What is your opinion of Ron Paul?

[Wetzelbill]

Specifically on economics. I've noticed he's been around quite a bit on shows talking about the financial crisis. And he has quite a few fans who take everything he says like it's the gospel. What's his plan for solving the crisis? I haven't really heard him do much other than critique things and talk about smaller government.

[closeupready]

1. He was against the bailout. But,

he is also in favor of privatizing social security. So, I'm not sure he has the answers.

[Wwagsthedog]

2. He is probably more anti-war than any rep in Congress

That said, there are plenty of other holes in his balloon.

[Idealism]

3. He is a complete fool

Odd mix of free market fundamentalism and Ayn Randian theory

[Subdivisions]

43. For instance...? (For those of us are not that familiar with him). n/t

[bobbolink]

4. He wants to finish cutting ALL the "safety net". So more people like me have no alternative but to

DIE.

Isn't he a wonderful humanitarian?

And isn't it just jolly that so many "progressives" think he's THE ANSWER?

[LeftishBrit]

24. Yes. It's amazing that more people don't see it!

[bobbolink]

78. ONE -ISSUE folks have tunnel-vision.

If it doesn't affect them, they don't care.

[geardaddy]

33. And when you say "progressives"

you mean "I've-got-mine-and-don't-want-to-pay-for-yours libertarians"

[bobbolink]

77. That's correct.

[eridani]

91. He was certainly right about the Iraq war, no?

Dems do in fact agree with libertarians about some things, like imperial war being a bad thing. We disagree on the value of social safety nets, obviously.

[bobbolink]

97. Is that worth electing him????????????

And watching many of us die?

[eridani]

102. His constituents are apparently OK with half a loaf unfortunately

The good half is opposition to military imperialism, the PATRIOT act, spying, etc.

The bad half is misogyny and your typical libertarian inhumanity toward those who need social safety nets.

[AndrewP]

99. Yeah, he's actually a real asshole.

[WI_DEM]

5. Good on the war, bad on a score of other things

[Mojorabbit]

19. Good on constitution

but not so good on the rest.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. He's not worth shit on the constitution.

He's against birthright citizenship when it comes to Mexicans.

[Mojorabbit]

64. He is anti patriot act and anti FISA

one of the few that are.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. He tastes like Chicken.

A little gamey, actually.

[tekisui]

7. Sun shines a dog's butt once in awhile.

He may something right, but he wants to privatize everything. He would privatize education, social security, everything down the line.

He is a libertarian, whose policies would break this country.

[stillcool]

8. Better than most...

while I disagree with some of his stances, I admire him for telling the truth. He's another example of why the truth is averse to politics in this country.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Big-L Libertarians scare me

Unregulated laissez-faire capitalism has always proven to be an unmitigated disaster. And don't get me started on how "states rights" has always been a veneer for racism and Christian Dominionism.

[PVnRT]

10. He's a racist lunatic

[ZombieHorde]

18. Why do you believe he is racist?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Are you kidding?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

[Hangingon]

39. He is my rep. and I never heard anything racist from him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Maybe you should pay more attention to your representatives.

Particularly racist ones like Ron Paul.

[ZombieHorde]

48. Were those newsletters only recently found? I see the article is only a few weeks old.

The newsletters do seem to be racist in nature. If RP is telling the truth, that he did not write them or read them, then he is stupid for letting other people write under his name. Both situations make him unfit for office.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. No.

It's been all over the web since Paul started his presidential campaign some time ago.

[ZombieHorde]

60. I never paid attention to RP, I guess I should have. nt

[NorCalDem]

46. Cause he is?!?!

We think he's a racist cause he is one...

See HR 300

[Hippo_Tron]

63. I don't know if he's a racist but he certainly appeals to racist elements

And while he denies doing so, there is no doubt that he does somewhat actively seek their support with his anti-immigrant policies. That said his argument that he opposes the War on Drugs which is arguably the most racist set of policies in this country is a good one.

[treestar]

95. Libertarians are all "let the market take care of it" so when they

are anti-immigrant, it is racist. If they think the market should prevail, then that means they should favor any immigrant who can get a job. The only explanation for the sudden about-face of wanting government regulation is racism/xenophobia.

[Zynx]

11. If he had his way, we would have depressions every 3-4 years like we used to.

He wants to take us back to 19th century style governing. He maintains absolutely falsely that over-regulation was the culprit in this cycle. We know that is not true.

[NewEngland4Obama]

12. He is a racist

Ron Paul's Racist Swill
By Kevin Drum


(Political Animal) RON PAUL'S RACIST SWILL....I haven't blogged before about James Kirchick's piece in the New Republic that blew the whistle on the years worth of racist swill that was published in the Ron Paul Political Report during the early 90s, but to make a long story short, it turns out that during the early 90s the Ron Paul Political Report published years worth of racist swill. More..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/16/politics/animal/main3721817.shtml

[whistle]

13. Terrible libertarian ideas that would take us back to 18th century economics

[NorCalDem]

47. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner...

n/t

[whistle]

70. TY

:fistbump:

[Greyhound]

100. He's a republik, isn't that redundant? n/t

[That Is Quite Enough]

14. I agree with a few of his positions, but I also disagree with a lot more.

Drugs and foreign policy (to an extent) are pretty much the only things I really agree with him on.

Everything else - education, healthcare, government reform, etc - we have some big differences on.

[ogneopasno]

15. I find him scary, but not as scary as those on the left who support him only because of his view on

the war. I wish he'd fade away.

[SoxFan]

16. A heartless jerk

And no, he doesn't get points for his stance on Iraq. He opposed the Iraq war because he is an old-school ultra-isolationist. Those of us who understand the value of principled and sensible engagement with the world community have no use for his brand of foreign policy nitwittery.

[Donnachaidh]

50. He's an obscenity

A medical doctor who refuses to take Medicare patients? F*ck him and his libertarian cult members. :grr:

[riqster]

17. Check out his voting record

...that's where the corn is cut:

[LeftishBrit]

20. There aren't enough swear-words in the universe for me to give my opinion of Ron Paul, especially on

economic issues! He really could NOT be further right on such issues.

To his credit, he has opposed the war from the beginning. IMO he does so for the wrong reasons - xenophobic isolationist ones, rather than humanitarian ones. However, I will concede that a vote against the war is a vote against the war, and should be welcomed as such regardless of motivation.

But for the rest - here is a post that I made in Nov. 2007, which still describes my feelings about the man:

Here are some examples of what I'm afraid of...
Posted by LeftishBrit in General Discussion
Tue Nov 13th 2007, 01:09 PM
Some quotations from his own website:

'A Republic, If You Can Keep It Dr. Ron PaulU.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representativesdelivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.


....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.

...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.


....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'


So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care; and despite all his libertarian justifications for all the above, thinks that the government is entitled to ban abortions and 'defend marriage'. He is opposed to gay rights ('heterophobia') and considers concern about the environment to be based on 'mythology'. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war.

He's a scary person, all right.

I am glad he has no chance of winning the nomination; but I think that what is scary to some of us is not just him as an individual, but that some supposedly liberal anti-war people seem to be prepared to ally themselves with RW extremists, if they happen to be against the war. If this leads to liberals' acceptance of a combination of far-RW economic 'libertarianism', social conservativism, and xenophobia, this could have serious impact for future politics. Some of the danger is, I think, not so much from Paul himself, as from the groups and websites that support him.'

I would add to that now that the anti-establishment Right is likely to gain new momentum now that America has a relatively liberal government, and a black president with many international connections. It is now more important than ever that progressives, wherever they are, should not mistake 'all that is anti-establishment' for 'automatically left-wing', or give any aid or comfort to RW movements of any sort.

[PassingFair]

21. The man is HALF-CRAZY.

EXACTLY half crazy.

He's right about 50%,
he's CRAZY WRONG about
all the rest.

Truly half crazy.

At least his followers
can hold down half
of their ends of a
conversation.

And I will love them
forever for chasing
Hannity down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rJI5e0jBU

(Best laugh of the election...)

[Warpy]

22. He's completely bonkers

He wants the Feds to support the military and that's it. He doesn't want any oversight to keep corporations and states honest. He wants to abolish Social Security. He is your garden variety Looneytarian.

Read some Dickens. That's what he wants.

[ThomWV]

23. I actually kind of like him on a personal level but his ideas on economics are unfounded and idiotic

The guy might be a good doctor but I doubt that he did his own books.

[deoxyribonuclease]

25. Mostly disagree, but agree with a few of his ideas

I think he's an honorable and sincere politician, but I disagree with most of his economic views and some of his domestic policy ideas. I tend to agree with most of his foreign policy ideas.

[Redbear]

26. His plan is simple. Quit trying to fix things.

No bailouts. No bank or company is "too big to fail."

He says the current financial system cannot be fixed, it can only collapse and be replaced by a "sounder" system (I think to him this means back to the gold standard).

[musette_sf]

27. sexist and racist

and his economic views are drive by libertarianism. as in "i got mine, screw you Jack".

[jobycom]

28. I don't buy his claims that he didn't write the racist comments attributed to him.

Back in the 90s a series of racist commentaries where written in his own publication signed with his name. He claims now he didn't write them, and pulls out pictures of him with African Americans to prove it. But his story explaining the articles has changed--originally he claimed he had hired the guy who wrote them and didn't proofread them, now he claims he really doesn't know who wrote them and didn't find out about them until later. Either way, these articles appeared over more than a year, and I'm sure someone brought them to his attention early on, yet they kept appearing. Also, I was in his district, and saw the way he campaigned, and they were not out of line with his basic message and method. I don't believe him, and the pictures of him with African American leaders doesn't prove that he doesn't have racist views towards the people his articles aimed at--inner city youth, for instance.

On his economic policy, I don't know his specifics now, but he is against government doing anything, seeming to believe that capitalism if left unchecked will fix itself. History proves otherwise. Maybe he hits on a right idea or two, but his overall belief system is so flawed that it would be destructive to listen to him. His system is what gave the world feudalism in the Middle Ages--that's what happens when capitalism is unregulated.

Capitalism is a wonderful system with a strong government to prevent the worst of its abuses and temper it with common sense regulations. Without those checks and safeguards, it is a downward spiral into monopolistic economic domination by a few, and enslavement of the rest. Even conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower warned of that.

[NavyDavy]

29. He belongs to the unamerican gop party, and I have no use for him...

anti war or not!!!

[DainBramaged]

30. Hero of the Skinhead Nation

[devilgrrl]

31. He's a windbag

eom

[stuntcat]

34. waste

he's a waste

[SidneyCarton]

35. Mr. Paul would have made an excellent President of the United States...

In the period between 1820-1840.

[friedgreentomatoes]

82. correction

Dr. Paul

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Doctors do not know anything about money. I am a doctor, trust me on this.

On the other hand, he is a caring human being.

[slackmaster]

Strange mix of social conservative and economic libertarian

Sometimes he almost makes sense, then he starts blathering about something like restricting abortion, which has little interest for most true libertarians.

[gkhouston]

37. He'd make a great museum exhibit. Be sure to double-check the safety glass on the case.

Remember Hamlet was only mad north-northwest? That was because Ron Paul had already bagged all the other points of the compass.

He's good for entertainment value and maybe to shake up your thinking, but I wouldn't take him too seriously.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

38. Ron Paul

is a NUT.

He is a LIBERTARIAN and that means - "I've got mine and so FUCK YOU!!

He is anti woman - would turn Roe V Wade around ASAP.http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21

[FLAprogressive]

40. He's DU's favorite John Bircher and some here think that his shit doesn't stink

He's good on foreign policy but is a racist/homophobe who has horrible economic ideas.

Has loser internet fans that do nothing but post videos on YouTube all day.

[GoneOffShore]

41. The word shit head springs to mind.

[11 Bravo]

74. That's two words. (And both of them are applicable in this instance.)

:)

[dionysus]

42. just more sour grapes because you and kurovski lost in a landslide...

}(

[NorCalDem]

45. His plan is the same it always has been....

Rage against multiculturism as a root cause of the problem even though it has nothing to do with it, lambast the federal reserve as if we're going to eliminate it, and opine for more tax cuts and smaller government.

I give Paul some credit for his stance on the Iraq war, however he arrives at his concern for the Iraq war through some deluded notions that have a pseudo-racist, populist bent. He's still a fucking kook....

[PeaceNikki]

49. Nutbag. Lunatic. Dangerous.

Those are the words that come to mind.

[Ozymanithrax]

51. Ron Paul?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...within limits. I wouldn't want my sister to marry him, my dog crapping in his yard, or my country following his economic mysticism.

[WilliamPitt]

52. I interviewed him back in May. Here's the video of it.

http://www.truthout.org/article/interview-with-congressman-ron-paul

Interesting guy. Kinda bullshit on his libertarianism, but definitely an interesting sort of madman. I had more fun talking to him than I've ever had doing an interview.

[Wetzelbill]

88. That's exactly how I described you in our interview

lol. Just kidding, thanks for the link. I still have the tape somewhere, btw.

[Blue_Tires]

53. his politics aren't left or right, just an absurd, sick joke

he's so all over the place that he's bound to have an idea or two that DU agrees with...but the bottom line is he's a nutbar

[Odin2005]

54. Libertarian nutjob. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. Love him on foreign policy

Part ways with him on just about everything else.

[SoxFan]

58. Take a closer look at his foreign policy beliefs

They are old school, right wing isolationist claptrap.

No foreign aid, thumb-twiddling on genocide, opposed to any sort of meaningful international action on climate change. nasty stuff.

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. Yep, like I said

I agree. I favor an isolationist approach.

[anonymous171]

56. He is a free market religionist. nt

[L0oniX]

57. If I were a repuke I would vote for him.

I like his "pull out all of our military bases" idea.

[citizen snips]

61. He thinks he is an economist.

but he was a medical student.

[H2O Man]

65. He's not very tall.

In fact, in my opinion, he's quite the opposite. I think this is why he is always ranting about "smaller government."

[Muttocracy]

84. LOL! ;)

[Hippo_Tron]

66. 1930's Isolationist/Nazi Sympathizr style ideologue

But his rhetoric is updated for the 21st century to broaden his appeal to a younger crowd that is anti-government but not necessarily xenophobic or isolationist. This crowd agrees with the libertarian idea that life would be better if government didn't spend so much time legislation morality. The problem with this is that Dr. Paul isn't really against that even though he claims to be.

His foreign policy is also foolish on so many accounts. He argues against the WTO on the premise that it means the United States is sacrificing its sovereignty to foreign control. This is blatantly untrue. The United States is the hegemon and thus we can more or less break the rules whenever we feel like it and while other countries can retaliate they can't do so to an extent that would cripple us. In reality it is the other way around. The WTO causes weaker countries to sacrifice their sovereignty to powerful countries like the United States. Of course, Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about people in weaker countries so he just makes shit up to justify his isolationist garbage.

[MilesColtrane]

67. His solutions to this crisis are to cut taxes, ease the remaining regulations...

...on financial markets, and to eliminate the Federal Reserve.

We've seen what 8 years of Bush's "see no evil" SEC has wrought.
Paul probably wants to eliminate it completely and just sit back and wait for the magic free market fairies to fix everything.

In other words, he's stark raving insane.

[Vinca]

68. He wants zero government involvement in anything.

One of his campaign workers was uninsured and took ill, dying after the campaign ended and leaving his family with a $400,000 medical bill. What a difference government-sponsored healthcare would have made in their lives. Ron Paul is almost a cult leader.

[MrSlayer]

69. He's right on a few things, completely insane on others.

He thinks that the U.S. is made up of 50 little countries and that everything should be as it was in 1787.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. He's A Complete Wackjob.

Next question?

[NuttyFluffers]

72. I just have one thing to say.

sashay. shante'. :bounce:

you better work! :party:

waaaait a minute... oooh, RON Paul!

[Muttocracy]

86. I don't think I've ever seen those lines in print

:rofl:

[rug]

73. LaRouche with intermittent medication.

[camera obscura]

85. Nailed it.

[slipslidingaway]

89. Back in 1993 LaRouche wanted to tax derivatives...

I came across the article while looking for some info on derivatives.

Wish someone had picked up on that idea :)

[Blue_Tires]

101. +1

[cynatnite]

75. He's marginalized for a reason. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

90. Challenging the MIC and the Federal Reserve Bank??? n/t

[Iggo]

76. I fear his power over magnetism. (n/t)

[baldguy]

79. A fascist who pretends to be a libertarian.

[Natalya Slosky]

80. He's right on some things; wrong on most.

My brother, a self-described "conservative libertarian" wrote his name in for President. As for me, I like some of his ideas, especially when it comes to foreign policy -- but most of his ideas are really out there. Too out there for me.

[mmonk]

81. I like him for his push back on the Iraq war and imperialism and his efforts

to try and defend the Constitution from bush/Cheney and his support and efforts with the American Freedom Campaign. I disagree with Libertarians (and thus him) on economics.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

87. He's my Congressman...

He was in favor of hanging us out to dry after Hurricane Ike. Voted against relief funds.

Astonishingly, he ran for re-election unopposed. People here were very, VERY angry about that.

[voc]

92. He is...

A fine Aryan American.

[Smith_3]

93. On economics I largely disagree with him. On foreign policy I agree on some things and

disagree on others.

[sfpcjock]

94. Complete conservative phony

and a fool. Thanks, Tim Russert.

Like most all modern conservatives, they lead the masses on a path to nowhere. They defend the Two Santa Clauses economic theory.

[Prometheus Bound]

96. The war-mongers don't have much use for him.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 4, 2002

Arguments Against a War in Iraq

Mr. Speaker;

Summary at the end of his speech:
There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.

There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications.

There are countless diplomatic reasons for not going. All the Arab nations near Iraq object to and do not endorse our plans, and none of our European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we make a serious mistake by doing this. I hope we have second thoughts and are very cautious in what we do.

There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. “War is the health of the state,” as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime “emergencies” and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new “preemptive first strike” doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm

[Stinky The Clown]

98. I saw him on a yak show this morning. Clear grasp of what's wrong

No real plan for what to actually do apart from tax cuts and deregulation.