Has Ron Paul Quit? 878
Lally Singh sends us to the inside-the-Beltway blog Wonkette for a quick take on a letter Ron Paul sent to his supporters. In this analysis, Dr. Paul has basically called it quits. "Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it's over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw my father change his political affiliation for the first time since he originally registered at the age of eighteen because of Ron Paul's message. That in itself is worth a lot.
I wouldn't necessarily have voted Paul, but I am glad my dad found a message to break through his increasingly jaded and hopeless view of American politicians.
Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
One question though: what happens to all the money he raised? I'm sure he hasn't burned through all of it, and he raised a lot from what I've read. Now that he's running a "leaner" campaign he will be using it even slower.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the record, Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN with some libertarian ideas - NOT a "libertarian", even though he ran once or twice on the Libertarian Party ticket. He's more of what they call a "paleoconservative" than a "libertarian". There is a wide variety of "libertarians", both left and right. The ones that end up in the Libertarian Party tend to be, as Bob Black once said, "Republicans who smoke dope."
And his support didn't come from "white supremacists" - that was bullshit media spin based on a couple donations.
I'm an anarchist myself, so I couldn't care less, but it was fun to see him skewer the other Republican candidates with their militarism and economic stupidity.
If McCain becomes President, we'll be at war with Iran AND Pakistan within six months - and the US economy will completely collapse as China dumps the dollar because they were cut off from Iranian oil and gas. Electing that senile old fool is a vote for the destruction of the United States.
Unfortunately, electing either Obama or Clinton will end up in the same place - it will just take a little longer as they screw around with "diplomacy" before starting their wars. Neither of them, let alone McCain, have any clue about US foreign policy.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Interesting)
A gold standard is just changing one object for another as a unit of exchange. You can use deer skins, rocks with holes in them, it's still money. If you want serious value behind the unit of exchange, exchange a valuable unit like a car or piece of machinery. Except those don't fit so well into a pocket. So you exchange cash. But cash makes your pocket fat, so we carry credit cards.
The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal.
Ron Paul has some good ideas I'd support, but the gold standard isn't one of them.
NOT the same old entrenched politics (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter who wins this race, it is NOT the same old entrenched politics.
My personal preference, in order of who I think would be best for the country, is Obama, Clinton, and McCain to win. Now, having said that, I have to admit, I don't see McCain winning as all that bad.
Yes, he will continue the war in Iraq. But you know what? Unlike George Bush, I think he has the competence to continue it in a manner in which we don't alienate the entire world and look like idiots to those who want us all dead. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against our troops fighting the war. In fact, I have an immense respect that I could never convey adequately. But when I think of how Bush has misused them... Well, being a Vietnam War prisoner, I don't think McCain will take our soldiers' lives so capriciously for the sake of building "political capital."
You know what I think is most exciting about John McCain? He hasn't kowtowed to the Jesus Crispies, and he's cleaning the clocks of people who do. If he can successfully show Republicans with brains (yes, contrary to popular belief, there are some) that you can be a conservative without being a sycophant to the religious nuts out there, that would represent anything BUT entrenched politics.
So yeah, I hope Obama wins. And barring that, I hope Clinton wins. But if neither of them do, unlike I've ever felt about George Bush, if John McCain wins, he'll have my support as President and Commander-in-Chief. Unlike the last two elections, I don't see this country as being a miserable failure at everything in the next four years no matter who wins.
Re:Real summary. (Score:1, Interesting)
Which is an aspect of currency being not just a convenient way to exchange goods, but an untraceable, omnipotent flow, kept out of the control of the ordinary citizen. In the past it was said it is no good to give the ordinary citizen even an indirect control over issuing money. Fine. Now we have most countries with massive national debt, debt affecting families, while banks multiply money with fractional reserve banking, and politician being able to get their country into staggering debt without being imprisoned, together with families until they fix it (am I too harsh?
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics (Score:5, Interesting)
At one time, he vehemently opposed the US's torture of prisoners abroad. Then he had a meeting with Bush, and suddenly he's got no problem with it.
Either someone has something on him, or he sold his convictions for power. In any case, he's lost my respect.
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Interesting)
Political compass misses ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Real summary. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Real summary. (Score:0, Interesting)
Go flaunt your bigotry someplace where it's acceptable and you'll get patted on the back for it.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Real summary. (Score:1, Interesting)
Not to be a troll, but how exactly does Obama equal Ron Paul? Seems like Obama doesn't really say much more than the typical Time for Change bs while continuing to stuff his pockets with lobbyist money.
I'll be the first to admit that he can talk the talk, and has the face that voters would go for (unlike Paul, who has all the right ideas, but lacks the charm and looks of those like Romney, Obama, etc), but what the hell does he actually stand for?
Does he ever give concrete examples of what he would support if elected? Usually this means proposing actual ideas instead of just listing off abstract drivel that everyone typically agrees with. Real solutions that I want to hear will always tick off a large group of voters because there are no answers to our real problems that will be a win-win for everyone - someone has to lose out.
For example, Paul has steadfastly supported letting my generation get out of Social Security since it obviously will not be solvent when I actually retire. This pisses off older folks like no other since they depend on me to fund their retirement.
Paul says he would abolish a huge part of the federal government. The rest, including Obama, limit themselves to saying that a change is needed in Washington, though we never learn what constitutes a change.
Paul has been crystal clear regarding immigration - the borders would be closed and there would be absolutely no amnesty. The other candidates tip-toe around the Latino vote with such statements as we definitely need some sort of comprehensive reform that is fair for everyone.
I don't agree with some of Paul's ideas, but I appreciate the fact that he speaks in clear and unambiguous terms. Sometimes one cannot explain a complex idea via a one minute soundbyte, but it seemed like Paul did not try to hide his agenda in order to appeal to everyone. Is there a source with a list of proof (proposed legislation by Obama, actual voting record, etc)?
Thanks
Re:America != The World (Score:1, Interesting)
Does it? The last time I went to Europe (and mind you, I was traveling through fairly prosperous countries — England, France, Germany, Italy), I was appalled at the public squat toilets, the far too narrow streets, the high price of food and fuel and rent, the crushing taxation, the sublimated violence that turned into rage at sports matches, the oppressive anti-liberty political atmosphere (which has since mutated in some regions into an outright surveillance society, for example England), the binge drinking... I distinctly recall that most people didn't have air conditioning and that heat waves resulted in people dying in surprising numbers (well, not that surprising when you consider they basically got cooked because they had insufficient environmental controls for the living conditions they endured.) I remember being shown a tiny little stove that one young couple in London used as their entire heating system. Their kid was buried in a ball of flannel every hour of the day. It was bloody *cold* in that flat. I starkly remember being driven to nausea over the smell of the water in the canals in Venice and in the alleyways of London. When Europe's standard of living catches up to ours, then you can talk to me about how your economic policies are all that. Europe as a whole presents a very wide variety of living standards relative to lowest income, depending upon the country you're in and what issue you're looking at. The US is considerably more uniform, and frankly, my experience is that the US has been a far more prosperous place to live; not that it is anything like it could be, it isn't, but it is better than the countries I visited, certainly, on almost every level (we're still being really stupid about healthcare, though.) I think you'd make a considerably stronger point if you were talking about the most successful countries in Europe, and not Europe as a whole. The problem is that even if you can point to a successful fiat system, that doesn't make the next fiat system work, because the system itself isn't stable — it is the management of the system that makes it or breaks it, and our management system — the fed — is pathological from the starting line. What I advocate is a system that is stable in and of itself, and that is a system based upon commodities of real value. This resists opinion and knee-jerk responses from twisting up the finances of the day. In my opinion. This is *all* in my opinion, of course.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2, Interesting)
What about the CONTRIBUTIONS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ron Paul should donate a large portion of that money to the EFF, ACLU, and anyone else staying in the fight for our civil liberties! We did not contribute for his reelection to congress!
Re:Real summary. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm ashamed to say so, but for me it's absolutely the opposite. I grew up in an all-white town and did not have a hint, not a hint of racism when I left for college. Then I got here, where there're tons of black people, and ever since --- but really only in the last year or two --- I've slowly gained racist tendencies and thoughts.
I don't believe I'm prejudiced against black people; I believe I evaluate each person on his own merits. But I'm an extreme victim of confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]; it really seems to me like a higher percentage of the black people I come into contact with on a daily basis are thugs, idiots, and/or jerks than the people of every other race.
Maybe it's just a culture thing; I'm not as accustomed to black culture's annoyances as I am to white culture's annoyances. Whatever it is, it scares me a little that I feel like I'm getting more racist with experience instead of less.
I'm highly ashamed to admit this, but I felt like a counterexample should speak up.
Re:Last consolation prize possible (Score:2, Interesting)
And the fact that his economic policies would be a disaster for this country, but who's counting? It has been nice having him the GOP debates, however, since he is the most sane Republican running. It was great seeing him saying WTF to Romney when Mittens said he'd leave the question of launching a nuclear strike without authority from Congress.
And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms can be reinserted.
"Limited government" was only ever a marketing slogan to the GOP, nothing more. What it really means is that they cut industry regulation and social spending, but baby bring on those pork barrel projects, bring on your social restrictions (abortion, gay marriage), bring on your War on Drugs. Democrats also regulate the things they don't like and spend on things they do, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites about it - and they don't add trillions to the national debt in the process.
Speaking of being two-faced, Paul talks about limited government power, but has no problems being against abortion and defining life as beginning at conception [loc.gov]*. He's also introduced legislation to prevent courts from hearing cases on abortion [loc.gov], and most egregiously, first amendment cases. [loc.gov] Your state government mandates school prayer? Too damned bad for you.
*The next step is to pretend that defining life as begining at conception is a reasonable arbitrary position. Problem with that is that defining life as beginning at birth is just as valid.
Re:Real summary. (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe this is our best hope of recovering our Republican party from the sleazy corrupt thieves that currently run it.
Ever since DeLay made such a slick machine out of institutionalized corruption and extortion, the Republican Party has been the hallmark of sleaze and complete amorality. It needs to be purged violently.
Above all, ask yourself, would Jesus approve of the main Republican line of morality these days -- the means justify the ends? Absolutely and unequivocally, NOT. The means are that on which we *will* be judged; the ends are for God alone. Every martyr and every saint has testified in light and in blood, that the means are all that matter; that every single step is to be taken in the direction of righteousness, and that there is no justification now or ever for sinning "for the greater good".
This extends so much further and deeper than just that moronic debate about "torture for the greater good", that it is almost inexpressible.
Like an Ostrich with its head in the Sand (Score:5, Interesting)
Ppl want to be entertained, bread and circuses and all, much like
So when ppl mention that the Federal Reserve really isn't federal, they
think your a nut job by default and don't bother to even read about it.
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/federal-reserve/ [libertydollar.org]
It is all verifiable.
It is all true.
But they dismiss it with a wave, so they can get back to the Computer, TV,
and watch their sports, boink their significant other, or read a book
about some made up shit that does not even exist.
In the meantime, the Fed loans the government its own money at 'interest'.
It is boring though, doesn't really entertain ppl, so it doesn't get much brain time.
My grandfather when I was a small child decades ago warned us about how bad
this would get, and I didn't really understand him then.
After many years, and a fair bit of reading and discussing with very intelligent
ppl in and out of the united states, I now see the shell game for what it is.
Some of the ppl that backed Ron Paul felt much like those ppl in V for vendetta
and are sick of blood sucking bastards that are ruining our country, and
charging us interest to do it to boot !
When the collapsing dollar dies, and the Amero is brought in to replace it,
the NAU is formed, the RealID and DNA database, and it suddenly dawns on you
that all of this was mentioned, you were warned and it was all in writing
by government officials in plain sight.
Lou dobbs covered the NAU forming, and the fact that there was no vote.
The Trans Texas Corridor was to be paid for by US tax dollars, but sold
to a Spanish billionaire who would run it as a for profit toll road
that we paid to build.
Fortunately the good ppl of Texas caught this and killed it, but it will
be back, and Rick Perry governor of Texas is in on it with them.
If you get a chance watch 911 press for truth to get a good Idea just how
bad things are getting, for the non religious folks also watch Zeitgeist the movie.
Also money as debt is a good primer for the Federal Reserve banking system.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 [google.com]
Most ppl will ignore this and plod on, just another brick in the wall.
Ex-MislTech
Re:Real summary. (Score:3, Interesting)
Time to be pedantic: in 2000, the Republicans held the House, Bush was elected President, and the Senate was split 50-50. The Democrats had control with Gore casting the tie-breaking vote until Bush and Cheney were sworn in, at which point Cheney held the tie-breaking vote. However, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent and coalitioned with the Democrats, giving the Democrats 51-49 control of the Senate until the 2002 elections. The period of total Republican control lasted from January 2003 to January 2007, at which point the Democrats retook both houses of Congress.
Ron didn't quit, America did (Score:4, Interesting)
1) For a candidate to win, MSM support is required
2) MSM is in favor, some directly and others indirectly, of 'news worthy' wars and other events
3) The best interests of the average American ARE NOT in line with the best interests of the average MSM corporation
Therefore: Allowing the media to select our election candidate is nothing short of complete insanity. Anyone that didn't vote for Paul ought to be committed, as they cannot form simple value judgments without the support of the idiot-box.
And, by the way, if we ever want this to REALLY change, we're going to have to bring the word 'revolution' back to an earlier meaning. Those powerful people are entrenched, folks, and it's all YOUR fault.