An interesting fact about Ron Paul.

[Cheung Mo]

He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[thescarface1989]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 pm
He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I supported Ron Paul for about a month in the summer, I'm glad I stopped that!

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by thescarface1989+December 08, 2007 07:29 pm--> (thescarface1989 @ December 08, 2007 07:29 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 pm
He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I supported Ron Paul for about a month in the summer, I'm glad I stopped that! [/b]
do you think that at a moment of weakness or naiveness we are caught off guard? forget our stance against capitalism and all the sudden get caught in the debate hoopla?

[thescarface1989]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+December 08, 2007 07:38 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ December 08, 2007 07:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:29 pm

Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 pm
He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I supported Ron Paul for about a month in the summer, I'm glad I stopped that!
do you think that at a moment of weakness or naiveness we are caught off guard? forget our stance against capitalism and all the sudden get caught in the debate hoopla? [/b]
His foreign Policy might have got me on his side, but after doing more research on him I realized he was a hardcore capitalist. In my opinion the only candidate worth supporting is Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul is even supported by Neo-Nazi groups here in the U.S., now that I have found out about this little fact it makes more sense.

[SouthernBelle82]

The only one? I'm surprised at that. I know he did vote against it but didn't think he was the only one.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by thescarface1989+December 08, 2007 07:50 pm--> (thescarface1989 @ December 08, 2007 07:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:38 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:29 pm

Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 pm
He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I supported Ron Paul for about a month in the summer, I'm glad I stopped that!
do you think that at a moment of weakness or naiveness we are caught off guard? forget our stance against capitalism and all the sudden get caught in the debate hoopla?
His foreign Policy might have got me on his side, but after doing more research on him I realized he was a hardcore capitalist. In my opinion the only candidate worth supporting is Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul is even supported by Neo-Nazi groups here in the U.S., now that I have found out about this little fact it makes more sense. [/b]
Yep. The group Stormfront has also donated money to him. You can find video's on youtube.com of racist skinheads supporting him. The last time I checked he still is accepting their money. Thankfully he isn't rising in the polls.

[Dimentio]

Was he not first voted in as a congressman in 1972?

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:46 pm
Was he not first voted in as a congressman in 1972?
His profile on Wikipedia says 1997 so I don't know.

[Dimentio]

He was elected before that. Served during the 70;s and 80;s, then again during the 90;s and the 00;s.

[w0lf]

I used to support him, but there's something you just can't trust about him.

Edit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7EiIenZktk

According to this^ video Paul wrote an article that claimed Neo-Cons are communists. :lol:

[spartan]

According to this^ video Paul wrote an article that claimed Neo-Cons are communists. :lol:
Neo-Communists (Nazbols) :lol:

Anyway no offence to those ex-Ron Paul supporters but arent Anarcho-Capitalists, Libertarians, etc (Which is what i am guessing you all are seeing as you could support him and his Libertarian policies) restricted to OI?

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 pm
He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSess...ws_iv_ctrl=1261 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=ehha8v4l03.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=7717&news_iv_ctrl=1261)

Whats next for venezuela? With the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil reserves, the foreign oil companies lost their longstanding control of the petroleum resources. Those that have remained in Venezuela have been forced to pay higher royalties to the state. The hundreds of billions of dollars in extra government funds, coupled with the legislative moves of the pro-Chávez National Assembly, have allowed the Bolivarian government to launch great changes in people’s lives

I don understand how can lots of people think that Ron Paul will fix US economy without nationalizing key private corporations like electricity, oil, water, etc. Will Ron Paul or Kucinich nationalize Exxon Oil here in USA? (I dont think so !!)

marxist_god

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 09, 2007 02:12 am--> (marxist_god @ December 09, 2007 02:12 am)
Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 pm
He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSess...ws_iv_ctrl=1261 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=ehha8v4l03.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=7717&news_iv_ctrl=1261)

Whats next for venezuela? With the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil reserves, the foreign oil companies lost their longstanding control of the petroleum resources. Those that have remained in Venezuela have been forced to pay higher royalties to the state. The hundreds of billions of dollars in extra government funds, coupled with the legislative moves of the pro-Chávez National Assembly, have allowed the Bolivarian government to launch great changes in people’s lives

I don understand how can lots of people think that Ron Paul will fix US economy without nationalizing key private corporations like electricity, oil, water, etc. Will Ron Paul or Kucinich nationalize Exxon Oil here in USA? (I dont think so !!)

marxist_god [/b]
Ron Paul I can say for sure won't. Kucinich I'm not sure about. He's a big union guy so I'm not sure.

[bootleg42]

Kucinich seems like a social democrat. He keeps on referring to himself as a "working persons president". If you read his history, he fought to keep his city's electric company city property after a shitload of corporate interests and prviate companies did their best to make him sell it off. He had a load of pressure and it cost him his position (you know how the public in the U.S. easily falls for the private company propaganda) but he never sold it. In fact today, that electric company is still public property.

Not trying to make him look like a complete hero but he seems like a social democrat though he's in NO WAY a socialist or Marxist or anything to that sense.

[Colonello Buendia]

Isn't Ron Paul a hard-core constitutionalist? I heard he only voted against the war in Iraq because he deemed it unconstitutional.. If only there was a true Marxist running.... In Britain the socialist party does fuck all to cntest elections. they say they would only do it if it was plausible that they could win

[Jazzratt]

Some more shocking news about Ron Paul:

He has less actual relevance to American politics than his internet gooftroop want to portray. He's a controversial figure, sure but doesn't have a hell of a lot of mainstream support beyond roving gangs of elosers.

That's the most I've ever said about this useless **** and I've only said it because you stupid ****s won't stop talking about him as if he's going to become president tomorrow.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:18 am
Kucinich seems like a social democrat. He keeps on referring to himself as a "working persons president". If you read his history, he fought to keep his city's electric company city property after a shitload of corporate interests and prviate companies did their best to make him sell it off. He had a load of pressure and it cost him his position (you know how the public in the U.S. easily falls for the private company propaganda) but he never sold it. In fact today, that electric company is still public property.

Not trying to make him look like a complete hero but he seems like a social democrat though he's in NO WAY a socialist or Marxist or anything to that sense.
Right. He's far from a socialist but he's more of an old school democrat I think. With what you're talking about someone also put an assissination attempt on his life. There's a youtube.com video of it is where I saw.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:35 pm
Some more shocking news about Ron Paul:

He has less actual relevance to American politics than his internet gooftroop want to portray. He's a controversial figure, sure but doesn't have a hell of a lot of mainstream support beyond roving gangs of elosers.

That's the most I've ever said about this useless **** and I've only said it because you stupid ****s won't stop talking about him as if he's going to become president tomorrow.
Yea there's this guy in a class I had this past term who was a major Ron Paul supporter and they act like he's the only one out there who is a politician who can save the country etc. And yea they act like he has all this internet support but it's really just spammers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The role of Kucinich (and people like him) has been explained here many times before:

Kucinich takes positions that win the support of a number of leftist/left leaning folks.

Many of these folks campaign for Kucinich.

Kucinich looses the primaries, and then endorses the candidate who wins them.

All of those leftists who supported Kucinich all that time do the same, in the name of "lesser evilism."

Kucinich is a reformist capitalist politician that ties progressive people. who may otherwise be disenchanted. to the Democratic Party.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 09, 2007 06:47 pm
The role of Kucinich (and people like him) has been explained here many times before:

Kucinich takes positions that win the support of a number of leftist/left leaning folks.

Many of these folks campaign for Kucinich.

Kucinich looses the primaries, and then endorses the candidate who wins them.

All of those leftists who supported Kucinich all that time do the same, in the name of "lesser evilism."

Kucinich is a reformist capitalist politician that ties progressive people. who may otherwise be disenchanted. to the Democratic Party.
you forgot to mention that he looks lil a lil elf.. hehe :P

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 09, 2007 01:47 pm
The role of Kucinich (and people like him) has been explained here many times before:

Kucinich takes positions that win the support of a number of leftist/left leaning folks.

Many of these folks campaign for Kucinich.

Kucinich looses the primaries, and then endorses the candidate who wins them.

All of those leftists who supported Kucinich all that time do the same, in the name of "lesser evilism."

Kucinich is a reformist capitalist politician that ties progressive people. who may otherwise be disenchanted. to the Democratic Party.
right on.

In the 2004 elections the Democrates used for Kucinich to take the anti-war voters from Nader (who is no revolutionary himself) and bring them over to the Democratic party. Then once Kucinich lost the primary, which everyone knew he would, he would endorse the Democratic canidate.

The Kucinich is a ploy to draw anti-war vote to the Democratic party. Now, this isn't saying Kucinich does all of this with this specific plan but this is how it pans out and the Democratic party does it purposfully.

[MT5678]

Similarly, Clinton (who will likely win) is likely grateful for Obama, whose role is to "confuse and divide up the progressive base", as one ZNet author put it. Everyone works for the bourgeois, so they like having people to fool the proletariat.

Ron Paul is borderline insane, just as all hardcore libertarians are. Aside from neo-Nazi ties, his foreign policy views (he actually apparently knows that America plays a key role in the exacerbation of terror) reveal his dim comprehension of the state's relation to the bourgeois. Its like he can't accept that the state is a vehicle for bourgeois interests, which include imperialism. No libertarian can.

[Great Helmsman]

I don't know how many of you know, but an article was published in The New Republic a couple of days ago confirming everything we already knew about Ron Paul. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

They've also posted pdfs of newsletters Ron Paul wrote while out of office for 20 years which contain some pretty shocking stuff. Members of his cult have been out to bury it, but it's out and this guy is finished.

[bootleg42]

I don't know how many of you know, but an article was published in The New Republic a couple of days ago confirming everything we already knew about Ron Paul. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

They've also posted pdfs of newsletters Ron Paul wrote while out of office for 20 years which contain some pretty shocking stuff. Members of his cult have been out to bury it, but it's out and this guy is finished.

Well I just read those .pdf files they posted on it......WOW. I mean really.....wow. I wouldn't mind making a youtube video of me reading the article word for word and see what the reaction is. Someone should do that, it would be funny. I mean the way he used the term euro-american in his papers....wow. Well at least, with those articles, he won't be elected because when all of the african-americans in the U.S. and when many of confused people with some sort of "left" feelings read that.............he'll look like a fool.

[MT5678]

I missed this article? Damn, I keep tabs on bourgeois journals to see what kind of lies they spread (did you know that Stalin killed tens of millions in Holocaust-like purges?), but I missed this one. Thanks for putting it up.

Ron Paul is as radical as many Americans will get...meaning radical capitalism, as one ZNet author put it.

[Sergei Simonov]

Is there a reason we should care about Ron Paul?

He will not win the nomination. If by some sort of electoral "miracle" he were to, he would not win the general election. And if by some greater "miracle" he were to win the general election his agenda would be hamstrung and stymied by Congress and capital at every turn.

Ron Paul is a fantasist. In its imperialist stage, capitalism requires an intrusive managerial state. One libertarian fossil with a bad case of market worship cannot roll time backward.

[FireFry]

Neo-Communists (Nazbols) :lol:

Anyway no offence to those ex-Ron Paul supporters but arent Anarcho-Capitalists, Libertarians, etc (Which is what i am guessing you all are seeing as you could support him and his Libertarian policies) restricted to OI?

Yeah, but this is politics, and I think that discussing political candidates for office is the most relavant forum for a thread like this. Ron Paul is a good politician because he at least sticks to his principles and I can't see him making any promises he won't keep (except his promise to disband the IRS).

As a communist, I don't fall for his free market bullshit, and I think that Ron Paul would at least support policies like FDR's. At best, I think he's a center-left candidate.

Besides, in communist society, nothing should ever be taboo.

[Marsella]

Ron Paul is a good politician...

That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

[Redscare102]

Paul is a total loon. He wants to abolish FEMA, for fucks sake. And public schools. O_o He also seems to think that the economy will benefit from the gold standard, which is just downright silly. Gold is just as arbitrary as paper.

[SouthernBelle82]

Oh that would be good and then wait like half a minute and say it was really written by Ron Paul. A lot of his apologist claim that it was written by someone else but I call b.s. with that. It's his newsletter that went to all sorts of people who were on the mailing list. Here is a clip from the show "The Young Terks" and the guy makes a great point about the whole newsletter ordeal with Paul- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de_CSuJCsfY


Well I just read those .pdf files they posted on it......WOW. I mean really.....wow. I wouldn't mind making a youtube video of me reading the article word for word and see what the reaction is. Someone should do that, it would be funny. I mean the way he used the term euro-american in his papers....wow. Well at least, with those articles, he won't be elected because when all of the african-americans in the U.S. and when many of confused people with some sort of "left" feelings read that.............he'll look like a fool.

[jake williams]

and I think that Ron Paul would at least support policies like FDR's. At best, I think he's a center-left candidate.
No way in hell, on either point. He's just an absolute nutjob. I mean, yes, there are slight points on which anyone would agree with him, but in general he would be a really really horrible president, domestically but not just, worse maybe even than a couple Republican candidates.

[Great Helmsman]

Oh that would be good and then wait like half a minute and say it was really written by Ron Paul. A lot of his apologist claim that it was written by someone else but I call b.s. with that. It's his newsletter that went to all sorts of people who were on the mailing list. Here is a clip from the show "The Young Terks" and the guy makes a great point about the whole newsletter ordeal with Paul- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de_CSuJCsfY

I don't buy that story for a minute. Ron Paul has commented on these back in 1996 when some of them came out and has since changed his story then. In some instances he writes in the first person and even signs his own name! Apparently TNR found this stuff buried in archival section right next to neo-Nazi and white supremacist tracts. Even if he had nothing to do with writing them (which of course he did), he still has to be the most negligent person on the face of the planet. Some libertarians have come out and said that they knew this was going on at the time, but didn't say anything because they were afraid they would be associated with racist ideas. Too late now!

[Luís Henrique]

There is only one reasonable reason to support Ron Paul, and it is if you really really hate America so much that you wish it to be destroyed by being governed by a nutcake.

Luís Henrique

[Great Helmsman]

There is only one reasonable reason to support Ron Paul, and it is if you really really hate America so much that you wish it to be destroyed by being governed by a nutcake.

Luís Henrique
I really hate America, but I oppose the ethnic cleansing of 12-20 million people - most of those who make up the small first world proletariat.

[FireFry]

That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

:D :D :D :D lol... I meant he's loyal to his constituency. He's loyal to those who voted for him to enact his policies that he promises. He keeps his election promises and what he votes on is pretty predictable. That's my idea of an ideal politician, of course, he's not a saint, but he's at least a representative of the ideals of the time; centrist. So, he's got a good shot.

[Marsella]

I really hate America, but I oppose the ethnic cleansing of 12-20 million people - most of those who make up the small first world proletariat.

The American working class makes up far more than 4 odd percent of the American populace. :/


That's my idea of an ideal politician...

My idea of an ideal politician is a dead one.

[SouthernBelle82]

Not really. He claims abortion should be up to the state but yet he put up a federal amendment to ban abortion. So much for the states deciding. :rolleyes:


:D :D :D :D lol... I meant he's loyal to his constituency. He's loyal to those who voted for him to enact his policies that he promises. He keeps his election promises and what he votes on is pretty predictable. That's my idea of an ideal politician, of course, he's not a saint, but he's at least a representative of the ideals of the time; centrist. So, he's got a good shot.

[Tatarin]

I don't know how Ron Paul can be considered center or left. I've got a problem accepting social democracy as even center, but at least it's capitalism with a small smile.

Ron Paul isn't even that. Sure, while he goes on ranting on how he will abolish huge corporate institutions - which would be like abolishing the moon (i.e., to just write them off peacefully once you're president) - his idea of society is based on the twisted idea of market rule. That means no social nets at all.

If Ron Paul was such a big phenomenon, I think many more would vote for him, but apparently many people are still conscious of what it will mean if what state "help" are left is erased.

Basically, Paul is perhaps something of an internet-bouff, mostly appealing to young middle-class people, most of who also are suspicious of the US government, and feels that they must go back to what their "fore fathers" said.

[w0lf]

Paul is a total loon. He wants to abolish FEMA, for fucks sake.

FEMA :lol: They just take credit for stuff the people do..

[MarxSchmarx]

I am no Ron Paul fan, but let's get our facts straight.

[quote]
He is the only sitting Congressperson to have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.[\quote]

I think Robert Byrd (D-WV) voted against that one as well.

Moreover, Paul wasn't in Congress when the act was passed.