Ron Paul

[SacRedMan]

In 2012 there will be new elections in the USA. As we all know, the former president of the USA is Obama, and if we look at Tea Party, the guy isn't very populair afterall. May I introduce you to a candidate that won almost every debate and is famous because of his shout: "Ron Paul revolution"


is an American Medical Doctor and Republican U.S. Congressman for the 14th congressional district of Texas. Paul serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, the Committee on Financial Service and is Chairman of the House Financial Service Subcommitee on Domestic Monetary Policy where he has been an outspoken critic of current American foreign policy and monetary policy. He has gained prominence for his libertarian positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republican and Democratic Party leaders. Paul has run for President of the United States twice, first in 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party and again in 2008 as a candidate for the Republican Nomination. It is widely expected that he will run again in 2012 as a Republican. A 2010 scientific poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports among likely voters found Ron Paul and President Obama to be statistically tied in a hypothetical 2012 presidential election contest.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6KJRIums4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul&aq=f

http://www.ronpaul.com/

What do you think of this guy? Another capitalist or someone we can trust?

[Dimmu]

Just an other capitalist who proposes an even more neo-liberal approach then Dick fking Cheyney.

He also claims that he is a libertarian, but at the same time he is against abortion for religious reasons..

[Kassad]

Ron Paul is notorious for calling Black people "animals" and saying that Black women are responsible for the spread of AIDS to young white girls.

Ron Paul Revolution = Return to the pre-Civil War era when women and Black people knew their place!

[CornetJoyce]

At this point, o'bomber could be "statistically tied" with lady gaga, and she's as serious a prospect as Paul..

[JerryBiscoTrey]

What do you think of this guy? Another capitalist or someone who we can trust on?

As a former Ron Paul activist i can tell you with full confidence that he is the farthest thing from being someone who anybody on the left can trust on.

Kassad is exactly right

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

And his son's name is Rand and perhaps even more deranged.

[L.A.P.]

Why would a Leftist ever wonder if Ron Paul is trust worthy or not? What is so different about Ron Paul and other capitalist politicians? But to answer your question, Ron Paul is your average douchebag.

[SacRedMan]

Why would a Leftist ever wonder if Ron Paul is trust worthy or not? What is so different about Ron Paul and other capitalist politicians?

I just ask for opinions, that's all. I don't put my opinion here, I just ask.


Ron Paul is your average douchebag.

What do you mean with that??

[Tim Finnegan]

Ron Paul is just there to say stupid populist shit that keeps the Republican elite on their toes, same as all "conservative libertarians". He's never going to win a Presidential nomination, le alone an election.

[L.A.P.]

What do you mean with that??

He's right-wing, capitalist, sexist, and a racist. Average bourgeoisie politician (douchebag).

[SacRedMan]

He's right-wing, capitalist, sexist, and a racist. Average bourgeoisie politician (douchebag).

Yeah but what do you mean with "your average douchebag." ??

[Meridian]

Yeah but what do you mean with "your average douchebag." ??

That is just a manner of speaking, it means the same as "an average douchebag".

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Yeah but what do you mean with "your average douchebag." ??

All he's saying is that Ron Paul is a typical right wing scumbag with his sexism, racism, etc.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ron Paul has had some "traction" among some confused leftists such as Alexander Cockburn for his supposed anti-war views. Beyond that he's a right wing libertarian and his "libertarianism" does not extend to minority rights . There have been racists and neo-Nazis closely associated with his campaign.

Further than that his ideas are dangerous. If he does do well in any campaign he will achieve a platform to further promulgate his ideas. He is dangerous because his "libertarianism" merely offer easy solutions to people in a time of crisis and serve to lower the level of class consciousness. I feel it is part of the job of the radical left to aggressively counter Paul and his "ideas".

[Tim Finnegan]

Yeah but what do you mean with "your average douchebag." ??
It's an English-language eccentricity. It basically just means something which you are expected to be familiar with, rather than suggesting any sort of ownership.

[CornetJoyce]

Ron Paul is just there to say stupid populist shit that keeps the Republican elite on their toes, same as all "conservative libertarians". He's never going to win a Presidential nomination, le alone an election.

He's never won a provincial primary and has never come close.
Even if he weren't a douchebag, anyone who takes his perpetual candidacy seriously is not to be taken seriously.

[Proukunin]

anyone who brings religion into politics is dumb. anti abortion because of religious views is traditional conservative bullshit

[El Chuncho]

Ron Paul revolution = a way for conservatives to feel progressive and revolutionary without actually revolting.

Also Ron Paul is more a politician for any old ''weirdo'' who is too conservative in life but a bit too ''eccentric'' for the mainstream Republicans.

[Gorilla]

He's not a communist but is ideas would completely ruin capitalism and set off an immediate civil war, so let's not sell him short.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Why would socialists trust a man who advocates an entirely unregulated and completely privatized free-market? His economics is far-more capitalist supportive than any other candidate. The only redeeming quality about him is some of his social-stances, but that's only compared to the more socially-conservative republicans. I'm surprised you rather not support Kucinich or someone, who at least supports things like universal healthcare, unlike Paul...

[Sensible Socialist]

He's a capitalist who has a love affair with a de-regulated market economy. Obviously, no one on here should be one the same side as Ron Paul when it comes to economic issues.

He's not much better on social issues. He's anti-choice, (most likely) holds some racist tendencies, and even his anti-war stance does not come from a desire to preserve lives, but only to preserve American tax dollars. If we could murder Iraqi's for free, he'd be all for it.

That said, I've found that many Ron Paul supporters are open to the idea of socialism. When its contrasted to the oppressive system of capitalism, people tend to take notice. Most of the Ron Paul camp holds serious anti-government, anti-authority stances, so presenting capitalism in that light is a great way to introduce them to socialist ideas.

[Gorilla]

His economics is far-more capitalist supportive than any other candidate.

His economics is complete petty bourgeois fantasy. Actually existing capitalism requires enormous subsidies, insurance guarantees, sweetheart regulatory deals, public goods and other state supports just to get out of bed in the morning. If Ron Paul was president and had an army of clones of himself in charge of congress and the supreme court, either socialism would win or more likely we'd be living in caves right now, eating bark and pine cones.

[RED DAVE]

What do you think of this guy? Another capitalist or someone we can trust?We can support him ... like a noose supports a hanging man. (Apologies to Lenin)

RED DAVE

[L.A.P.]

Yeah but what do you mean with "your average douchebag." ??

Language barriers FTW!!!:thumbup:

[Red_Struggle]

Ron Paul is notorious for calling Black people "animals" and saying that Black women are responsible for the spread of AIDS to young white girls.

Ron Paul Revolution = Return to the pre-Civil War era when women and Black people knew their place!

Not to mention he thinks Martin Luther King day should be called "Hate Whitey Day".

Also:

http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/20071220ronpauldonblack.jpg

Ron Paul with White supremacist Don Black and his son
http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/11/04/rand-paul-and-mid-term-elections-2010-much-lost-nothing-gained/

[Bardo]

A laissez-faire advocate who wants to privatize education (and everything else), calls for the elimination of income tax, and calls the civil rights act of 1964 "unconstitutional".






What do you think of this guy? Another capitalist or someone we can trust?

I think he is the definition of an untrustworthy capitalist.

[Ocean Seal]

Ron and Rand are among the most disgusting on the Republican Party. As someone said before Ron accused black girls of giving white women AIDS as racial terrorism. Rand on the other hand wants to take away the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment because employers deserve the right to discriminate. Because freedom means freedom for the oppressor. Such nice freedom loving Americans--Democracy for the slaveowners.

[El Chuncho]

Ron Paul sums up all that is wrong with with the American style of ''Libertarianism'', he is a closet racist and a hardcore capitalist. A vote for him is a vote to kick the workers and minorities in the teeth.

Also, I once knew a Korean who ''thought'' she was white (that her parents kid-napped her and her eyes and nose were due to damage at birth...) who was a huge supporter of Ron Paul. I didn't think that that spoke very positively about his politics.:(

[cb9's_unity]

A lot of Ron Paul followers are actually some of the better people on the right. They generally support things like gay marriage, and other leftist social issues (at least the ones I have met are). And social conservatives are a fuck of a lot harder to get along with than economic conservatives.

However Ron Paul's connections to racism really outdo any respect I might have for any anti-war or socially liberal positions he may have.

[Dumb]

Ron Paul has a simple function within the political establishment: borrow all sorts of leftist/anarchist anti-war rhetoric, frame himself as a radical, and direct the anger of the disaffected towards "the collective" rather than the ruling class. Ron Paul and Rand Paul will have you believe that the Environmental Protection Agency infringes on our "liberty," but that big business doesn't.

[CleverTitle]

Ron Paul is trash, but I can't help but feel that a good chunk of his supporters are just misguided. There's clear frustration, and I'd assume that people are just looking for any sort of alternative at this point.

[Red Commissar]

Ron Paul's rhetoric makes use of things to appeal to petit-bourgeois mentality. Sugar-coated capitalism that appeals to small business owners and professionals and a throw back to a more 'national' economy as opposed to the free-trade provisions we have currently (to appeal to the protectionist types). He makes the expected slams against welfare as being unnecessary and exploited, and a burden on "working" families.

The extent of his "radical" positions for some is his pseudo-populist approach to politics and a more isolationist foreign policy- which is more a throwback to paleo-conservative positions...

Just re-hashed right-wing pseudo-populist shit that rears itself a lot in the US, and pretty much the whole world. I can see why he might appeal to certain people whose extent of politics is basically securing their own middle-class lifestyle. However is he really that 'different' from others? Frankly he just has some token social views while keeping the rest in the background rather than the core of his argument. For the social views that do matter however, he is found wanting.

His son is even worse, from what I gather.

[Rusty Shackleford]

FUCK RON PAUL



fuck him, his son, and the woman his son was named after and all of that woman's followers.

[Red Commissar]

Just a clarification- Rand Paul's birth name is Randall, isn't it? I don't think he was born and named "Rand" but it was shortened from Randall. Though of course Rand would be a convenient nick considering their professed views and all.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why isn't this thread in Learning?

[SacRedMan]

Why isn't this thread in Learning?

It's about Ron Paul, a politician. And there were some topics that were also about Ron Paul...

[Franz Fanonipants]

A lot of Ron Paul followers are actually some of the better people on the right. They generally support things like gay marriage, and other leftist social issues (at least the ones I have met are). And social conservatives are a fuck of a lot harder to get along with than economic conservatives.

This is patently goddamn ridiculous.

You're on a website broadly dedicated to Marxian class analysis and you're piping on about how "great" economic conservatives are because they are alright with liberal social reformism while being the baldest proponents of replicating Capitalism.

tl;dr You cannot separate culture from material conditions. Get that straight.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It's about Ron Paul, a politician. And there were some topics that were also about Ron Paul...

It's about Ron Paul, a Libertarian politician. I appreciate you're from Belgium, comrade, but the best place to ask these kinds of questions is in Learning.

"What is Ron Paul about" would be a good start.

[SacRedMan]

It's about Ron Paul, a Libertarian politician. I appreciate you're from Belgium, comrade, but the best place to ask these kinds of questions is in Learning.

"What is Ron Paul about" would be a good start.

Yeah I'm kinda new here so forgive me :D I also need to learn much. I've only read the Communist Manifesto and discussed alot on YouTube and forums.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well, like everyone else has said: What Ron Paul has successfully done is appealed to a fuzzy anti-authoritarian tendency in America (and apparently, the world) composed of everyone from 9/11 truthers to "Anarcho-Capitalists" to White Supremacists and directionless hippies. His broader political narrative is one of an evil, overwhelming federal US government that tells the "little man" (in the form of the petit and normal bourgeoisie) what to do. He's a very real testament to the fact that most of the modern West lacks the capacity for material analysis.

[Rusty Shackleford]

well, for starters. Ron Paul is a Texan Congressman who became popular amongst liberal marijuana enthusiasts. pretty much every toker i knew was for ron paul and his re"love"ution bullshit.

its not revolutionary, its not left-wing, and it is not libertarian in the sense we as marxists or anarchists understand it. it is about the free reign of capital without government interference in the keynesian manner. it is isolationist but not anti-imperialist.

and whether or not rands name was actually randall, i still say fuck Ayn Rand and Rand
Paul and all the Randroids.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I'm going to vote for him because I believe if he wins the US will destabilize, which would create an opening for a civil war/revolution.

[Ele'ill]

I'm going to vote for him because I believe if he wins the US will destabilize, which would create an opening for a civil war/revolution.

awwww yeeah












You won't know exactly how a destabilization would take place. You don't know the specifics. It could work against your efforts. Don't even bother voting. Also- it likely wouldn't cause openings for those things cause just look at the Bush saga.

[the Leftâ„¢]

From wikipedia




In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions. Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racis

[GPDP]

I'm going to vote for him because I believe if he wins the US will destabilize, which would create an opening for a civil war/revolution.

No. All you'll do is get a racist bigot nutjob who believes in the quackery that is Austrian economics in the highest office of the land.

Revolution will come when the working class works to emancipate itself and organizes toward that effort, and that will come only through hard work on our part, not by pulling a lever and getting a dumbass politician in power.

[Rafiq]

Ron Paul is capitalism in decay.

[Rafiq]

From wikipedia




In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions. Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racis

Blah blah ayn rand asslick blah blah.

[Commissar Rykov]

Blah blah ayn rand asslick blah blah.

I have always found Paul's obsession with Rand to be fucking disturbing.

[Prometeo liberado]

OK maybe I missed it somewhere here but did anyone else see todays L.A. Time front page article on Ron Paul. The article sucks but they made sure to put a nice big pic of Paul and "Occupier" Travis Hepburn holding an "I (Heart) Ron Paul" sign. Really?

[Erratus]

I've been running into a lot of Ron Paul supporters and I have found that probably his biggest thing is his constitutionalism. He follows the US constitution as though it is a holy text. He claims to be a libertarian, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't want to make the government smaller at all when it comes to social issues. In stead, he just wants to take a lot of the power from the federal government and give it to the states. He will not legalize any drugs, abortion, or gay marriage (or make them illegal) but leave it to the states.

He wants to stay out of other's countries business, which is both good and bad. He wants to end all the pointless wars that "defend our freedoms". But he also wants to pull out of NATO and the UN, among other international organizations. I don't know if some people here like the idea or not, but I think international cooperation is generally a good thing. Better than not at any rate.

He is big on protecting our borders. He doesn't support the 14th amendment and believe that much of our welfare issues stem from illegal immigration. He does not believe that hospitals should be forced to treat illegal immigrants. And he believes that prayer in school should be up to the school and allowed.

Some of the basic reasons why I do not like him. I haven't really followed much of the claims on him being racist or sexist, so I will not comment on those.

[Drosophila]

There's no damn way he can beat Obama in the general election if he gets the nomination (which I also doubt.)

The only thing I like about Ron Paul is his honesty. Everything else, from his economic to his social views are just insane. But his supporters are the worst.

[Belleraphone]

Pros: Anti-war
Pro-drugs
No corporate bailouts

Cons:
DURHURHURHUR GOLD STANDARD UNREGULATED EVERYTHING FREE MARKET FREE MARKET
FUCK CIVIL RIGHTS PROPERTY RIGHTS MORE IMPORTANT
I DONT CARE IF WE LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP AS LONG AS THE STATES DECIDE AND NOT THE FEDERAL GUBBAMENT HUHUHUHUHUH

Yeah.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm going to vote for him because I believe if he wins the US will destabilize, which would create an opening for a civil war/revolution.

Yeah, because that 'first Hitler then us' slogan worked out really well in the 1930s, didn't it?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lets not forget his anti-gay attitudes...

http://www.queerty.com/former-aide-ron-paul-personally-uncomfortable-around-gay-people-20111227/

http://www.queerty.com/ron-pauls-racist-homophobic-newsletters-will-pretty-much-kill-his-campaign-20111225/

[Commissar Rykov]

Yeah, because that 'first Hitler then us' slogan worked out really well in the 1930s, didn't it?

Yeah it did...oh wait.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't even understand why the left buys his anti-war stuff. Rhetoric is just rhetoric. Hitler had working class rhetoric, that doesn't mean that he was in any way useful.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Paul is a right-wing, neo-populist shit. The only thing that is fun about his candidacy is the degree to which it scares the tar out of mainstream repubs and dems. The New York Times has felt the need to ring in on how awful he is, recently, as his numbers have been improving. Like all democrats and republicans he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. At the edge of his campaign are some truly grotesque folks.

[Commissar Rykov]

Paul is a right-wing, neo-populist shit. The only thing that is fun about his candidacy is the degree to which it scares the tar out of mainstream repubs and dems. The New York Times has felt the need to ring in on how awful he is, recently, as his numbers have been improving. Like all democrats and republicans he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. At the edge of his campaign are some truly grotesque folks.

Well wonderful people like Don Black who drum in donations for him typically disgust most people with brains. What I find interesting is how the media ignores his ties with White Nationalists and Scumfront. If his numbers keep up I wonder if anyone will decide to discuss the "wonderful" ties he has with the White Nationalist community.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I'm going to vote for him because I believe if he wins the US will destabilize, which would create an opening for a civil war/revolution.
ah, there it is! The always ridiculous and flat-out stupid "vote for the worst, so it becomes better" post!

He's racist. He's pro-capitalism. He's pro-let's go back to the late 19th century when capitalism is so topsy turvy we have a recession or depression every couple of years.

Fuck Ron Paul and his zombie supporters.

[Homo Songun]

I don't understand the Ron Paul bashing. He's doing the US left a huge favor by forcing the mainstream media to talk about about the US wars and civil liberties. Yes, he is racist, but so is Obama. Obama's administration has destroyed civil liberties for Muslims and Arabs, and has deported more Latino immigrants than any other president, George W. Bush included.

[workersadvocate]

I don't understand the Ron Paul bashing. He's doing the US left a huge favor by forcing the mainstream media to talk about about the US wars and civil liberties. Yes, he is racist, but so is Obama. Obama's administration has destroyed civil liberties for Muslims and Arabs, and has deported more Latino immigrants than any other president, George W. Bush included.

The working class will speak independently for itself, on our own terms, through our own organs and media.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't understand the Ron Paul bashing. He's doing the US left a huge favor by forcing the mainstream media to talk about about the US wars and civil liberties. Yes, he is racist, but so is Obama. Obama's administration has destroyed civil liberties for Muslims and Arabs, and has deported more Latino immigrants than any other president, George W. Bush included.
Well, gee whizz, Billy, you'd almost think that we can't trust any bourgeois politicians.

[Homo Songun]

The working class will speak independently for itself, on our own terms, through our own organs and media.

Sounds like a great idea! Meanwhile...

[Nox]

A small part of me wants Ron Paul to win the election, because I know that with him in power things will get so bad that shit will hit the fan.

[Commissar Rykov]

A small part of me wants Ron Paul to win the election, because I know that with him in power things will get so bad that shit will hit the fan.

Yeah Hitler first then us sure did work out didn't it?:rolleyes:

[NewLeft]

But crisis is how capitalism works! Getting Ron Paul into office wont start a revolution. Back to the drawing board.

[Agent Ducky]

Anyone with an ad like this
MXCZVmQ74OA
should not be taken seriously.

[Commissar Rykov]

Anyone with an ad like this
MXCZVmQ74OA
should not be taken seriously.

Good God that was awful. I do like how proud he is over completely slashing education to nothing and the EPA as well. Fucking psycho.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anyone with an ad like this
MXCZVmQ74OA
should not be taken seriously.

wow :lol:

[NewLeft]

Anyone with an ad like this
MXCZVmQ74OA
should not be taken seriously.

He didn't promise me cheap oil..!! Sorry, I guess I'll be voting for Romney.

[Red Noob]

I like Paul for his passion for liberty. I like how he talks about bringing down our military a few notches and ending a lot of out foreign policies (code for imperialism). I don't like him for his hardcore free-market ideas.

I wouldn't advocate voting for him because if he were to win, he would probably focus more on his free-market economic policies rather than some of the other ideas he talks about like legalizing hemp, cutting politician's salaries, ect.

[Commissar Rykov]

I like Paul for his passion for liberty. I like how he talks about bringing down our military a few notches and ending a lot of out foreign policies (code for imperialism). I don't like him for his hardcore free-market ideas.

I wouldn't advocate voting for him because if he were to win, he would probably focus more on his free-market economic policies rather than some of the other ideas he talks about like legalizing hemp, cutting politician's salaries, ect.

Yeah I love his blatant racism and White Nationalism. God so many reactionaries on RevLeft of late.:rolleyes:

[Red Noob]

Yeah I love his blatant racism and White Nationalism. God so many reactionaries on RevLeft of late.:rolleyes:

I said I wouldn't advocate voting for him. I fail to see the point in quoting me. Just because I said I like a few of the things he says doesn't make me some reactionary that's going to betray the revolution and support White Nationalism. I didn't even bring his racism into this.

[Diello]

The fact that people who consider themselves anti-authoritarian radicals are lining up behind Ron Paul shows how hideously desiccated the American political scene has become and how ingrained the philosophy of suicidal individualism is in American culture.

[Winkers Fons]

It doesn't matter that he has "good" stances on a few social issues. No leftist should even consider supporting the most ardent supporter of the very economic system that we are all against. It's like saying you support Hitler because he was against animal abuse.

I hate to compare any modern politician to Hitler, but come on guys.

[Homo Songun]

It doesn't matter that he has "good" stances on a few social issues. No leftist should even consider supporting the most ardent supporter of the very economic system that we are all against. It's like saying you support Hitler because he was against animal abuse.

See, this is a shallow analysis in my opinion. People that are against the economic system should be concerned with the most effective supporters of the economic system, not the most ardent. Lets face it, Ron Paul is crank, and while cranks are ardent, they are not effective, insofar as cranks as a general rule do not get elected.

That said, seeing that there will be no serious leftist campaign under the present circumstances, we should be going beyond this all this special posturing about Paul's odious positions (as if Romney and Obama didn't have any!), and get busy trying to figure out how to maximally profit from the real openings that Paul's campaign presents us (in a way that Romney's and Obama's could never do). Of course, thats harder than merely venting spleen...


I hate to compare any modern politician to Hitler, but come on guys.

I really don't want to be that "Obama is a fascist!" guy, because he is not. I'm also not supportive of the whole Ron Paul package. But since you went there, the parallels with Obama and Hitler are far more relevant. Obama's claims to unlimited executive authority versus Hitler's Fuhrerprinzip -- Paul explicitly opposes it. Obama's ties to monopoly finance capital are much stronger than Paul's are. Obama's rounding up of muslims, killing and detaining US citizens without trial, etc. are things that Paul denounced and would not do...

[Commissar Rykov]

See, this is a shallow analysis in my opinion. People that are against the economic system should be concerned with the most effective supporters of the economic system, not the most ardent. Lets face it, Ron Paul is crank, and while cranks are ardent, they are not effective, insofar as cranks as a general rule do not get elected.

That said, seeing that there will be no serious leftist campaign under the present circumstances, we should be going beyond this all this special posturing about Paul's odious positions (as if Romney and Obama didn't have any!), and get busy trying to figure out how to maximally profit from the real openings that Paul's campaign presents us (in a way that Romney's and Obama's could never do). Of course, thats harder than merely venting spleen...



I really don't want to be that "Obama is a fascist!" guy, because he is not. I'm also not supportive of the whole Ron Paul package. But since you went there, the parallels with Obama and Hitler are far more relevant. Obama's claims to unlimited executive authority versus Hitler's Fuhrerprinzip -- Paul explicitly opposes it. Obama's ties to monopoly finance capital are much stronger than Paul's are. Obama's rounding up of muslims, killing and detaining US citizens without trial, etc. are things that Paul denounced and would not do...

No Paul wouldn't authorize it he would allow the States to do it or the local Klan. Fucks sake.

[Qayin]

Wtf is with this ron paul sympathy

[Homo Songun]

No Paul wouldn't authorize it he would allow the States to do it or the local Klan. Fucks sake.

You are missing my point entirely. There is absolutely no chance Ron Paul will be the next president of the United States. It is impossible. That said, there was never a greater opportunity to liberate massive swathes of demoralized liberals out of the death grip of the Democratic Party. Glenn Greenwald has a very clever article describing the cognitive dissonance on the part of liberals that a Paul-Obama race would engender. His central point:


...Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient. ...


The whole thing is worth a read:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why do people, particularly leftists, support Ron Paul? I certainly don't. But there are particular arguments he makes which attracts positive attention from the left.

(1) He correctly identified the economic interests behind the drug war, and that it is essentially a racist conflict. I was surprised when I heard him saying this actually, especially in light of those newsletters.

(2) He correctly identifies the USA as an Imperialist power and downplays American exceptionalism. You don't see that from any of the other Democrats or Republicans.

(3) There is a strong anti-authoritarian bent in most serious libertarians which makes them critical of the more overbearing mistakes made by the government in the area of law enforcement.

(4) He is the only remotely ideologically consistent politician right now, aside Rick Santourum and Dennis Kucinich.


His opinions about the Civil Rights Act, capitalism, the environment, regulation and his weird racist newsletters back in the 90s all outweigh those reasons. That goes without saying. But a broken clock can be right twice a day.

[Homo Songun]

Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html) from the Naked Capitalism blog


Modern liberalism is a mixture of two elements. One is a support of Federal power – what came out of the late 1930s, World War II, and the civil rights era where a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC, and human rights were enforced by a Federal government, unions, and a cadre of corporate, journalistic and technocratic experts (and cheap oil made the whole system run.) America mobilized militarily for national priorities, be they war-like or social in nature. And two, it originates from the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, with its distrust of centralized authority mobilizing national resources for what were perceived to be immoral priorities. When you throw in the recent financial crisis, the corruption of big finance, the increasing militarization of society, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse of the moral authority of the technocrats, you have a big problem. Liberalism doesn’t really exist much within the Democratic Party so much anymore, but it also has a profound challenge insofar as the rudiments of liberalism going back to the 1930s don’t work.

This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul’s stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It’s quite obvious that there isn’t one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn’t be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there’s no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.

What we’re seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.

Emphasis mine.

[workersadvocate]

Recently I found a website for the Workers Party in America, and after reading its program, you will find an alternative offered that blows out if the water even the positions of Ron Paul that some here feel are positive, and we working people don't need to rely on any bourgeois politicians to accomplish so much more then they'd allow us to believe is "possible".
Read WPA's program fully, then ask yourselves if you think Ron Paul or Barack Obama is the best we workers can do.
www.workers-party.com

[Summerspeaker]

I was sort of sympathetic to Ron Paul - for the obvious reasons - until I read the campaign's position on immigration. Xenophobic nationalism isn't even consistent with libertarian principles. No thank you.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't understand the Ron Paul bashing. He's doing the US left a huge favor by forcing the mainstream media to talk about about the US wars and civil liberties. Yes, he is racist, but so is Obama. Obama's administration has destroyed civil liberties for Muslims and Arabs, and has deported more Latino immigrants than any other president, George W. Bush included.
That's why we say fuck them both.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I remember I used to like Ron Paul for like a second, then I read up on everything else besides his foreign policy and realized that shit stank. In other news, I was currently disowned by a cousin because I told him I would never support Ron Paul and that I don't give two shits about the constitution he seems to think is a holy text. Ron Paul supporters are funny :laugh:

[Homo Songun]

That's why we say fuck them both.

This is a correct observation, but it is also very trite. The question I am trying to ask is, what should communists be doing in a situation where antiwar civil-liberties voters are, all else being equal, going to vote for a warmongering authoritarian, and the party of warmongering authoritarians may well be nominating an antiwar, pro-civil liberties* candidate? The overwhelming answer seems to be "business as usual", and I think that is terribly unimaginative.

*in the prosaic meaning of the term, of course.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

This is a correct observation, but it is also very trite. The question I am trying to ask is, what should communists be doing in a situation where antiwar civil-liberties voters are, all else being equal, going to vote for a warmongering authoritarian, and the party of warmongering authoritarians may well be nominating an antiwar, pro-civil liberties* candidate? The overwhelming answer seems to be "business as usual", and I think that is terribly unimaginative.

*in the prosaic meaning of the term, of course.
Okay let's see what you got, what should we do about this crazy situation where a "antiwar, pro-civil liberties" candidate runs as a Republican and the "warmongering authoritarian" is running as a Democrat? How can we as Marxists/anarchists/whatever you are exploit this?

[Homo Songun]

Don't know. I think we can all agree that we should be winning people to communism on an ongoing basis. Building the united front against monopoly finance capital is a likely vehicle for that in the industrialized countries. For the United States, I'd guess that destroying the Democratic party is the strategic obstacle to achieving that long range goal. But strategy is not tactics, and I am not in a position to dictate what those tactics could be. Personally, I'd like to see some fresh and innovative agitprop that goes beyond the boring newspaper editorials and/or smashing plate glass, etc.

[Martin Blank]

You are missing my point entirely. There is absolutely no chance Ron Paul will be the next president of the United States. It is impossible. That said, there was never a greater opportunity to liberate massive swathes of demoralized liberals out of the death grip of the Democratic Party. Glenn Greenwald has a very clever article describing the cognitive dissonance on the part of liberals that a Paul-Obama race would engender. His central point:

...

The whole thing is worth a read:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

So the choice is either a shit sandwich or a turdburger. Fuck that. I'm not that hungry.

[Homo Songun]

I'm not at all clear on how you could be deriving a lesser-evilism argument from that article, but then it wouldn't be the first time we arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions from the same text.

[Martin Blank]

I'm not at all clear on how you could be deriving a lesser-evilism argument from that article, but then it wouldn't be the first time we arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions from the same text.

I'm not at all clear how you misread what I wrote. I was actually acknowledging that there is no "lesser-evilism" in Greenwald's article -- hence, the "choice" is either a shit sandwich or a turdburger, which are basically the same thing (fecal matter between slices of bread).

I can't believe I just had to explain this to you in detail. :ohmy::blink:

[∞]

And his son's name is Rand and perhaps even more deranged.

Wiki

Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".[9][12][13]

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Wiki

So? That is perhaps not so surprising seeing as Rand Paul's views seem more generic U.S. conservative nutter rather than insane Randoid; but nevertheless the feeling one gets from seeing him spew forth nonsense is much more sinister than that of his father, who, despite his disturbing views manages to produce a sort of feeling of being an innocent old man to some extent. His son, however, just seems like a sociopath.

[Crux]

The Wonderful Dr. Paul strikes again: Ron Paul Ups The Ante And Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal (http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-sexual-harassment)

[∞]

So? That is perhaps not so surprising seeing as Rand Paul's views seem more generic U.S. conservative nutter rather than insane Randoid; but nevertheless the feeling one gets from seeing him spew forth nonsense is much more sinister than that of his father, who, despite his disturbing views manages to produce a sort of feeling of being an innocent old man to some extent. His son, however, just seems like a sociopath.

Politicians are all sociopaths to some degree or another.

[marl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

Ron Paul revolution all right :laugh:

[Lucretia]

Ron Paul's views on a slew of issues are odious, but when evaluating the role of his candidacy, it's important to acknowledge a few things. (A) He will not win the GOP nomination, not to mention the presidency. (B) While his stances on laws against sexual harassment, civil rights legislation, etc., are clearly regressive, there is no evidence that he has arrived at these views because he is consciously sexist or racist but because he thinks such laws violate some strictly interpreted right to private property.* (C) He is not ever likely to win over significant numbers of people to these aforementioned fringe positions, and the only reason they are receiving coverage is to marginalize him because of (D) the fact that he is the only major-party candidate who wants to roll back American empire (even if it is because he wants to roll back capitalism to some non-existent earlier glory days) -- a view that does have widespread support and is therefore considered by the ruling classes to be dangerous to express openly.

So in my final calculation his candidacy does more good than harm because it is compelling the media to talk about anti-imperialist ideas, which are likely to resonate with people and at least convince them that they are not alone in their views on imperialism. At the same time, nobody who wasn't already convinced is really going to be persuaded by his other unsavory positions on issues. Having said that, I obviously do not support his candidacy and would never vote for him or any other democrat or republican.

*It can be shown that the repeal of these laws would have sexist and racist consequences, and that the positions are therefore racist and sexist. But Ron Paul's support of them does not appear to intend for these consequences. Instead he intends for them to protect private property rights. In fact, he might be so clueless that he is unaware of what the repeal of these laws would mean for racial minorities and women. So I do not accept the argument that his advocacy of these positions automatically means he is a sexist or a racist.

[Rafiq]

I like Paul for his passion for liberty. I like how he talks about bringing down our military a few notches and ending a lot of out foreign policies (code for imperialism). I don't like him for his hardcore free-market ideas.

I wouldn't advocate voting for him because if he were to win, he would probably focus more on his free-market economic policies rather than some of the other ideas he talks about like legalizing hemp, cutting politician's salaries, ect.

Liberty is inheritly a bourgeois concept

[Red Noob]

Liberty is inheritly a bourgeois concept

In my book liberty is a synonym for personal freedoms, along with other meanings.

Care to explain how it's a bourgeois concept?

[Rafiq]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

[Crux]

Ron Paul's views on a slew of issues are odious, but when evaluating the role of his candidacy, it's important to acknowledge a few things. (A) He will not win the GOP nomination, not to mention the presidency. (B) While his stances on laws against sexual harassment, civil rights legislation, etc., are clearly regressive, there is no evidence that he has arrived at these views because he is consciously sexist or racist but because he thinks such laws violate some strictly interpreted right to private property.* (C) He is not ever likely to win over significant numbers of people to these aforementioned fringe positions, and the only reason they are receiving coverage is to marginalize him because of (D) the fact that he is the only major-party candidate who wants to roll back American empire (even if it is because he wants to roll back capitalism to some non-existent earlier glory days) -- a view that does have widespread support and is therefore considered by the ruling classes to be dangerous to express openly.

So in my final calculation his candidacy does more good than harm because it is compelling the media to talk about anti-imperialist ideas, which are likely to resonate with people and at least convince them that they are not alone in their views on imperialism. At the same time, nobody who wasn't already convinced is really going to be persuaded by his other unsavory positions on issues. Having said that, I obviously do not support his candidacy and would never vote for him or any other democrat or republican.

*It can be shown that the repeal of these laws would have sexist and racist consequences, and that the positions are therefore racist and sexist. But Ron Paul's support of them does not appear to intend for these consequences. Instead he intends for them to protect private property rights. In fact, he might be so clueless that he is unaware of what the repeal of these laws would mean for racial minorities and women. So I do not accept the argument that his advocacy of these positions automatically means he is a sexist or a racist.
What about his late 80's and 90's newsletters? Or do you buy the "he had nothing to do with it" story? Not to mention the recent story from a former aide that he refused to go to the bathroom in a homosexual supporters home, because the toilet was supposedly "gay". Probably AIDS-scare if you check his newsletter. And this guy is supposed to be a doctor.

[Lucretia]

What about his late 80's and 90's newsletters? Or do you buy the "he had nothing to do with it" story? Not to mention the recent story from a former aide that he refused to go to the bathroom in a homosexual supporters home, because the toilet was supposedly "gay". Probably AIDS-scare if you check his newsletter. And this guy is supposed to be a doctor.

I don't think anybody is making the argument that Ron Paul had nothing to do with the publication of the newsletters. Paul himself admits that they were published under his authority. However, his argument has been that was not aware of the specific details of the articles that were published, and was not aware that some of the articles contained racist content.

To be honest, I have no idea whether Paul endorses/endorsed the disturbing racial overtones to the newsletters. All we can say for certain is that the newsletters were published using his resources, and that he for a while now has been adamantly repudiating them and insisting he was unaware of their specific content. Since he's so open about a lot of crazy ideas, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt unless we have firmer evidence to the contrary. Racism and sexism are damaging enough charges that they really should be reserved for cases that are clearly corroborated by evidence.

But in terms of policy outcomes all of this really is a minor issue, unless you think Ron Paul is going to win the presidency and try to re-enslave black people over the heads of congress and the supreme court, or that he will veto renewing the voting rights act (which I don't think will be up for renewal anytime in the next eight years anyway). I have already stated that Ron Paul's policies regarding civil rights and sexual harassment are pretty reactionary, but that I think he consciously holds to these views for non-racist and non-sexist reasons. His policy proposals regarding imperialism and American foreign policy, which he would have a far greater ability to affect as "commander in chief" were he to be elected (he won't) are of far greater significance in evaluating the net effect of his campaign. It's the primary reason the establishment has lined up against him and tried to smear him (whether rightly or wrongly) with attacks on his character as "racist" and "sexist" NOT by referring to specific policy proposals but by referring to newsletters.

It's even smaller issue when view of how Paul's campaign, rather than the his entire platform, should be assessed. As I said, the campaign is receiving coverage on two issues: the first is his anti-imperialism, which is a good thing, and the second are the newsletters. The two pieces of coverage are linked, in that the establishment is trying to steer voters away from his campaign by dubbing the guy (but, for the most part, not his policy proposals) as racist and sexist. Almost no attention is being paid to the uber-reactionary nonsense about the gold standard and the federal reserve. I am probably not alone in thinking that most people who vote for him will do so despite these reactionary views rather than because of them.

But again, to be clear, Paul is playing the same role for the GOP that the Kuciniches and Barbara Lees play for the Democrat party. His function is to co-opt otherwise anti-systemic protest and usher those protetors into establishment partisan electoral politics. The one good thing about his campaign is that it is raising people's consciousness about the depth of opposition to US imperialism even in the US.

[Crux]

I don't think anybody is making the argument that Ron Paul had nothing to do with the publication of the newsletters. Paul himself admits that they were published under his authority. However, his argument has been that was not aware of the specific details of the articles that were published, and was not aware that some of the articles contained racist content.

To be honest, I have no idea whether Paul endorses/endorsed the disturbing racial overtones to the newsletters. All we can say for certain is that the newsletters were published using his resources, and that he for a while now has been adamantly repudiating them and insisting he was unaware of their specific content. Since he's so open about a lot of crazy ideas, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt unless we have firmer evidence to the contrary. Racism and sexism are damaging enough charges that they really should be reserved for cases that are clearly corroborated by evidence.

But in terms of policy outcomes all of this really is a minor issue, unless you think Ron Paul is going to win the presidency and try to re-enslave black people over the heads of congress and the supreme court, or that he will veto renewing the voting rights act (which I don't think will be up for renewal anytime in the next eight years anyway). I have already stated that Ron Paul's policies regarding civil rights and sexual harassment are pretty reactionary, but that I think he consciously holds to these views for non-racist and non-sexist reasons. His policy proposals regarding imperialism and American foreign policy, which he would have a far greater ability to affect as "commander in chief" were he to be elected (he won't) are of far greater significance in evaluating the net effect of his campaign. It's the primary reason the establishment has lined up against him and tried to smear him (whether rightly or wrongly) with attacks on his character as "racist" and "sexist" NOT by referring to specific policy proposals but by referring to newsletters.

It's even smaller issue when view of how Paul's campaign, rather than the his entire platform, should be assessed. As I said, the campaign is receiving coverage on two issues: the first is his anti-imperialism, which is a good thing, and the second are the newsletters. The two pieces of coverage are linked, in that the establishment is trying to steer voters away from his campaign by dubbing the guy (but, for the most part, not his policy proposals) as racist and sexist. Almost no attention is being paid to the uber-reactionary nonsense about the gold standard and the federal reserve. I am probably not alone in thinking that most people who vote for him will do so despite these reactionary views rather than because of them.

But again, to be clear, Paul is playing the same role for the GOP that the Kuciniches and Barbara Lees play for the Democrat party. His function is to co-opt otherwise anti-systemic protest and usher those protetors into establishment partisan electoral politics. The one good thing about his campaign is that it is raising people's consciousness about the depth of opposition to US imperialism even in the US.
He is not endorsed by Scumfront for no reason you know. And his endorsemnt of the Constitution Party in the last presidential electionis not accidental either. Indeed among his paleo-libertarian supporters there is a very strong tendency of right wing conspiracy theorists which overlap in many ways with the far right. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As for the benefit of the doubt he did not protest nearly as much when the newsletters were brought up in the 90's. He just knows his more out there stuff will turn off more people than he can appeal to, and make no mistake he is a populist actively trying to court people both from the liberal left and the hard right.

[Ocean Seal]

Why is no one listening to me and a chorus of others. Rhetoric is just rhetoric.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

He is not endorsed by Scumfront for no reason you know. And his endorsemnt of the Constitution Party in the last presidential electionis not accidental either. Indeed among his paleo-libertarian supporters there is a very strong tendency of right wing conspiracy theorists which overlap in many ways with the far right. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As for the benefit of the doubt he did not protest nearly as much when the newsletters were brought up in the 90's. He just knows his more out there stuff will turn off more people than he can appeal to, and make no mistake he is a populist actively trying to court people both from the liberal left and the hard right.

This.

When I was at occupy pretty much every single Ron Paul supporter spouted a bullshit theory to do with either 9/11 or Obama trying to turn America into a fascist realm (completely ridiculous since we all know he is a socialist :rolleyes: ), one particular instance a guy was pandering on about how occupy started due to a Halliburton plot to round up everyone so as to keep an eye on them and wage some sort of Christian holy war against the Jews.:laugh:

[Lucretia]

He is not endorsed by Scumfront for no reason you know. And his endorsemnt of the Constitution Party in the last presidential electionis not accidental either. Indeed among his paleo-libertarian supporters there is a very strong tendency of right wing conspiracy theorists which overlap in many ways with the far right. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As for the benefit of the doubt he did not protest nearly as much when the newsletters were brought up in the 90's. He just knows his more out there stuff will turn off more people than he can appeal to, and make no mistake he is a populist actively trying to court people both from the liberal left and the hard right.

So you trust "Scumfront" (whatever that is) over Ron Paul regarding what Ron Paul's views on racism and sexism are? I think that's a tad unfair.

Regarding the rest, you're not really contradicting my general thrust, which is that his policies are overwhelmingly terrible, but that in spite of this his campaign is having a net positive political effect by interjecting anti-imperialist ideas into the mainstream political discourse (while his terrible ideas and policies aren't really being taken seriously or talked about at all).

[Crux]

So you trust "Scumfront" (whatever that is) over Ron Paul regarding what Ron Paul's views on racism and sexism are? I think that's a tad unfair.

Regarding the rest, you're not really contradicting my general thrust, which is that his policies are overwhelmingly terrible, but that in spite of this his campaign is having a net positive political effect by interjecting anti-imperialist ideas into the mainstream political discourse (while his terrible ideas and policies aren't really being taken seriously or talked about at all).
Stormfront. And I think his campaign is providing a rallying point for a section of the far-right, even more so if he ran an independent campaign. What's worse is that he makes some erstwhile progressives and even socialists close their eyes to what his politics actually are in favour of and resort to wishfull thinking. Ron Paul is an isolationist not an antimperialist.

[Lucretia]

Stormfront. And I think his campaign is providing a rallying point for a section of the far-right, even more so if he ran an independent campaign. What's worse is that he makes some erstwhile progressives and even socialists close their eyes to what his politics actually are in favour of and resort to wishfull thinking. Ron Paul is an isolationist not an antimperialist.

Being from Sweden, you would likely not know this. But his campaign is actually drawing a lot of cross-over support from people who identify as independent and left-liberal due to his anti-imperial policies. These numbers are far greater than any "far right" factions who are drawn to him, and at any rate these far-right factions are making grave errors if they are organizing around a republican candidate, just as revolutionary socialist would be making a grave error organizing around a democrat candidate. It's the cross-ideological organizing against US military campaigns abroad that would not be occurring without his campaign, and which I think has some useful aspects. As I said, his campaign is dutifully playing the role of the Good Shepherd, leading the flock into electoral, two-party politics. But the significance of this cross-ideological organizing is the understanding that there are deep layers of the population that oppose America's empire building. Its importance also lies in a growing but often subconscious awareness that supposedly rigid divisions between the two parties, reinforced by US mainstream media's coverage of politics and used by the ruling classes to keep workers divided, often mask an underlying consensus among most Americans, in this case that the US should not be conquering foreign lands. The possibility that Ron Paul will run as a third-party candidate is as high as the possibility that he will win the GOP nomination: zero. As for your last statement, isolationism and anti-imperialism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, especially when you're promoting a policy of isolationism for the world's greatest imperial power.

[Homo Songun]

he makes some erstwhile progressives and even socialists close their eyes to what his politics actually are in favour of and resort to wishfull thinking.First of all, how can Lucretia or you or I be accountable to the attitudes of erstwhile progressives and Socialists?

But if you meant "supposed" for "erstwhile", well, I don't see anybody doing that here. Please clarify.


Ron Paul is an isolationist not an antimperialist.Even if true, it is does not invalidate in any way the novelty of Paul being a front runner in the campaign. Besides the fact that the programme of [insert irrelevant sect here] is so much better, I mean.

I just find it a fascinating situation. Too bad that the vast majority don't agree!

[Commissar Rykov]

What the fuck is up with all you Ron Paul apologists? No wonder the Far Left is such a shithole at times.

[aty]

Close this thread, get sick everytime I see his name. Cant even see why he is debated in this forum?

He is worse than Thatcher.

[Commissar Rykov]

Close this thread, get sick everytime I see his name. Cant even see why he is debated in this forum?

He is worse than Thatcher.

They should close it then properly restrict all of his apologists so they can stay in OI with their bullshit.

[Crux]

Being from Sweden, you would likely not know this. But his campaign is actually drawing a lot of cross-over support from people who identify as independent and left-liberal due to his anti-imperial policies.
Yes I know, that's why I said so. People who willfully close their eyes to his politics.


These numbers are far greater than any "far right" factions who are drawn to him, and at any rate these far-right factions are making grave errors if they are organizing around a republican candidate, just as revolutionary socialist would be making a grave error organizing around a democrat candidate.
I use the term slightly broader than say just the NS types. And unlike the left who support him I do in fact not think the far right is making a mistake, devolving power to the State authorities is in fact in their favour.


It's the cross-ideological organizing against US military campaigns abroad that would not be occurring without his campaign, and which I think has some useful aspects.
Indeed it is useful as a picture to how lost parts of the U.S left really is, so lost in fact that they'll latch on to anyone.


As I said, his campaign is dutifully playing the role of the Good Shepherd, leading the flock into electoral, two-party politics. But the significance of this cross-ideological organizing is the understanding that there are deep layers of the population that oppose America's empire building. Its importance also lies in a growing but often subconscious awareness that supposedly rigid divisions between the two parties, reinforced by US mainstream media's coverage of politics and used by the ruling classes to keep workers divided, often mask an underlying consensus among most Americans, in this case that the US should not be conquering foreign lands. The possibility that Ron Paul will run as a third-party candidate is as high as the possibility that he will win the GOP nomination: zero. As for your last statement, isolationism and anti-imperialism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, especially when you're promoting a policy of isolationism for the world's greatest imperial power.
And again it is a tragically sad state of affairs when it is the paleo-libertarian candidate that appears as the "anti-war" candidate. The Constitution Party, Ron Paul's preferred party in the last pres. election, is isolationist too, does not mean I have any love for them or see their existence as a good thing in any way shape or form.

[Lucretia]

Yes I know, that's why I said so. People who willfully close their eyes to his politics.


I use the term slightly broader than say just the NS types. And unlike the left who support him I do in fact not think the far right is making a mistake, devolving power to the State authorities is in fact in their favour.


Indeed it is useful as a picture to how lost parts of the U.S left really is, so lost in fact that they'll latch on to anyone.


And again it is a tragically sad state of affairs when it is the paleo-libertarian candidate that appears as the "anti-war" candidate. The Constitution Party, Ron Paul's preferred party in the last pres. election, is isolationist too, does not mean I have any love for them or see their existence as a good thing in any way shape or form.

I think you should probably do a better job of distinguishing between supporting Ron Paul's candidacy, which I do not, and seeing some benefits to the fact that his candidacy is interjecting discussion of ending American imperialism into mainstream consciousness about American foreign policy.

You seem to be debating points that I am not making. Yes, the fact that some on the left are actually thinking of supporting Paul is a sign of how absolutely hollowed out and warped the US left has become as a result of decades-long, desperate clinging to the Democratic party. And no, Ron Paul's candidacy is obviously not directly advancing a leftist critique of US foreign policy. He's a salivating right-winger, why would he? But does that mean that his insistence on opposing American imperial schemes, even if for ridiculous reasons, might not have some positive consequences for the left, independent of how Ron Paul fares in primaries and caucuses? Obviously it doesn't. For as I said, I think it shatters one of the most formidable ideological barriers to working-class unity: the idea that politics is about an irremediable division between republicans and democrats who disagree on all the key issues, and whose disagreements represent the spectrum of popular belief on those issues.

I see that benefit as greater than any real drawbacks you are mentioning. His candidacy is not tying the left to electoral politics, for the left is already suffering from the illusions of electoralism and less-evilism. I don't see any revolutionary leftist dropping the banner to go caucus for Paul. Nor do I see any threat from Paul winning over masses of people to his insane economic theories. Those theories aren't even getting mainstream attention -- it's only his "isolationist" foreign policy and his newsletters that are garnering attention. He has no chance of winning the presidency, and therefore these policies have no chance of being enacted.

On the whole, and this shows how reality can be contradictory and ironic, I think that Ron Paul is a terrible candidate, but that his candidacy is yielding some positive developments.

[workersadvocate]

HELL NO to red-brown alliances. That's what opportunistic support for Ron Paul on Revleft really points to. Not only that, but it's a slap in the face to the more specially oppressed segments of the working class. And unless Ron Paul is running on a platform that calls for the full defeat of US imperialism in any conflicts, which is not and never has been his position, then he ain't anti-imperialist.
He and other "antiwar" bourgeois politicians merely want to manage capitalist imperialism in a way that they think is more efficient and better serves their class.
Ron Paul talks "antiwar", but where has this famous long-time bourgeois politician been organizing and mobilizing the working class supermajority itself, internationally, to oppose the imperialist wars with strikes, occupations, rebellions and other mass demonstration of working people's power. Where has Paul called for enlisted military personnel to independently organize themselves, rufuse to obey and then abolish the officer corps, and turn their guns around against "their own" ruling class, and join with the struggles of the working class against capitalism?
Sadly, I don't think much of the 'Left' attempted to do this authentic proletarian internationalist anti-imperialism either. Glad to see many here aren't ready to jump on a red-brown bandwagon, but we also need real anti-imperialism, and we should start with expanding Occupy to workplace occupations and massive class-wide workers' organizing, while inseparably and concrete combining our struggles with proletarian internationalism and anti-imperialism.

[Tatarin]

In the end, what will really change with Ron Paul as "winner"? It's not like Obama has total power to do whatever he pleases (that is, the opposition from the republicans and so on), not to mention that re-doing what Paul suggests would take decades.

But yeah, good luck in trying to get a republican to close down the 700+ military bases the US has all around the world...

[Rafiq]

Ron Paul has no moral authority over any member of the bourgeoisie, nor is he useful in regards to proletarian emancipation.

So this leads me to ask.... Why are so-called revolutionaries supporting this shit head?

[NewLeft]

Ron Paul is not an isolationist.. He promised me cheap oil! He loves free trade too.

[Homo Songun]

Nach Paul uns!

[KR]

Any socialist or left-winger who supports him is a retard.

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

from the article:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lf-logo.png

^doesn't that kind of dispute the notion that "liberty is an inherently bourgeois concept"? That statement might need some stipulation.

[Rafiq]

from the article:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lf-logo.png

^doesn't that kind of dispute the notion that "liberty is an inherently bourgeois concept"? That statement might need some stipulation.

No, I don't read extra terrestrial, sorry.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Linking to something that you didn't read never ends well. :(

[Rafiq]

I thought the first paragraph was enough evidence

[Red Noob]

I thought the first paragraph was enough evidence

Well here's the first paragraph:


Liberty is a contested moral and political principle that seeks to identify the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves.

So liberty is the label we give to self-governing.


There are different conceptions of liberty, which articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways, including some which relate to life under a "social contract" or to existence in a "state of nature", and some which see the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty.

So it's open to interpretation, and people have varying definitions of what liberty is.


Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the roles and responsibilities of the individual in society in relationship to conceptions of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.

Understanding liberty coincides to understanding individual responsibilities and free will.


Alright, I still have yet to believe it's a bourgeois concept.

[Rafiq]

Because Free Will itself is a Bourgeois concept.

Look, I don't think you're understanding this. I was hoping you were going to look at the history and usage of the term. The basis of Bourgeois rule is Liberalism, and Liberty is a pillar of liberalism. No, it is not contradictory that we want "Freedom" but Liberty is to the Bourgeoisie as Emancipation is to the proletariat. Liberty itself is a absolutist concept, that began to take form during the age of enlightenment. I suggest reading more as to the history of the term. It's more than just a word, it's an ideological framework.

[Rafiq]

And Explosive Situation, there is a difference between "Freedom" (Which means many things to many different forces in society) and Liberty, which is in itself an Ideological framework and basis for Bourgeois illusion.

[Homo Songun]

Because Free Will itself is a Bourgeois concept.

lol really? Then Thomas Aquinas and the other doctors of the church for example were capitalists? I am afraid the free will controversy well predates 15th century western Europe. I don't necessarily want to get into arcane debates over ruling class ideas, but you are the one castigating others for not going into the history of terms...


The basis of Bourgeois rule is Liberalism, and Liberty is a pillar of liberalism. No, it is not contradictory that we want "Freedom" but Liberty is to the Bourgeoisie as Emancipation is to the proletariat. Liberty itself is a absolutist concept, that began to take form during the age of enlightenment. I suggest reading more as to the history of the term. It's more than just a word, it's an ideological framework.

In Marxist and philosophical terms this is pure nonsense. Marxists typically hold that the basis of bourgeois rule is their ownership over the means of production, not ideology. Class rule can take many different forms informed by varying ideologies, as the need arises. Roughly speaking, Capitalism tended towards absolutist monarchism, then mercantilism, then liberalism, classical Imperialism, Keynesianism, and various other ideologies.

The point that E.S. and R.N. were trying to make I think is not that the ideas of 19th century style Liberals like Ron Paul are compatible with proletarian freedom per se, but that ideas like 'freedom' are not just illusions in that they have a material force on society at large. I'd say proletarians as a constituent part thereof are included.

Personally, I don't think that the petit-bourgeois types that are attracted to Ron Paul's ideas are the proper target of communist propaganda during this election cycle. Rather, it should be the traditional constituencies of the Democrats that are faced with the contradiction of a reactionary like Ron Paul being more anti-militarist and pro-civil liberties than "their" ostensible candidate. It could be an opportunity for discussing the exigencies of capitalism that makes a "community organizer" like Obama do what he does now that he is commander in chief of the world status quo. In other words, pushing them towards a revolutionary perspective. Hopefully.

[seventeethdecember2016]

ah, there it is! The always ridiculous and flat-out stupid "vote for the worst, so it becomes better" post!

He's racist. He's pro-capitalism. He's pro-let's go back to the late 19th century when capitalism is so topsy turvy we have a recession or depression every couple of years.

Fuck Ron Paul and his zombie supporters.
Since a lot of people replied to my comment with about the same central idea, I will only reply to this gentleman.

I have no worries about a terrible economy, nor do I worry about a reactionary getting into power. I simply have other allegiances than the USA, so any chance to watch any destabilization catches my attention.

Also, the idea of evolution to achieve Socialism is out of the picture. The conservationism in the USA will limit the progression it takes, so it is time to act now.

I know that Ron Paul isn't a good choice, but he is a strategical choice. I don't that Paul will be anything close to Hitler, since Hitler was an Interventionist while Paul wants Isolationism.

[NewLeft]

I have no worries about a terrible economy, nor do I worry about a reactionary getting into power. I simply have other allegiances than the USA, so any chance to watch any destabilization catches my attention.

What makes you think a destabilized economy will provoke revolution? If anything capitalism will reinvent itself.


Also, the idea of evolution to achieve Socialism is out of the picture. The conservationism in the USA will limit the progression it takes, so it is time to act now.

The conservation movement is dead..??


I know that Ron Paul isn't a good choice, but he is a strategical choice. I don't that Paul will be anything close to Hitler, since Hitler was an Interventionist while Paul wants Isolationism.

Paul is not an isolationist, he loves free trade!

[Tim Cornelis]

This just on Ron Paul won Iowa!
EDIT: (okay, no he didn't yet)

He's ahead in the polls at least.

I'm moderately excited about this because if Ron Paul actually wins: no more debating free market capitalists!

EDIT II:

No way, that ultra-conservative dickshit Santorum is in the lead.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I'm moderately excited about this because if Ron Paul actually wins: no more debating free market capitalists!
What do you mean? Paul is probably the one guy that is would espouse unfettered capitalism more than anyone else. The rest of the guys would set up sweet deals with major corporations and capitalists, as the trend has been lately. They're all capitalism-supporters, Ron Paul just happens to be a different kind.

[Tim Cornelis]

What do you mean? Paul is probably the one guy that is would espouse unfettered capitalism more than anyone else. The rest of the guys would set up sweet deals with major corporations and capitalists, as the trend has been lately. They're all capitalism-supporters, Ron Paul just happens to be a different kind.

Yeah, but if Ron Paul wins no more discussing hypothetical situations, just pointing to the US: look how shitty your free market capitalism is doing.

[Homo Songun]

Myself, I've had a sharp increase in migraine-inducing Internet debates with Obamabots in the years since he was elected.

But don't worry. Paul's chances at being the next president in the United States is not too much higher than Lyndon LaRouche capturing the Democratic nomination in 2016.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Why would socialists trust a man who advocates an entirely unregulated and completely privatized free-market? His economics is far-more capitalist supportive than any other candidate. The only redeeming quality about him is some of his social-stances, but that's only compared to the more socially-conservative republicans. I'm surprised you rather not support Kucinich or someone, who at least supports things like universal healthcare, unlike Paul...
The idea is an entirely privatised free market is not the least bit sustainable. Some believe that voting for neo-liberal folks is useful because they're policies will speed up the next crisis (an inevitable and natural part of capitalism, everyone with a brain agrees on this, from left to right), making revolution more plausible. I don't agree with this, just explaining.

I'm not old enough to vote by just a small amount of time, but voted for Rick Perry in my high school's mock election just to mess with people. I was one of 2 people who did.

[Veovis]

I prefer this:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx4y4vovX11qcbo9lo1_500.jpg

[∞]

This just on Ron Paul won Iowa!
EDIT: (okay, no he didn't yet)

He's ahead in the polls at least.

I'm moderately excited about this because if Ron Paul actually wins: no more debating free market capitalists!

EDIT II:

No way, that ultra-conservative dickshit Santorum is in the lead.

For whatever reason I feel utterly disgusted when I am informed about the polls. It kind of puts me in a bad mood. Hopefully I'm not the only one. Because I really hate it when people on RL update the polls.

[Tim Finnegan]

from the article:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lf-logo.png

^doesn't that kind of dispute the notion that "liberty is an inherently bourgeois concept"? That statement might need some stipulation.
It demonstrates that "liberty" is an historically specific and thus not uniquely bourgeois concept, yes, but not that it is transhistorical. That's a very important distinction.

Also, this:

And Explosive Situation, there is a difference between "Freedom" (Which means many things to many different forces in society) and Liberty, which is in itself an Ideological framework and basis for Bourgeois illusion.
Is semantic bullshit playing as ideological analysis. Some words have Saxon roots, some words have Latin roots, which means that English often ends up with synonym-pairs that other languages lack; the fact that pretentious bourgeois ideologues have a history of favouring Latin roots is really neither here nor there. (Aside from anything else, this logic would conclude with the declaration that Spaniards are inherently bourgeois, because their single word is "Libertad", as opposed to the good proletarian Germans with their single "Freiheit"!)

[Rafiq]

Usage of the term creates an ideological common ground with the bourgeoisie.

[∞]

I hope you are against the concept of liberty as expressed and conceived by the bourgeoisie and not political and societal freedom for the proletariat.

[NewLeft]

Yeah, but if Ron Paul wins no more discussing hypothetical situations, just pointing to the US: look how shitty your free market capitalism is doing.

Ron Paul wouldn't become dictator. :laugh: There would still be plenty of gov to criticize.

[Revolution starts with U]

None of these faux leftists who support Dr Paul seem to understand that he will still have to work with congress. You know what that means?
No ending of the drug war
No pulling back of US Imperialism
No shortage of bailouts, subsidies, and other welfare for the elites

On the other hand:

No more environmental protection
No more Dept of Education
No more unemployment, wick, and welfare for the underclasses

Only white supremacists, faux libertarians, and hippies who don't follow politics support this guy. :cursing:

[NewLeft]

None of these faux leftists who support Dr Paul seem to understand that he will still have to work with congress. You know what that means?
No ending of the drug war
No pulling back of US Imperialism
No shortage of bailouts, subsidies, and other welfare for the elites

On the other hand:

No more environmental protection
No more Dept of Education
No more unemployment, wick, and welfare for the underclasses

Only white supremacists, faux libertarians, and hippies who don't follow politics support this guy. :cursing:

Ron Paul would have the authority to pull the troops though..

[Renegade Saint]

I think people are giving Ron Paul to much credit for his anti-interventonism stance.
The fact is, capitalism requires imperialism to survive. We're all aware of that. Ron Paul wants more than anything to preserve (or "restore") capitalism. He can't do that and practice a non-interventionist foreign policy. When it comes to choosing between one or the other which do you think he'll go for? Keep in mind he's a Ronald Reagan fan.

What's more, the president doesn't act unilaterally. Not even someone like Paul does that. A president's choices are constrained by the system (and I'm not referring to the 'checks and balances' we learned about in high school). He(or she) is presented with a list of options to choose from-none of which will include non-intervention.

[bcbm]

ron paul would allow open season on union organizers (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12481/ron_paul_would_allow_open_season_on_union_organize rs/)

[MarxSchmarx]

None of these faux leftists who support Dr Paul seem to understand that he will still have to work with congress. You know what that means?
No ending of the drug war
No pulling back of US Imperialism
No shortage of bailouts, subsidies, and other welfare for the elites


As to the drug war, at least on the federal level, this is not true. Ron Paul as president could order an end to all prosecutions of drug crimes by prosecutors, who answer to the president. He could also veto (and likely withstand an override vote) on bailouts/subsidies, etc... and as head of the armed forces can order troops brought back from bases abroad to a "fortress America".

Will he do any of this? Not a prayer. I have no doubt that the bureaucracy and entrenched interests in the executive branch would balk in such a dramatic fashion that there will be sabotage of such an agenda. But our main critique of Ron Paul isn't that he will have to work with congress - because he doesn't. Rather, it's that he's a capitalist clown who is even too far out there for the oligarchs that really run this show.

[freakazoid]

just pointing to the US: look how shitty your free market capitalism is doing.

Because the US is so free market capitalism. :rolleyes:

[Walt]

If it becomes any freer than it already is- that would truly scare me.

[Lucretia]

If it becomes any freer than it already is- that would truly scare me.

The point that was being made is that markets are never "free" in the sense of being unfettered or pure. They are already always constructs of political arrangements enforcing private property rights and the like. Now there can be markets where profitability is more or less restricted on the basis of the people intervening to modify capital holdings and flows so as not to be geared solely toward profit but toward other things like the meeting of human needs (thus transforming the capital into a non-capital resource). But to claim that an unregulated market is a "free" market, without any restrictions, is to buy into a thoroughly erroneous and bourgeois frame of mind. The market is premised on all sorts of restrictions, most importantly restricting direct producers' access to the means of production. It just doesn't appear that way from a capitalist's perspective.

[seventeethdecember2016]

What makes you think a destabilized economy will provoke revolution? If anything capitalism will reinvent itself.



The conservation movement is dead..??



Paul is not an isolationist, he loves free trade!
I don't believe the conservative movement is dead, but I won't elaborate on that.

Just because Paul likes free trade doesn't make his an interventionist, it simply moves him one step away from pure Isolationism. Paul hates Globalization and the NWO. He wants to reduce the military and bring back reactionary ideas. He is an isolationist.

Along with destabilization comes dissent, which opens a narrow gap for a revolution. I am not saying it is 100%, probably not even 10%, but it is a chance. It is far better than going through Conservative Socialism as Marx called it.

[Renegade Saint]

Just because Paul likes free trade doesn't make his an interventionist, it simply moves him one step away from pure Isolationism. Paul hates Globalization and the NWO.

Historically it absolutely does. Most countries don't willingly open up their trade-they have to be coerced. At times that's taken the form of gunboat diplomacy, but today it's usually done through the IMF/World Bank/WTO.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Historically it absolutely does. Most countries don't willingly open up their trade-they have to be coerced. At times that's taken the form of gunboat diplomacy, but today it's usually done through the IMF/World Bank/WTO.
Perhaps, but if we think of a spectrum with interventionism and isolationism, Ron Paul falls on the isolationist side. Actually, Rob Paul is very deep into the isolationist side.

You gave a good example of the gunboat diplomacy from an era of large-scale piracy, but having your navy protect trading shouldn't be taken as a sign of interventionism(at least not on the strong side). China recently sent their Navy to fight against Somali pirates to protect their trading with Africa, and that was the first time in 500 years that China intervened in a conflict outside of Asia.

[The Young Pioneer]

I'd just like to add that Paul supports DoMA.

His little theory of leaving many decisions up to the states is complete shit. Even in states where gays can marry, there are federal tax breaks they cannot receive as a recognised married couple. This is in the thousands of dollars.


Not that he isn't a dirtbag, anyways.

[Renegade Saint]

Perhaps, but if we think of a spectrum with interventionism and isolationism, Ron Paul falls on the isolationist side. Actually, Rob Paul is very deep into the isolationist side.

You gave a good example of the gunboat diplomacy from an era of large-scale piracy, but having your navy protect trading shouldn't be taken as a sign of interventionism(at least not on the strong side). China recently sent their Navy to fight against Somali pirates to protect their trading with Africa, and that was the first time in 500 years that China intervened in a conflict outside of Asia.
What about the US navy patrolling the Persian Gulf? They're not cruising for pirates (not primarily). They're protecting the oil.

[#FF0000]

Because the US is so free market capitalism. :rolleyes:

it is tho lol

[Doflamingo]

Ron Paul is a foe of anybody that considers themselves a leftist. He is just another politician that caters to the capitalist class.

[∞]

The only positive thing I have to say about him is that he has enough sense not to engage in Jingoist circlejerks with his fellow candidates.

[Rafiq]

Because the US is so free market capitalism. :rolleyes:

Well, that's only because the free market capitalism put forward by it's adherents is Utopian and would never be able to function for a day.

[Drosophila]

Paul said that he favors the end of all NASA programs unless it's for national defense. What an asshole.

[kuros]

I dont know how you can even think he could be an ally to our cause.

[YugoslavSocialist]

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is great but his economic policies are horrible.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is great but his economic policies are horrible.
Ron Paul's 'great foreign policy is detached from both reality and what he stands for.

[Raúl Duke]

This thread is like 2 years old...

I think we reached a point where most reasonable people know that Ron Paul is a joke and I hope leftists know he ain't a friend of the left.

[Ostrinski]

Necroing a thread that hasn't been posted in for a year, legit.

Ron Paul is a rightist piece of worthless scum and a racist to boot. I sincerely don't want to see any apologetics for the likes of him on this board outside of OI.