Won’t matter given what Panetta/Petraeus will be doing in moving functions to the CIA/DIA.

And completely OT BUT WI related:
“Community broadband is under attack in Wisconsin. AT&T and other telecom giants are spending millions to secure their dominance at the expense of schools, libraries, and public services. Wisconsin needs your help.

The target is WiscNet, a nonprofit buying coop that provides Internet access for several hundred Wisconsin organizations. It began in the early nineties, with funding from the National Science Foundation, as a way to bring affordable connectivity to the state’s education system. Today, 75% of Wisconsin’s schools and 95% of its public libraries rely on it for their Internet access.

Wisconsin Telecom Money Trough Now, AT&T wants to kill WiscNet and force the state’s schools to pay up. The University of Wisconsin, where WiscNet was first incubated, has received federal grants to expand the network to Wisconsin’s communities. A new bill in the state legislature would force the university to return $39 million in broadband stimulus funding, and it would bar the school from future participation in WiscNet. The project will be permanently crippled. UW will be forced to pay over $8 million annually for Internet access—more than four times its current bill.

We can stop this bill with your help. The telecom industry has donated well over $80 million to Wisconsin lawmakers over the past decade. We need to send a clear message: corporate money shouldn’t buy results at the expense of the public interest. Here’s how you can help:

1. If you live in Wisconsin, call or email your senator, representative, and governor. Ask them to remove sections 23–26 of the Omnibus Motion to the UW System bill.
2. Share this story on Facebook, tweet it, and send it to your Wisconsin contacts.
3. Go to rootstrikers.org and tell everyone how you’re taking action.

The Wisconsin state legislature is deliberating at this very moment. Please help us take a stand. If you have any questions, we’re here to help.”

From rootstrikers.org

If a president did as Ron Paul says he’d do, the top brass of the US military would treat it as a bluff and threaten to resign. (This may have been where Obama was early in his presidency.)

A president isn’t free to make that decision. Also, presidents have to do what big business wants.

Hence a MILITARY-CORPORATE COMPLEX is in charge. Each threatens it can bring everything crashing down unless things go as they want.

So, who’s in charge in our “democracy”? Not the people and not elected leaders like the president.

Not convincing. You need more than “may haves” and hence.

Of those on the stage last night, Ron Paul was the only non-clown candidate. When Romney said that anyone that stage was more qualified that Obama, he lost a bit more of his credibility by promoting TPaw and Bachman.
The other 2 serious contenders weren’t even on the stage: Huntsman and Johnson.

ya gotta love Paul he is no corporate dog like Romney or Obama

i agree with jjx – it’s not just the regulators that have been captured…it’s the entire bloody system.

**sound of EvilDrPuma thumping his head on his desk**

Mitt Romney appeared to say that it’s time to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, but he then hedged to the familiar refrain of having to base the decision on conditions on the ground and the advice of the generals

Mitt will lose on the issues with stands like this in the general election. Not that Mitt can win the GOP Primary. Never mind that being wishy washy on important issues is a loser this is the exact reason why Hilary lost the left she refused to be against the war.
Mitt is making tons of mistakes.

What’s to keep candidate Paul from forgeting his committment to end the wars, in the same way that president Obama forgot all the things that candidate Obama ran on?

What if the only parts of his campaign promises he decides to keep are ending Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance?

That eventuality would be no more unusual than what we’ve ben experiencing with Obummer.

The President can easily say go ahead quit 10 years of war and failure you should all have quit years ago plus we are dropping your benefits and retirement not only that any company that hires you won’t ever get a government contract EVER!
Obama may claim to be a Chicago Pol but he doesn’t have the Stones to be one.

Any general who says we can fight a war when we can’t afford to pay for a war should be fired.

My thoughts exactly. Hey: I’m “ok” (fwiw) with someone like Ron Paul running as a serious contender bc he speaks to some issues, such as the anti-War stand, that I think are “good” to have out there. There is much that I don’t agree with Ron Paul, however.

Anymore, though, I just figure that whoever happens to “win” will be a captive of the system and will go along with what they’re told.

Paul says some good stuff in campaign mode. So did Obama. So what??

Ron Paul has a long voting record that proves his votes match his rhetoric.

Explain further please this sounds very interesting.

The other 2 serious contenders weren’t even on the stage: Huntsman and Johnson.

Yep. FWIW, duly noted. More Kabuki Show to distract the masses. I cannot get too “invested” in this bunkum anymore. I really don’t think it matters who “wins.” Whomever the PTB want to be in the White House is who will win. Once there, they’ll mind their p’s & q’s, and that’ll be that.

Waste of time & money for sure.

Paul’s comment may be jarring, but it’s grounded in the actual Constitutional rendering of authority to the commander in chief of the armed forces.

Why is Ron Paul’s comment jarring? It’s the truth.

There are always eager up-and-coming colonels. Any president worth his salt would let them retire if they didn’t like his decisions. He’s the CIC.

To those of you praising Paul, let’s just get some perspective, shall we? Though Paul often makes a lot of sense on a very narrow range of issues, there should be no doubt that Ron Paul is one of the wingnuttiest of wingnuts to ever wing a nut. And if that little FACT doesn’t do it for you, here is another: he’s a fucking racist and a bigot. I want out of foreign entanglements just as much or perhaps more than Ron Paul. That doesn’t mean I’m prepared to support somebody who thinks states ought to be able to dictate how minorities are treated and that Social Security is a “ponzi scheme”.

I think you are saying that a candidate that is not owned will be prevented from “winning” the office. Therefore, by the act of “winning” a candidate proves that h/she is owned. Please correct me if I have that wrong.

So voting becomes a waste of time unless you prefer one political whore to another?

No disrespect goes. Just trying to understand.

The other 2 serious contenders weren’t even on the stage: Huntsman and Johnson.

Serious to win the General Election and beat Obama is very different than winning the GOP Primary the only way those two win the GOP Primary is if the GOP powers that be play some interesting games at the GOP convention games like blackmail, GOP delegate vote buying, extortion.
But if that happens can the 30%ers back those two after seeing their hopes dashed? Can the GOP still win if their most motivated voters think they just got screwed?

If a president did as Ron Paul says he’d do, the top brass of the US military would treat it as a bluff and threaten to resign. (This may have been where Obama was early in his presidency.)

So why couldn’t a president call their bluff and dare them to do their worst?

As Ron Paul seems to be aware, it is the president who has the power to command.

Nothing, of course. But, at least he’s saying something that makes sense and is not from someone with a corporate fist up their asses working their lips.

Preach on I still have problems when FDL supported Ron a while back.

I wouldn’t call ending the wars and restoring civil liberties a narrow range of issues.

And, even if I disagree with him on some other issues, some of them important, there’s something else to consider.

Ron Paul is that rarest of things, an honest politician. He would be an honest president.

you can’t be serious. we’re talking about the father of the Aqua Buddha….an honest-to-goodness racist bigoted wing nut from out west. a real american.

double-sheesh.

Bachmann/Paul or vs. I’d vote that ticket in a heartbeat!!! Another 4 years of the lying, duplicitous cowardly corporate weasel that we have now I cannot abide. At least a crazy assclown ticket like this might wake enough up to have a national Wisconsin moment before the Fascism cannot be stopped (it may be too late, frankly).

Yes. More or less, that’s what I think.

If a candidate is not “owned” by the PTB/MOTU/MIC, they will not “win.” If they are “owned,” then it doesn’t matter what they say in campaign mode bc they will do what they’re told.

Witness Obama in campaign mode v. Obama as POTUS.

Witness Bush v. Gore, aka the (sort of) bloodless coup.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

Agree. I would never vote for Paul, but that said, I “like” having him out there solely bc of the “narrow range of issues” with which I agree with him. At this stage, Paul is the only candidate that I know of (who’s permitted by the PTB to be viewed as “in contention”) who speaks truthfully about War, Inc.

It’s of some value that at least Paul is saying that. But yeah: on far too many other issues, I am in complete disagreement with him.

Sure. Vote for a racist asshole. Guess what that makes you?

heh… waving to Kris! Hope you’re well. I gotta run, so bye for now!

*raises hand* I know! I know! Pick me!

Hasta!

OT: hope your job is going great for you, Margaret. You need to chime in some day (maybe MyFDL, if you have time) to give us an update. Inquiring minds need to know!! Best to you.

workingclass June 14th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
14
In response to Watt4Bob @ 10 (show text)
Ron Paul has a long voting record that proves his votes match his rhetoric.

If that turns out to be false and Kelly’s scoring of votes project should confirm that if its true then Ron is both not honest but his Presidential run is dead.
When law makers say one thing but vote the other way I say Kelly should give them extra evil points.

Ron if he moves up in the polls might steal votes from Michelle can Mitt win in Iowa, South Carolina and Super Tuesday if Ron gets enough votes otherwise Michelle is the GOP nominee assuming Sarah stays on the sidelines.

There are no candidates on either side remotely worthy of being President.

Ron Paul it appears is the only candidate of either party who isn’t a corporate lap dog. Is he wrong about tons of things? Of course he is. Would he get my vote if it were a choice him and Obama? In a second. I’m far more concerned about the stuff he is right about than most of the stuff he’s wrong about.

Totally OT, but I’ll be in Austin by Sunday night! The move is this weekend! I’m stoked. We’ll have to all have lunch soon.

Sarah either needs to be in the next GOP debate or run third party but a third party run requires heavy cash who would back her the Fundies don’t have the cash the Corporate GOP has.

Does it bother you that the stuff he’s wrong about has to do with racial equality and basic human rights?

A guy with ties to the racist group Stormfront would get your vote over Obama? Heck don’t vote for President then I disagree that O is the lesser of 2 evils I’m not voting because I am tired of settling on Evil. Only real Lefties will get my vote or the Greens and Socialists.

Here is the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

If it peaks your interest feel free to look further. You will find that Paul does not talk one way and vote the other way.

I am neither a Libertarian nor an authority on things Ron Paul. My political values are very close to Dennis Kucinich. But I admire Paul for his candor and because he is not for sale.

Never mind freedom for corporations from government regulation means more mercury in our cat food, Fracking for gas means our tap water will catch fire, and taco bell can put less meat in our tacos, plus the minimum wage gone, child labor laws gone.

I think it says a lot that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are friends.

“…essentially a giveaway to the military to make decisions that they are not Constitutionally authorized to make”

The same generals who will inevitably be double dipping representatives of the arms merchants that profit from the ‘situation on the ground’.

Thanks. I agree. And it doesn’t matter in my opinion who our next Fascist president is. This is the interesting thing about Paul. He is the only declared candidate including Obama who is not a Fascist.

Meanwhile, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen says that, so weapons systems are not cut, pay and benefits for active and retired military personnel should be cut instead. Everything for the military contractors whom Mullen is undoubtedly about to join!

However, there are criticisms[90][91] which contend that Paul’s position is disingenuous because he often requests earmarks for bills that he supposedly knows will pass no matter which way he votes. For example, in 2007, he requested nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks in bills he voted against. A spokesman in the Fox News article says, “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.” One group supporting fiscal conservatism[90] finds Ron Paul’s actions with earmarks to be contradictory and cites his 2003 speech regarding the award of a Congressional Gold Medal, at which time the Congressman declared, “I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution;”[86] however, Paul himself has inserted appropriations for projects such as the renovation of a movie theater and subsidies for the shrimp industry, whereas reportedly, “neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.”[91] The Congressman has responded to criticism about earmarks by providing an explanation in his weekly column. As Paul says, “In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

Also any vote for a budget that is in the red is a vote for new taxes after all debt is a tax delayed as Milt used to say.

Exactly, and the thought of his idiot son hanging around makes me want to puke. The guy is what 75 frickin years old he couldn’t handle the job.

This morning’s Washington Post article about the debate only mentioned Ron Paul once, in passing:

The remaining men on stage — former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), and former Godfather’s Pizza executive Herman Cain — are considered long shots at best.

The article then went on to say a bit about things Santorum and Cain had said at the debate. But about Ron Paul — total silence.

I think it says something the way the MSM treat Ron Paul. If he’s their enemy, what does that say?

Paul voted against an amendment[150][151] that would have legally protected net neutrality: “One of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

Funny way to rationalize taking our freedom’s

Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET “Technology voter guide.” In response to critics, Paul said, “I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary.” He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.[155]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

Yeah that will go over real well with Soccer Moms.

Heya, Margaret.

I’m not disagreeing, you understand, but tell me, which President, since Reagan was coronated, has NOT been an asshole … one way or another?

I know, somebody’s gonna say that Bubba wasn’t as “perfect”, that way, as the rest of them … a “lesser weevil” and all that …

Still, when ya got to parse how cracked some would-be Presidential asses really are, well that’s a holey crusade gone simply too far over the moon.

Hope your job is ammenable to your spirits and that those whom you work “with” are beginning to appreciate their very good fortune …

;~DW

Ron Paul was one of two representatives to vote against the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007,[156] which states that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi Internet connection to the public, who “obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances” in relation to illegal visual media such as child pornography transferred over that connection, must register a report of their knowledge to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.[157]

In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions.[182][183] Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:

Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[209] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of … reproduction” from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[144] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[210]
In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade,” Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure.” He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court’s precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[211] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

Ron has a problem both with votes he supports and votes he goes weasel on.

Both are truth tellers. Not absolute truth. But political truth as they see it. They have honest differences and are willing to settle their differences with honest elections. I much prefer either of them to the Fascist whores in charge in Washington now.

In an October 2007 interview, Paul held that climate change is not a “major problem threatening civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

That will win the GOP Moderate votes after the tornadoes this year.

I take it you did not read my 50:)

MSM always runs around ignoring Ron Paul. They’d rather cover Weinergate or whatever cause du jour as opposed to giving Ron Paul any air time. I hear a lot of labels being thrown about here about Ron Paul, but all I know is that of the candidates on the field, Ron Paul has more favorable aspects about him than negatives.

4 more years of an idiot corporatist sell out, who only will destroy the Democratic brand even more, or someone who people like to run around labeling a racist although the proof of this is always so vague or just hinted at.

4 more years of a President who campaigned on hope and change and snuffed out both and only brought change for the rich, or someone who has consistently campaigned on the side of civil liberties and ending our foreign entanglements.

I would rather vote for Ron Paul and contend with the things I dislike about him as opposed to have 4 more years of war and intrusion into our civil liberties. If I have to take that bad with the good, it would be preferable to blindly swallow 4 more years of a complete and utter crook.

Veterans’ hospital access
Paul believes that the Veterans Administration should not be building more hospitals, and that VA hospitals should instead be phased out. He believes that government should pay to treat veterans in private hospitals, arguing they will get better care more cost-effectively.[253]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

There goes the Vet vote tell me does Ron have private healthcare or does he get congressional healthcare?

I would rather vote for Ron Paul and contend with the things I dislike about him as opposed to have 4 more years of war and intrusion into our civil liberties. If I have to take that bad with the good, it would be preferable to blindly swallow 4 more years of a complete and utter crook.

Ron collects government healthcare but does not want us to have it. Why do you think he will be any different than Obama once he gets to office?

I would have brought back the generals who retired in disgust under Bush (made it worth their while).

I would have retired/busted to private/(firing squad-ed) any subhuman who was a “good sycophant” under Bush in the military or government. You have to clear out the scum when you bring in a new administration, especially after one as bad as Bush’s.

But then again the despicable lying Obamination is “Bush II”, so he kept tons of Bush cronies and sycophants.

We (?) blew it in ’09 when the Republican Party could have been defined as a hate group and outlawed as a political party. Instead, wherever they have state majorities they’re dismantling the institutions of democracy.

_We_ blew it? How about Obama blew it with his lame stimulus, his crappy health care system and inability to fight effectively against the Republicans?

Why is it that whenever Paul’s name is mentioned, the Paul-bots come out in force? Here of all places?
Yo geniuses, do you really think anyone here will vote for him?
Seriously? Who you trying to convince?
It makes no sense. Who ever is paying you is wasting money.

He’s a racist. He’s a bigot. He DOES believe it’s OK for businesses to discriminate!!! And he does believe that gov. should let them!!!
He also wants to abolish every fed dept. EPA, FDA, etc …
He wants to abolish child labor laws?
Are you Fing kidding me? Even the fundiest of the fundies barely has the nerve to do that. Not Paul, he’s ecstatic about it. He’s proud of it.

So MAYBE he will end the wars. AND THAT’S A BIG FING MAYBE!
But he will definitely gut the government and protections the gov. provides for us peons. Basically he finishes off the race to fascism.

Are you people insane?
I agree with Margaret on this one:
“there should be no doubt that Ron Paul is one of the wingnuttiest of wingnuts to ever wing a nut. And if that little FACT doesn’t do it for you, here is another: he’s a fucking racist and a bigot. I want out of foreign entanglements just as much or perhaps more than Ron Paul. That doesn’t mean I’m prepared to support somebody who thinks states ought to be able to dictate how minorities are treated and that Social Security is a “ponzi scheme”.”

So seriously for even trying to pull this shite on here is beyond insulting. And don’t give me this anti-war nonsense. It’s all talk. And until he puts up, he can STFU.

And all you Paul-bots should be ashamed to even try such blatant lies here. Go pull that at HP. It’s corporate media, so they will let you lie, lie, and lie without correcting you.

I’m glad Ron Paul reminded us the Pres. commands the armed forces and not the other way around. Hope Professor Obama was listening. Gates and Betrayus continue to tell Obama and the nation when we will or will not exit Afghan and Iraq. Obama is a wus or lies an awful lot and lets Pentagon boys call the shots rather than keeping his campaign promises. Didn’t Pres Truman fire Gen. MacArthur? Lets move on. Wars are so obsolete…so yesterday. The armed forces hold on to the past with fear mongering… bad leadership decisions and the ability to take food off our table and to legally allow someone to steal 6.6 billion American taxpayer dollars. I’d like someone prosecuted for that theft. Work backwards or foreword from Bush boy Bremer. No do-overs for bad decisions by military BS leadership. Just get out of all BS “wars” now.

incorrect Paul does not take the health care and donates his salary

more war mongering, job exporting, bankster backing, civil liberty stomping party hacks –that should change things

So we should give up on even trying on the off chance that someone who has been a consistent voter in line with the Constitution might not get all of his ideas accomplished? Lets just give up on the whole thing because the current guy lied to us! Life is hopeless!

Come on. If you are that distraught, why are you even bothering to post a comment?

As Rick Santorum said, we ought to look at the candidates who have consistent records…i.e. Ron Paul. Always consistent, sometimes the only voice of dissent in the entire House.

“However, there are criticisms[90][91] which contend that Paul’s position is disingenuous because he often requests earmarks for bills that he supposedly knows will pass no matter which way he votes.”

Good work Things. So Paul brings home the bacon? It ain’t much but it’s a heck of a lot better than just calling him names.

your posts are fact based well thought out a pleasure to read

I wouldn’t frankly be too concerned about Paul’s positions on social issues. Those are all going to fall the Left’s way in due course, regardless who sits in the White House, just as they always have. The Right is powerless to stop that and the powers that are don’t really care much about gay marriage or abortion or the rest of that bible thumper idiocy one way or the other so they wouldn’t spend any great amount capital- political or otherwise- backing Paul on those. He would never get anything significant done on those from the Oval office.

Ron Paul is the only adult at the table when it comes to the military, its budget and the menace of the government’s inexorably expanding state security apparatus. Who else consistently speaks out against America’s endless wars and eroding civil liberties caused by legislation like the Patriot Act- and can back those statements up with a voting record to prove it? Neither the Dems or the GOP have anyone else with that kind of courage or principles. I’ll vote for anyone who strongly opposes both foreign wars and the Patriot Act because I trust anyone who does to be independent (as in not part of the corporate fascist machine that runs both parties) and I wouldn’t trust anyone who favors either to do the right thing on any other issue if bidden to by those same corporate fascists. And that includes Obama and everyone associated with him. The Dems are their tools, just as the mainstream GOP are.

paulbots? Get over yourself. these/we “so called paulbots” have been here longer than you, and that includes David Dayen.

Strategically the left should support a Ron Paul primary. Vote Obama in the general if you like.

You need to pay attention to when to switch to republican for the primary though. I don’t understand why this would not appeal to everyone here.

“Basically he finishes off the race to fascism.”

As matters now stand the federal government is owned by international corporations and operated for their benefit. It is this arrangement plus the militarism and the police state that I call Fascism. Paul opposes corporate ownership of government, militarism and encroachment of government on civil liberties. Paul is the anti Fascist. That’s why the Fascists hate him. Paul is pro business. That does not make him a Fascist.

If your political values are left of center you will naturally oppose Ron Paul who is conservative and well right of center. But he is conservative in the context of democracy and constitutional government. Real Fascists like Obama or Romney are the enemies of democracy and the rule of law. They are your real enemies.

If nobody comes forward to challenge Obama I will vote in the Republican primary for Ron Paul. It seems obvious to me but then I am not a Democrat.

I’ll probably register as a Republican to vote in the primary too. There won’t be a primary against Obama.

“If your political values are left of center you will naturally oppose Ron Paul who is conservative and well right of center. “
I’m left of center but I still appreciate what he stands for, and after Obama this might be Paul’s best opportunity.
Have you ever looked at politicalcompass.org. It’s a multi-dimensional plot and the 2008 candidates are scored.
As far as Margaret who said he was right on a very narrow range of issues, those are the main issues, and out of them come many more. War, militarism, empire. Empires abroad always ends up in a police state at home. Militarism is expensive and eventually bleeds us dry, unless like sun tzu explains, it should pay for itself in plunder, but the plunder is welfare for oil companies. Also, The Fed is not Federalized. The banks own Obama. It is they who are kicking people out of their homes and not being prosecuted by Holder. Prosecuting these criminals and clawing back our money should be priority one. They must be brought to heel or we’ll have another crash and it wont be too far in the future before they do it again. Next time I’ll bet we see street justice delivered.

Ron Paul’s other beliefs would be fought tooth and nail by progressives and democrats. Should he actually become president, just like with Obama, only the overlap is where change will be allowed to be made. Banks and War. I’d like to see him come out and make a pact with progressives.
We’ll see though.

I second your recommendation of politicalcompass.org, they also allow a person to take a test that will plot their own position on the graph.

It’s a good place to flesh out your understanding of the authoritarian impulse.

Very useful site.

As we’ve seen with Obummer, the problem with authoritarianism is as much, or more, the authoritarian ‘followers’, as opposed to authoritarian ‘leaders’ the folks we tend to call ‘bots’ of what ever stripe.

They never question the ‘leader’, and they spontaneously attack anyone who criticizes their man/woman as if on cue.

Authoritarian ‘followers’ are a passive crowd that wants to be told what to do and what to believe, they don’t spend much energy holding their ‘leader’s’ feet to the fire, they do join the crowds in cheering, and sometimes what they cheer for can be confusing and contradictory in terms of what they supposedly believe.

In any case, I can’t see myself voting for Ron Paul, as much as I might agree with some of his positions because his curmudgeon persona would likely morph in the face of masses of adoring followers who expect him to fulfill Ayn Rand’s dreams, which of course are nightmares.

The corporations might not be able to buy him, but ‘his people’ could, and probably would successfully demand that he deliver on their sick fantasies.

Ron Paul is not a racist or a bigot. To say otherwise is very, very, dishonest, and ignorent of his world view. He is one of the most honest and loving politicians out there, if not the most.

Yes there are some Randian ideals he holds to that I disagree with. They are well canceled out by his moral character, in my opinion. The big differentiation you must make when talking about Dr. Paul, is between his personal views on how things should be, versus constitutionally how things should be.

An example being, as someone who has delivered 4,500+ babies in his life, Paul is against abortion. At the same time, he does not beleive the government has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Moral principles can differ from voting records, if one is truely prinipled.

It is ignorent to the extreme to label this man a racist or a bigot, or a wing-nut. He requires a deeper level of understanding than 99% of our elected officials. Because integrity of his caliber is so rare these days, it is easy to dismiss it as lunacy.

And no Im not a repulican, my other favorite politician is kucinich :) I just agree with the concepts of cognitive liberty, personal liberty, peace, and fiscal responsibility as a nation(I do not think this requires some neo-liberal economic approach, and think we can maintain our social support systems such as social security AND live within our means; AKA cut the military budget).

Paul, and more recently, his son, are two of the only politicians willing to go to bat for any of those things.

“I’m far more concerned about the stuff he is right about than most of the stuff he’s wrong about”

Nailed it.

If he approves of getting rid of SS and medicare that makes him an insurance corp.dog.

I have a few republican friends too, so what.

Dude. Chill. Out.

There are about three people on this forum screaming to the high heavens that Paul is a racist, making a majority of the hateful posts. The smearing posts. The mis-informed posts.

And really? Paul is the road to fascism? If Paul is the road to fascism, then Obama has been the high speed bullet train to fascism. Obama’s stint in the white house has been a slap in the face to any self-respecting democrat, and all those who would vote for him again, are morally bankrupt.

I dont give a rip about what Paul would “want to do” if he made it to the White House. There is a difference between his personal desires, reallity in politics, and constitutional authority to act.

And im sorry, but our country is living outside its means. We need to get control of our outragous lifestyles. Short of that, we need budget cuts and better economic policy. Inflation is the easiest way for government to finance its wars. Refusing to get a grasp on our national debt is a one way ticket to endless war.

Im a raging socialist. Chomsky is my hero. I beleive in helping others and spreading the wealth. I do not think that comes at the cost of giving up liberty. I also think, the few sacrifices I would make in my personal values to support Paul, are vastly out-weighed by the values I agree with him on; domestic spying, foreign wars, cognitive liberty, state rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility.

You call him an extreme conservative, at the far end of the right. I think he went so far right, that he is comming around the other side. How many democrats have the stones to vote as liberally as he does? (think PATRIOT ACT, Iraq War, War on Drugs, etc.)

Not to many. He may be the most conservative republican, but that doesnt mean he cant be more liberal than most democrats.

Ron Paul is one of 10 House members joining Kucinich in a suit brought today against Obama and his Libya operation. Washington Post: Kucinich, other House members file lawsuit against Obama on Libya military mission:

Ten House members led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) are filing a complaint in federal court against President Obama for taking military action in Libya without first seeking congressional approval.

Kucinich and Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), John Conyers (D-Mich.) Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.) filed the complaint Wednesday at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Ron Paul is a good and decent man.

He won’t win though.

It is the destiny of this nation to fall.

Clearly you have never studied Dr. Paul and his history of voting his morals consistantly and perpetually. They call him Dr. No in congress because he always votes no when it comes to bills which are unconstitutional. This happens to be most of the bills that reach the house floor.

It is clear that Paul would not reverse direction like Obama did because Paul is not and has never been bought off by anyone. He is a man of honor which is why he is so appealing to so many people.