Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
seems like an honest an sincere guy. However, his economic policies would take us straight back to the 1890s. None of his campaign's math on abolishing the income tax adds up, and sales taxes are horribly regressive anyway. Not to mention the fact that he's stridently anti-abortion, which doesn't jive with the rest of his libertarian rhetoric. Furthermore, his supporters border on cultlike. They remind of the Lyndon LaRouche people. Watch how many of them are going to come on this thread, rant about North American Union conspiracies and loudly attack anyone who disagrees with Dr. Paul or his policies.
Going into a frenzy due to the use of the word "quixotic" is really overboard. Geez, lighten up! Michael wrote a very nice article.
By the way Michael, the short answer to your question about what supporters really want, is easy. It's freedom. No longer a given in this country...
I'm at a loss about someone who says they "fear" Austrian economics. The only economic system that does not employ coercion. Most transactions that most people have every day do not involve coercion, but instead are about peaceful interchange. Why is it so hard to imagine that extended? Why so fearful? Is it really that bad we are going to stop killing Iraqis - which is perfectly emblematic our our current condition? What alternative to Ron Paul is going to stop that?
Yes, Dennis, by all means push his campaign. But if he can't win the nomination, Ron Paul (who WILL win the nomination) is the only civilized choice.
Don't fear freedom!
"I ... haven't voted in years. After all, what was the point? They are all the same."
Anyone who thinks that George Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore are "all the same" richly deserves to have Ron Paul (or Ross Perot or Ralph Nader) as president.
because surely we will get back on track if only we find the right leader to elect. I put it on the same footing as finding the right church to attend.
A while back I had commented that Salon had given scant attention to Ron Paul, who at the very least deserves a few articles based on his grass-roots support alone. I am glad to see Salon has decided to give him some coverage.
If there are future articles on Paul, it would be nice to see more details of his policies, more analysis, etc. Exactly how radical is he? He has switched from the Libertarian to the Republican party -- did that switch come with any corresponding move toward the center? Or none at all? (What does the Libertarian party think of him abandoning them?)
From listening to Ron Paul it's clear what he's against. What's less clear is what exactly he wants to do to solve those problems. Would Paul immediately evacuate the troops? Would he appoint Supreme Court Justices who were anti-abortion? If that happens, is Paul ready for the re-creation of black-market, back-alley abortion centers?
Most tellingly, Paul has correctly made an issue of the U.S.'s gargantuan national debt. Yet Paul is also opposed to the income tax. So how does Paul propose to reduce the national debt, if not by raising taxes? Would he propose hardcore SEC enforcement of people who use tax shelters and corporations that move their headquarters off shore? Or what?
Paul certainly seems like a fresh voice compared to Republicans and Democrats. But does he really have anything to offer? Could he really get anything positive done? That's a question his supporters have yet to answer.
The media are either not listening or they voluntarily choose to ignore the facts and misportray the November 5th fundraising event. The date was inspired by the movie "V for Vendetta." At the end of this movie, the citizens of England protest the tyranny of their government in peaceful civil disobedience. It is this peaceful coming together of diverse people in the common interest of liberty that is analogous to the Ron Paul campaign, not Guy Fawkes' behavior. That is only incidental.
The Ron Paul supporters took Guy Fawkes' action and turned it on its head as an audacious marketing device and did so to great success. It is the kind of thing actual campaign managers would have been too scared to even try. This came from the grassroots. It is not fair to misrepresent the event in some sinister light as so many in the media have chosen to do. Most of them know better.
Remember, it is the Ron Paul supporters who want to end the wars and bring our troops home. This is the modern peace movement. It is Ron Paul supporters who emphasize the word "love" (spelled backwards) in "Ron Paul rEVOLution." Ron Paul represents the libertarian philosophy which fundamentally believes that initiation of force to achieve social or political goals is wrong.
So let's put and end to this Guy Fawkes nonsense. That's nothing more than a red herring.
Peace, love, prosperity, liberty! Ron Paul for president!
The baby elephant lives in a veal harness, is forcefed pablum, and has it's memory erased once every 24 hours.
Not much chance of it actually getting up to vote.
Tired of the same old song-and-dance from your presidents? See this new music video, which satirizes the war on terrorism and the MSM, from the feature-length zombie-musical-political satire, "Song of the Dead" -- with its surprise Ron Paul endorsement at the end.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Even if Ron Paul won the election, he would be unable to make all the changes his supporters seem to believe he would make. That's because it's Congress that writes and passes the laws and that holds the purse strings. I'd like to hear from Paul supporters about how they think he is going to enact his policies without congressional support or how they expect him to obtain the support of a Congress that has many members who would never vote in favor of many Paul policies. Plain speaking is wonderful. But it takes so much more than that. I think it's great that people who were never engaged in the political process are getting involved but all of this seems like a recipe for disillusionment. A segment of the country went through this "white knight" worhsip already in 1992 with Ross Perot and to a lesser extent with John Anderson in 1980.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
