this thread where a number of Ron Paul supporters have been totally unable to defend his right wing libertarian ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them.

 

You're worried that Ron Paul will serve the interests of wealth? That's an interesting statement for you to make considering that the interest of the wealthy is already being served by a highly corrupt financial institution. I see you're still not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to that issue. We can only guess at why you would continue to refuse to see such an eight-hundred pound gorilla in the room here!

You didn't understand the Baptist analogy, did you? You need to slow down and think about it. I could have used any religious denomination to illustrate my point. You are so quick to assign labels to people based on their ideas about one particular thing. You do this presumably so that you can more readily grab them by the collar and shake them up a bit before throwing them out the door. But I couldn't help but notice that you prefer to sit on the fence where you can claim no affiliation with any group. Feels safe there, doesn't it.

Nevertheless, according to your own way of thinking, I think it fitting to apply the label of "warmonger" to your collar. You will deny this, but the truth is that you say you stand against warmongers, yet you ctiticize the one guy who says he'll stop the illegal wars and the murders that result from those wars. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but if I'm a right-winger for wanting to put an end to the grand theft of the American people, and the illegal wars, then you're a warmonger for villifying the man who says he will put a stop to that theft and those wars. That's according to your logic, not mine.

Odd that you would not see your own hysteria. You see anyone who is against theft and illegal wars as right-wingers. You see right-wingers around every corner when all that is there is people who think that the theft and illegal wars should be stopped. Why would you want to quiet that?

And before you start again with your "serving the interests of the wealthy," I've already established that those interests are already being served through a constitutionally illegal financial institution. And I've already established that none of the candidates are willing to do anything about it; they're not even going to acknowledge it! So, you can stop playing blind when it comes to who is serving who. I think it's very, very clear.

 

If "none of the candidates are willing to do anything about it; they're not even going to acknowledge it" why give your endorsement of the corrupt system by participating in it and voting?

Wouldn't a boycott of the system be more appropriate?

 

I should have said that none of the candidates are willing to do anything about it "except for Ron Paul." But I thought that was kind of implied by the rest of my post.

Before your boycott idea is implemented, why not vote one more time, and vote for the only guy since Kennedy to say he'll get rid of illegal financial institutions that are draining the country and stop unnecessary wars?

You are right to call it a corrupt system. You're not allowed to break the rules, while those who make up the corrupt system are allowed to meet every challenge to their corruption with such things as Executive Orders. For instance, your suggestion that a boycott be implemented has now probably placed you squarely on a terrorist watch list. The deck is stacked. The system has failed.

 

One man cannot a crony capitalist system change. Unless he's superman of course (which some of you seem to believe).

 

outthere2,

Well, if you think you're going to get everyone to boycott the system, I think you need to apply your negative criticisms to that idea as well. A big part of a corrupt system is the unwillingness of those who suffer it to do anything about it. People hate inconvenience.

If Paul were elected and he tried to get rid of the illegal financial institutions and stop illegal wars, and corrupt politicians came out in force against him and shut down his efforts, then at least everyone would see exactly where the corruption lies.

Why don't you paint a picture for me of how you envision a boycott.

________________________________________

tyrsonswood,

I presume that you would stay home to watch cartoons if such a boycott as outthere2 is suggesting were to begin on a Saturday. That's the feeling I'm getting, anyway.

 

Actually, your post could be taken either way. I may have jumped the gun. It is kind of funny.

 

I don't have such grand aspirations. I thought a boycott of "a corrupt system" would be more appropriate and effective than participating in it. It would not be a passive act.

You sure do put a lot of faith in one guy. We're way beyond a one person fix. The problem is systemic in nature.

Again, I don't have any grand visions. However in my view, a successful voter boycott would send a strong message that "We the People" are united in protest of the crony capitalist system. It would be a first step toward a more equal society.

 

I'm afraid that putting your faith in a voter boycott is a grand illusion. All it will do is allow all the people who don't know better to go out and vote anyway. And they'll vote for the candidate who best serves the interest of their fear-based sensibilities--issues having to do with abortion or gay marriage or some other unresolved fear they harbor.

That's why political candidates bring out such issues at election time. They throw out these hooks when fishing for voters--give the dog a bone and it'll lick your hand, you know.

So, no, a boycott isn't going to work either. Now what?

 

What part of my post led you to that conclusion? You realize you're fighting a strawman right?

 

I guess the part where you claimed it would be more appropriate and effective than voting, and the part where you said it would be a first step toward a more equal society, and the part where you said it would not be a passive act.

So, why don't you explain how it is not a passive act? And explain how it would be more effective than voting. I believe I just explained to you how it would only give the vote of idiots more of a say. And then explain to me in what way it would be a first step toward a more equal society.

That's the grand illusion I was pointing out.

 

The grand illusion you point out originated from between your ears.

 

Yes, and what's between my ears originated from your keyboard, of all places.

 

But anyway, I assume you've heard of a thing called an Executive Order. Let's say that a sitting president decided to issue and sign an Executive Order concerning illegal wars and unconstitutional financial drains on the people of the United States. How do you think that would pan out?

Executive Orders are all the rage these days. Presidents both past and present have availed themselves of these things left and right.