Ron Paul really knows how to smooze that Tea Party!

I'm always amused when people try to differentiate Libertarians from the Tea Party. Here's a prime example of a politician combining his goals to deregulate business (yay! for pollution and more corporate theft) while embracing the religious and anti-abortion zeal of the Tea Party. Read it and laugh (or weep, whichever you feel is more appropriate).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/ron-paul-adviser-criticiz_n_880559.html

In all fairness, it was his advisor.

RON PAUL 2012!
He is the one and only anti-war candidate (give me an anti-war candidate to challenge Obama in the primary or an anti-war Independent like Bernie Sanders and I will vote for them instead )! And he is the only candidate that is not beholden to the corporate and bankster interests. That's why they would never allow him to win anyway.

(I'm dreaming here but...) After he ends of all of the wars, brings home all of our troops from the hundreds of bases around the world, gets rid of the Federal Reserve, restores Glass-Steagall, and gets the economy going, then we will debate with him about some of the other issues.

P.S. I shouldn't have to just dream about our country following our Constitution and not being corrupt. It should already be that way. That's the whole reason that we have the Constitution to begin with. We weren't supposed to get taken over by the corporations and banks and we have a right and a duty to change that.

Problem is he has brought the other issues to the table already, Jen. He's a wingnut.

You think he will get the economy going by deregulation of business? You think that companies like BP need more latitude to screw up our environment, not less? You think it isn't costly in terms of human and wildlife health? You want to close your eyes to his moralizing, war on the poor and desire to turn back civil rights in favor of empty promises? Good luck with that.

The good news for people like me is he doesn't have a chance in hell of gaining the Republican nomination, much less winning.

Better we look at those issues now than later.

Tara wrote:Problem is he has brought the other issues to the table already, Jen. He's a wingnut.

You think he will get the economy going by deregulation of business? You think that companies like BP need more latitude to screw up our environment, not less? You think it isn't costly in terms of human and wildlife health? You want to close your eyes to his moralizing, war on the poor and desire to turn back civil rights in favor of empty promises? Good luck with that.

The good news for people like me is he doesn't have a chance in hell of gaining the Republican nomination, much less winning.

Better we look at those issues now than later.

I don't see him saying these things at all. The media (all of them)
twist his words and portray him that way because they are owned by the
big corporations that don't want him to win.
Also, he has not been bringing those issues to the table. He wants to address the largest issues that are the problems with this country first. It's the media
that tries to bring all of those other issues in by asking those
questions and insisting that he answer them in the wrong context because
his answers make more sense after the big issues are fixed but, the
media wants you to think that he would just come in and do all of this
other stuff first and he wouldn't.

I categorically disagree with you and believe that many folks are drawn in by the title "libertarian" without an understanding of what he stands for.

He is a very religious man who has a strong anti-abortion stance. He believes in a smaller government and in giving the states more rights.We're seeing some of that already as Republicans attack Planned Parenthood and unemployment funding at the state level.

He believes that if a business doesn't want to serve a black person, then it is there right to turn that person away from the door. If that isn't an attack on civil rights, then what is? Myself? I call it racism.

He believes in the deregulation of business and corporations and that too many regulations causes prices to go up (he has a point there btw, but if we have to sacrifice our environment or pay a little more, I know which I'm for). That is one of his mainstays. The press didn't make it up.

He is anti social safety net programs - unemployment, welfare, medicaid, medicare and Social Security. IRS withstanding, do you really believe that we don't need social programs in an economy like this. Wrong context, nope. Ron Paul is real clear what he stands for and has been very verbal about it. What you saw in that article was him courting the Tea Party and the far right. Down with Ron Paul!

Here's another Libertarian in the news. Did I forget to say that Ron Paul is anti-union? How could I have forgotten? This is Libertarian Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey as he advances an anti-union bill in his state, just like Wisconsin did. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/new-jersey-union-bill-app_n_880617.html Are you in favor of anti-unions bills, too?

Tara wrote:Here's another Libertarian in the news. Did I forget to say that Ron Paul is anti-union? How could I have forgotten? This is Libertarian Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey as he advances an anti-union bill in his state, just like Wisconsin did. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/new-jersey-union-bill-app_n_880617.html Are you in favor of anti-unions bills, too?

No, and those two are nothing alike. Chris Christie is another evil globalist.
And Ron Paul is not racist like you said. That's exactly what the media wants you to think.
About the deregulation. He means to let the small businesses have a fighting chance. Right now, we have fascism where the government favors the large multinationals and subsidizes them and gives them waivers from regulations and lets them destroy the environment and purposely lets them squash any and all competition. He does not want to give the multinationals any of those things. Everyone should have an equal chance and the small businesses have some very outrageous regulations that only they have to follow and they get regulated out of business.
His stance on abortion has nothing to do with religion. I've never heard him bring up religion. It has to do with the Constitution and that everyone (even unborn) has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


Ron Paul "I Don't Think Cutting Food Stamps For The Poor Is The Right Priority"
https://youtu.be/fWyHylqFbv4

Ron Paul is not anymore for unions than he is for government subsidized social safety nets for the poor, Jen, despite what youtube would like you to believe.

Ron Paul believes that the state should never solve any social problem no matter how bad it is or even if there's a workable solution.

Here's what he had to say about the Civil Rights Act: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if they are motivated by racism."

How slimy is that? What do you think would happen if the Federal Government had failed to make The Civil Right Act of 1964 law and left it to the states? Lynchings would have not stopped when they did.

So here we go. Its 2011 and we have a Republican Presidential candidate who thinks its ok to publicly express that he is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And some of us have become so used to the extremism of these GOP wingnuts that they go around spouting, Ron Paul for President!

Tara wrote:Ron Paul believes that the state should never solve any social problem no matter how bad it is or even if there's a workable solution.

Here's what he had to say about the Civil Rights Act: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if they are motivated by racism."

How slimy is that? What do you think would happen if the Federal Government had failed to make The Civil Right Act of 1964 law and left it to the states? Lynchings would have not stopped when they did.

So here we go. Its 2011 and we have a Republican Presidential candidate who thinks its ok to publicly express that he is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And some of us have become so used to the extremism of these GOP wingnuts that they go around spouting, Ron Paul for President!

You are just spouting what the corporate media tells you to think. He is not racist and was not against the entire law. He was for getting completely rid of the segregation. He was only against the part that tells people what they can and can't do with their own private property. He is just for private property rights. He has stated numerous times that he would never go to an establishment that discriminates against anyone and that he knows that neither would anyone else in this day and age. Someone would have to be a huge idiot and they would be boycotted if they tried to discriminate and he has said such. Allowing people to do what they want with their own property is not racism. It's about having rights. He is about everyone having equal rights because we are humans, nothing to do with race at all and that is not racist. It is the opposite of it.

I could respond to you, that you are just spouting what youtube tells you to think as you did me, Jen, but yours is a weak argument and you know it.

Civil rights were fought for hard and long by many Americans. Civil rights are a huge infringement of people's property rights lol. It says that you can't put black people in the back of the bus or make them sit in the back of a restaurant. Its a huge example of the government meddling in people's private business, isn't it?

I think he's perfected the perfectly sincere demeanor complete with what some people buy as non-prejudiced, non-biased thinking. Because that's what they're told his reasoning is. But, Civil Rights are much more than that. They were a gigantic tool in solving a social and political crisis. It may have less practical significance today, but its an important tool against racism and a symbol of America's committment to non-discrimination.

The Paul's oppose Civil Rights on not or not only because they are prejudiced against black people, but because of their beliefs I stated above that the state should never solve any problem no matter how severe the problem or how easy it is to solve.

I'm not buying what he has to sell. Remember reading about the LA riots in the early 90's? Here's what Paul wrote in his political report about it - “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” was one of many racially tinged remarks. He believed the looting was a natural byproduct of Civil Rights.

Tara wrote:I could respond to you, that you are just spouting what youtube tells you to think as you did me, Jen, but yours is a weak argument and you know it.

Civil rights were fought for hard and long by many Americans. Civil rights are a huge infringement of people's property rights lol. It says that you can't put black people in the back of the bus or make them sit in the back of a restaurant. Its a huge example of the government meddling in people's private business, isn't it?

I think he's perfected the perfectly sincere demeanor complete with what some people buy as non-prejudiced, non-biased thinking. Because that's what they're told his reasoning is. But, Civil Rights are much more than that. They were a gigantic tool in solving a social and political crisis. It may have less practical significance today, but its an important tool against racism and a symbol of America's committment to non-discrimination.

The Paul's oppose Civil Rights on not or not only because they are prejudiced against black people, but because of their beliefs I stated above that the state should never solve any problem no matter how severe the problem or how easy it is to solve.

I'm not buying what he has to sell. Remember reading about the LA riots in the early 90's? Here's what Paul wrote in his political report about it - “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” was one of many racially tinged remarks. He believed the looting was a natural byproduct of Civil Rights.

lol, here comes nuttin2lose with a sage act of wisdom. At least, he didn't go waaah! I don't like you to me like last time.

See you got me wrong here. I finally realized that I am so lucky to have someone who knows all about all. and has no problem telling me how, and what to think.

Tara wrote:I could respond to you, that you are just spouting what youtube tells you to think as you did me, Jen, but yours is a weak argument and you know it.

Civil rights were fought for hard and long by many Americans. Civil rights are a huge infringement of people's property rights lol. It says that you can't put black people in the back of the bus or make them sit in the back of a restaurant. Its a huge example of the government meddling in people's private business, isn't it?

I think he's perfected the perfectly sincere demeanor complete with what some people buy as non-prejudiced, non-biased thinking. Because that's what they're told his reasoning is. But, Civil Rights are much more than that. They were a gigantic tool in solving a social and political crisis. It may have less practical significance today, but its an important tool against racism and a symbol of America's committment to non-discrimination.

The Paul's oppose Civil Rights on not or not only because they are prejudiced against black people, but because of their beliefs I stated above that the state should never solve any problem no matter how severe the problem or how easy it is to solve.

I'm not buying what he has to sell. Remember reading about the LA riots in the early 90's? Here's what Paul wrote in his political report about it - “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” was one of many racially tinged remarks. He believed the looting was a natural byproduct of Civil Rights.

The city bus is public property, not private and if some disgusting idiot racist tries to open a restaurant and discriminate, he's not going to be in business very long. Besides all of this, this is not one of his issues. He is never going to try to repeal any part of the law. It is something that the MEDIA brought up with him and keeps bringing up with him because it is part of their smear campaign because they know about the Libertarian stance on property rights and knew that they could use that to try and portray him as racist. He is not concerned with that issue at all. He is concerned with the huge issues that are destroying this country. Just so you know, Fox News smears him all of the time too. That should tell you something when all sides of the corporate media go after someone. That means that the person has not sold out to the corporations. Any candidate of any party that any of the mainstream media endorses is a corporate sell out. All of the other candidates besides him are corporate candidates.

As far as that quote he supposedly said about the riots, if I remember correctly, I read somewhere that he didn't say that at all. I think I read that it was not a political report written by him but, by someone else.

Also, I never said that I agree with him on every single issue anyway, just on getting rid of the major unconstitutional things that are going on that are completely destroying this country and causing us to live under fascism (RP calls it corporatism), the same exact issues that Progressives agree with. Give me a real Progressive to vote for and I will happily do so.
I am not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination and he is the only Republican that I have ever thought that I might possibly vote for but, that is because he is not really a Republican, he's just using that party name to try and get elected.

nuttin2lose wrote:See you got me wrong here. I finally realized that I am so lucky to have someone who knows all about all. and has no problem telling me how, and what to think.

nuttin2lose,

You are free to join this conversation. I welcome your input. But, when you jump in with sarcastic images or say things like I don't like you its just plain nasty and adds zero value to the topic.

I have always been under the impression that "real" Libertarians oppose any form of governmental criminalization or regulation of abortion.

By the way, before the civil rights movement, how many segregated businesses went belly-up because of their racist practices?

I may be misstating Libertarian principles, but I don't agree at all with their philosophy that a free (totally unregulated? mostly unregulated?) market will produce optimal results. Mr. Greenspan's unyielding view in this regard arguably led to the derivatives and shadow (totally unregulated) banking system disaster that IMHO was a prime factor in the meltdown leading to the Great Recession.

by truth Today at 20:03

"""I have always been under the impression that "real" Libertarians oppose any form of governmental criminalization or regulation of abortion"""

Was watching a documentary just the other day, an Mr Greenspan and Ayn Rand were both included....
If I understand correctly they believe completly in the Market to the extreem point that they would do away even with laws against Fraud...

Let the buyer beware, ALWAYS, in otherwords if someone is selling Junk
the market will some disipline them by them not getting ANY business...

This is a fine attitude to have when coupled with financial instruments that have been designed so that even a Phd in Economics can't understand them...

Mr Greenspan looked "shellshocked" when he admitted that a philosophy
he has believed in all his life was NOT perfect was in fact flawed...

So by the Admission of one of the free markets high priests...it IS flawed and some regulation does in fact need to be there

If he was a younger constitutional attorney, then maybe he would be favored. Take a cue from our Pres. But, all kidding side, he makes some good points about Fed, State, and local gov't always making laws to depress Americans in some way. I'm not talking about laws that protect citizens like drunk driving, enviroment, etc. Ever notice during the day just how many laws/ordinances surround you? Some good, some just plain stupid to collect more tax dollars, or charge a fee to see something that should be free. However, I would not vote for him either, after what we have seen with the teaparty, who can you believe anymore? A lying bunch for sure!

Yes, there are some pretty stupid regulations, and even laws (Prohibition is probably one of the best examples), but Ron Paul wants to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. I think the public has learned from recent events that Wall Street, for example, has been grossly under-regulated. And, of course, there are the energy companies, where the costs of insufficient regulation have included the loss of human life and environmental disasters.

There are definitely many of sectors of our economy that simply cannot be trusted to self-police, and we cannot assume that the market will somehow drive out the greedy, low-life scum.

Amen to that, truth. I've been saying for awhile that the lines are blurring between Libertarians and the Tea Party - who can tell which from which - certainly in Paul's case. Jen makes the point above that's "not really a Republican."

He sure looked pretty comfortable to me in the New Hampshire debates standing up there beside the other Republicans.

Let me recap:

1. He's for smaller government and wants to deregulate.
2. Says that Social Security is "possibly" illegal.
3. Believes it might be a good thing if the US defaults on its debt.
4. Was against the loan package that helped the auto industry recover.
5. Believes that the "notion" of the Separation of Church and State has been misused by the Supreme Court and deprived citizens of its rights to religious liberty.
6. Voted no on the Ryan budget plan but not because it went to far, he thinks it didn't go far enough.
7. Calls himself an "unshakeable foe of abortion" and has introduced legislation intended to negate Roe v. Wade.
8. Wants a return to the gold standard against the advice of nearly every economist and fiscal expert.
9. Is against The Affordable Care Act.

Many of his views are shared by the Tea Party, and of course, he's a favorite of theirs. He's as far right of a Republican Conservative as you can be.