I'm watching Ron Paul on Rachel Maddow. He actually sounds a lot saner

[muntrv]

than his GOP colleagues in the House and Senate. Am I the only one on DU who feels this way?

[KittyWampus]

1. stopped clock, twice a day.

[TheWatcher]

102. EXACTLY.

[FLAprogressive]

2. In some respects yes in others no.

[movonne]

23. That's the way I feel...much of what he said make sense...

[tridim]

3. He doesn't have a clue who the Teabaggers really are.

He's a very skilled snake oil salesman.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. He is a teabagger. Racist and anti-choice. eom

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marmar]

4. He's often right....but often for the wrong reasons.

nt

[dkf]

5. Yes.

If only he didn't have some unsavory connections to the racist types he would be not bad.

[bobbolink]

18. that's the only problem with him?

So, letting poor folk die isn't an issue for you?

[LeftishBrit]

43. You don't think that his economic policies also make him bad?

The connections with racists make him even more dangerous than he would be otherwise, but his support for right-libertarian economic philosophies (translation: 'Fuck the poor! The Devil take the hindmost!') should in itself rule him out of consideration as a reasonable person.

[gateley]

6. I agree with some of his views, but tend to shy away after reading some less

than stellar stuff about his racial beliefs.

[bobbolink]

19. Race is the only problem you have with him?

[gateley]

36. I don't know much more about him. I remember -- during the primaries --

agreeing with his war stance and I think some economic thing, but I learned he was a racist, so I never paid him any more attention. What, did I flunk something? :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

46. He is not a racist.

He was smeared as such as soon as it looked like he might actually be having some influence on people, telling them the truth about the Wars eg. And as he began attracting more people, raising millions of dollar, that really did it, the PTBs had to put a stop to him. He was ruining the acceptable script they hand out during every election.

He has a lot of integrity, he stands by what he believes in and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration from the beginning, the only Republican to vote against his agenda including the Patriot Act airc.

I remember when he was a very popular Republican on Democratic blogs, but that was while he was slamming Bush. His message never changed. But he and Kucinich and Gravel all had to be marginalized once the campaign began. We cannot have the American people listening to the truth. Only the previously vetted approved candidates, all of whom understand what can and can not be said, are considered safe for the consumption of the masses. So, he was smeared.

Like Kucinich, and Scott Ritter and anyone who dares to speak the truth.

[bobbolink]

66. So, you think its just fine that he wants to do away with ALL social programs?

So, maybe it was Kucinich's involvement with Paul that caused Kucinich to drop poverty .... that could explain much.

Truth.... everything except we poor folk.......

[sabrina 1]

70. No, I don't agree with any politician on every issue and I would

not have voted for him for president. But I completely agreed with him on the major issues that the Bush administration was forcing on the American people. Lies about war, the destruction of Civil Liberties, torture as a policy .... for a Republican during that time, he stood out as the ONLY one who dared to attack those policies, and was marginalized for it by his own party.

As for the poor, I have a lot of experience with what it means to be poor in this country. Paul has far too much faith in the goodness of human beings to take care of the poor. He fails to understand that not every doctor eg, is going to visit the poor in their homes and treat them free of charge, as he has been known to do. He is wrong that the government doesn't have a role in making sure the poor are taken care of. He is also respectful of the fact that in a democracy people have the right to disagree with him.

But without the protection of our Constitutional rights, we don't even get to argue about such issues. I give him credit for attempting, particularly in the climate after 9/11, to preserve those rights. His ideas are subject to the will of the people so long as the people have any say in their government. That is what he stood up to defend. And I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with him or anyone else who tried to stop the criminal Bush administration's destruction of all of our rights.

Kucinich and Grayson have joined in the battles they too agree with him on. I am not aware of Kucinich or Grayson agreeing with his position on social programs. Kucinich was marginalized for the same reason Paul was, he opposed the policies of the Bush administration.

[bobbolink]

71. So, we poor need to wait until the resumption of the "protection" of our Constitutional rights?

You see, there is so much underlying what you have said.

It underscores what I keep saying and keep getting slammed for : POVERTY IS NOT A PRIORITY FOR "PROGRESSIVES".

If thought of at all, with few exceptions, it comes at the bottom of the list.

We poor are poor, not stupid. We see the lack of concern for what it is.

[sabrina 1]

72. I am well aware of where the needs of the poor

rate in this country. The fact that 'we have to wait' for anyone to first protect the right to even oppose how the poor are treated, is a disgrace in itself. The Bush administraton and Republicans in general are responsible for that, and the Democrats who go along with, eg, spending trillions on needless wars. Bailing out failed and corrupt corporations while ignoring the pleas of the people to do something for the millions whose very survival is at stake. It doesn't help either that partisans on both refuse to place the blame directly on those individual politicians who are responsible, so they never pay a price for their betrayals of the poor. Democrats especially for whom the poor most often support.

If there is a way to get them to listen, I haven't found it. Speaking to them directly, calling them, joining organizations to have more influence by the power of numbers, threatening not to vote for them, emailing, signing petitions etc. I've done it all and all it taught me was that most of them are not interested in talking to anyone who doesn't have a huge donation to offer them.

I and my friends are now doing probably what Paul so naively suggested. Accepting the fact that this government is not for the people, not the poor, and not the middle class. All we can do is to help those we know personally through family and friends as much as possible. The need has grown. People who used to help others are now in need themselves and still, no help from this government. So, we are on our own. I expect nothing of value from the government as far as the people are concerned. So, I guess I'm not waiting. It's clear that it will be a long, long time before this country cares about its people the way other democracies do. The propaganda against 'Socialism' has worked very well.

As long as people waste their time on slamming each other for partisan reasons, the real culprits will just keep on doing what they are doing from the lofty positions they reside in, above the fray and the people they do not represent will keep voting for them.

[bobbolink]

78. Thank you for your thoughtful reply....here's some further thoughts.

First, I agree with you and empathize with the sense of futility. It hurts, plain and simple.

So, years ago I came to this conclusion, and now it is being spoken by Thom Hartmann... what is called for now is Movement Politics. Simply said, that means work on the ISSUES you care about, rather than backing away altogether.

Sadly hardly ANYONE picks Poverty as their issue, so we are left twisting in the wind.

While I agree that lobbying politicians on homelessness is largly futile (with some exceptions), there is still much you can do, if you would be willing. Here are some ideas off the top of my head.

Given that HOUSING is the #1 cause of homelessness, you can work with others to see that more housing is created in your area. There are grants that are available, and much that can be created. So many progressives are against "faith-based initiatives", and since that is the main area where these projects are being formed, it would be really good to see some atheist and agnostic groups start to work on this.

There is MUCH that seriously needs to be done to educate the general public about homelessness. Look into the possibilities for PSAs, newspaper ads, public access channel short films, etc. Keeping after people about the REAL facts could help much to cause a change of attitudes in this country. Surely there are even more ideas for doing this than what I have briefly listed.

You can be sure that NOBODY is willing to listen to those of us who are actually homeless, so forming groups to hear us and understand our experiences, and just offer a sounding board and support would be HUGE. Further, those listening skills would do much to help in the larger struggle, as there are few who hold listening as a valuable skill.

I'm having problems getting things to post, and running out of computer time, so I will stop here. But you can be sure this is just a BEGINNING to what can be done, and would accomplish much more than political lobbying at this point.

Your efforts would be highly valued!

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

101. Hi bobbolink ~

First, sorry you are problems with posting.

I've just read your post through twice and I have to say, you have some excellent ideas especially because they are simple and possible.

'Movement Politics' ~ yes, we've been far too focused on trying to do the impossible, get people who it turns out appear to be pretty heartless, to actually care about the issues that poorest of Americans face every day. It's kind of freeing to finally realize the futility and wasted effort and donations and to start thinking of better ways to accomplish at least some of the things that would in the end, maike this a better society overall.

Given that HOUSING is the #1 cause of homelessness, you can work with others to see that more housing is created in your area. There are grants that are available, and much that can be created. So many progressives are against "faith-based initiatives", and since that is the main area where these projects are being formed, it would be really good to see some atheist and agnostic groups start to work on this.

Good thoughts. If there are grants available, that would be something to look into in whatever area people are living in. There were One Million foreclosures in the last quarter, one of them a friend of mind. The government is doing nothing to stop this, let alone provide housing for the people losing their homes. But I did a program about someone who has formed an organization to help either keep people in their homes, which he has been successful at in many cases, or find homes for people that are affordable if they do become homeless. Some of the homeless people he helped are now trained to work for him to help others. So that is one person who is willing to listen to people who are homeless. I'm sure there are others and such people are badly needed even more so now with so many newly homeless every day.

I like the idea of groups that are not religion based. Maybe there are some already?

There is a huge need for affordable housing. I think the past several decades have created a climate where greed has taken such a hold that the idea of not profiting from the ownership of property, is viewed as almost a crime. To change that will be difficult and that is where government could help. But as you said, they don't appear to be interested, yet.

One organization that is working on many of these problems is ACORN. I gave their number to my friend when she was facing foreclosure and she is currently working with them. It was too late to save her home but, they have helped others before it was too late. I think getting in touch with them as they have offices all over the country, is probably something worth thinking about. They already have the structure set up to help those in need, which is of course, why they are a target of the rightwingnuts.

Thank you for your thoughts ~ I will definitely look into to some of your ideas in my area. I do think we have the power to change things, but on a much more local level.

[rapturedbyrobots]

109. skills

we need people with skills. i heard a really good talk by glen ford of the black agenda report. he talked mostly about gentrification and what can be done to deal with it. talked about needing to move BEYOND opposition. about needing to be for progressive development, not against development in general. we need a plan. and we need people with the skills to put that plan into motion. getting a bunch of people together to rally and donate, etc... is not enough anymore. calling your reps isn't enough anymore. we need people with the skills to read a city map, who can understand how resources move into and out of neighborhoods, how development impacts people (not just developer profits)...and people who can actually draw up plans for underdeveloped neighborhoods...draw blueprints for houses in those neighborhoods...and then build the actual buildings. we also need people with money to come up with new ways to finance housing. the standard bank controlled mortgage system does not work...especially for those with no/little credit and savings. we need programs that value sweat-equity and respect those that have little wealth.

so what can you do? i don't know...but if you have any of these skills or resources put them to use NOW! find other people who have the skills you lack and get to work. if you don't have any...get some. i'm working on a ph.d. as a neuroscientist, but i'm seriously considering taking a break from science after graduating to go to architecture school so i can learn city planning, and design affordable multi-family housing. and you'd be surprised how many people with too much money are just looking for a good idea to put it into. i'm talking to some such people about an alternative housing finance structure where we would set up a land trust to buy houses in low income neighborhoods. the trust would own the land and rent-to-own the house to a prospective owner-occupant. i figure if you can buy a house for under $20K...and give the resident a $5K line of credit on materials to renovate the house ($25K total investment). the occupant would be responsible for completing the repairs (sweat-equity), and pay a low monthly payment $450 for 10 years ($54K total payback). after 10 years you have a stable community of owner-occupants versus residents, who's houses are now worth a lot more than the $54 TOTAL they paid into it....that means instant equity into the community, without interest paid to banks. and the investors who front the capital for property purchases more than double their initial investment in 10 years (slow by many standards, but we're not in this for a quick buck like most real estate investors). everybody wins...except the banks who are cut out of the process. sounds crazy, but i actually have some people who might be willing to put up a few $100K to try it.

talk to people. make your own ideas. make your own neighborhoods. rely on each other not your (non)representatives.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rantormusing]

100. Actually,

Paul has said many times his first priority isn't slashing the safety net. He is more interested in cutting defense, overseas commitments, corporate welfare, and harmful domestic wars like the one on drugs.


Paul isn't the enemy here, frankly with what i just said in mind, there's many places where his input is preferable to the overtly corp friendly Obama.

There would have been no tarp with Paul.

[gateley]

76. I'm sorry I fell for it, then. And the fact that I was taken in by those

smears really makes me ashamed. Thanks for setting me straight. He's been on the shows a few times lately, and I liked what I heard.

[iris27]

99. It was not a smear.

He may not have said those things himself, but he allowed them to be published in a newsletter called the Ron Paul Political Report, put out by his campaign, for years on end without putting a stop to it. That to me means he agrees with the viewpoints presented in his name. All we have is his assertion, years after the fact, that he didn't write those things himself and doesn't know who did...but he sure wasn't working to find out or to put a stop to it.

[bobbolink]

65. The fact that he wants to do away with ALL the "safety net" doesn't register on your meter?

What does it take to get it across to "progressives" that poor people are worth being on your priority list?

[gateley]

75. No, bobbolink, it didn't. Sorry I fail your standards. If only I could be as

virtuous as you. I remember once helping you try to find information on poverty programs because I thought you were so sincere and heartfelt. Now, I just think you judge people who aren't of your stellar convictions.

[bobbolink]

97. Isn't if wonderful you are free to judge?

Unfortunately, what hangs in the balance is "low-information voters" who would support someone like Ron Paul, not knowing, or apparently, caring, that their vote and support would hurt those who are most vulnerable.

I understand your need to personally attack someone who challenges your lack of understanding of this issue, and you are free to do so.

You might remember that is how the RW is feeling now. They are being challenged on their lack of information, and they are hating it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. I hope so. (I do know what you mean, but he's insane.)

Anyone with outsider status and nothing to lose can sound saner because they don't have the same pressure to lie in every single statement.

But the dude is actually quite nuts.

[TexasObserver]

9. Good on foreign entanglements. Nuts on monetary policy, federal spending, race, abortion, gay right

... gay rights, etc.

Right on a few things. Wrong on a bunch of things.

[noamnety]

25. Exactly. He's about nonintervention.

Since our intervention overseas is generally about nation building and acquiring other people's resources, nonintervention is a better foreign policy than either party engages in now.

Domestically, nonintervention is a way to allow people and corporations with power (capital) to use it to acquire more, at the expense of those without. The problem is pretending this is fair because "everyone is equal" even when they clearly don't have equal advantages in life or equal power.

[struggle4progress]

44. He apparently hates the entire international diplomatic structure, too: he wants out of the UN,

the Law of the Sea, NATO, and so on

[eleny]

10. She didn't ask him how he feels about Social Security and Food Stamps

Look for You Tubes of him spewing about those programs. =:-0

[bobbolink]

20. Thank you! Someone who actually gets it!

:yourock:

this shows just how little "progressives" care about poverty....:cry:

[eleny]

35. The thing is that he can appear so kindly until the layers get peeled

And that doesn't take long.

I guess he served his purpose these past few days regarding Cheney. But the rest of his agenda is ... well, you know. :(

:hug:

[bobbolink]

69. Then, I guess we need to supply layer-peelers to a great number of "progressives".

Because they sure don't seem to look very closely.

It comes down to poverty NOT BEING A PRIORITY, so other politicians are never looked at in that light.

Then people wonder why I get so damned angry..... :wtf:

:hug: back atcha... and thanks! :yourock:

[blondeatlast]

51. Yeppers. That's when his true colors show. He's a batshit uber-liber. UGH. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

55. Yes. And you forgot Medicare, public schools, libraries, and the post office. n/t

[eleny]

61. Oh yeah, the list is long

:hi:

[Shadowwiggs]

11. Total nut. He is further right than Dick Cheney. NT

[jonathan_seer]

12. Ron Paul has what the MSM would normally call an EXTREME LEFT POV re: Iraq, Afghanistan involvement

On that point, he'd sound like a prophet of wisdom and bravery to the many tired of both wars.

HOWEVER, on ALL other POINTS he is just as extreme rightward. He's a libertarian's libertarian.

His strain of thinking sprouts from the deep soil we have in Texas called "I got mine screw you."

He is utterly unaware how life can be difficult for anyone, except through laziness, lack of character or an unwillingness to learn.

He believes the problems of society rest with Government. Get rid of all Government save for defense and police protection and a few basic services (health care NOT among them) and all our national problems would be solved.

When he talks about the banking fiasco, he can also sound very common sense. He cleverly sticks to comments on the poor record of FED's enforcement of banking, finance laws. Everyone who hears him agrees with what he says, BUT he purposely avoids making it clear that the solution he thinks that would have prevented the crisis was NO REGULATION AT ALL!

His "social agenda" he'd throw us back into the stone age, restore racist laws (state's rights y'know) put women back in the kitchen pregnant and barefoot Etc.

Of course some on the Left dream mistakenly that his POV in this regard is really progressive as in gay marriage.

The truth rests in his strong belief in "states rights" which means in part states have a right to enact and enforce discriminatory laws that are beyond and outside the laws of the Federal Government.

Considering how many elections gay rights activists have lost in various states, such a belief means one thing. Gays would lose all their rights should a "state" voting population deem it necessary, and lose them without any recourse to federal relief.

He's a nightmare, except when he talks about ending the wars.

[WeDidIt]

13. Ron Paul the White Supremecist darling?

Yeah, that fucker is nuttier than any other GOPer in the House, and that says a lot.

[bobbolink]

14. No, you are among many who CARE NOT ONE WHIT ABOUT POOR FOLK.

It just doesn't enter your equation, does it????

[ShortnFiery]

15. Only with regard to Foreign Policy. With that he's spot on! However, he's nuts on Domestic Issues.

Damn right wing libertarians are cool to perhaps enjoy a legalized joint with, but you can't depend on them to help bolster up "the common good" within society, i.e., they don't believe in taxes for Police, Fire, Highways, Schools, etc. for Public Commons. :shrug:

[boppers]

16. He seems sane for the same reason Ayn Rand does to many people.

The core ideas are simple, understandable, and self-empowering.

In actual practice, the ideas ultimately fail *because* they are so simple, and have few in the way of checks on people exploiting their power.

[Double T]

17. No. I like Ron Paul's position on a lot of issues.

Got to go, I hear the DU posse approaching in the distance.

[bobbolink]

22. Yeah, it's that evil "posse" which actually has some concern for poor follk, eh?

[Double T]

26. Separation of Church and State ia paramount.

Voted NO on giving $$$ to faith based organization's projects.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

[bobbolink]

27. Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with your veiled inference to any dislike of Ron Paul on DU.

[Double T]

33. Sometimes you have got to go outside the dnc box.

There are other good ideas and positions on issues that transcend political party affiliations and special interests.

[blondeatlast]

53. Do tell. Paul can name the problems in a way that sells--but he has no solutions.

He loathes the poor, the non-white, the sick, and women to boot. There is nothing progressive about him.

Your defensiveness is very telling.

[Double T]

57. Don't need to defend anything. The current path is not working........

and MANY PEOPLE of all colors are poor and suffering horribly with no homes, no food and little or no help from our 'hope' and 'change' government. I get your specific interest but it goes way beyond that. Time has come to go outside the current dnc offering and look for new democrats that will REALLY address the problems of our country. No need to make it personal; we need to find solutions my friend.

[blondeatlast]

58. Repeat: do tell. What's your hero got? Medicare, ADC, Head Start,

etc. work well and worked even better before they were tampered with in the '90s. To a great many people on this site, those are very, very important contributions to the social construct.

So, what's your guy got in terms of solutions that won't let thousands upon thousands starve, become ill, or die?

BTW: I'm solidly, conmfortably middle class and don't mind paying my share to help out others; it's what good citizens do.

[bobbolink]

67. Those "other good ideas" leave out poor folk, but I guess that doesn't matter to you.

You just see us as those evil "special interests".

[TheWatcher]

103. And go straight into the DLC one, I take it.

[bobbolink]

68. So, you atheists and agnostics are going to start running programs that serve the poor, then, right?

You certainly aren't doing anything to ensure that poverty is dealt with better by the government, so you want to take away the charity, too.

Why not just ship us all to some convenient ice floe somewhere?

[blondeatlast]

52. Uber-defensive much? nt

[hobbit709]

21. define "Saner"

[varelse]

24. No, you're not (nt)

[w8liftinglady]

28. he was a libertarian first.

his supporters were actually very active in the anti-war movement.I have seen them at several protests.

[struggle4progress]

45. And so, unsurprisingly, he's a free trade ideologue

[Zen Democrat]

29. Ron Paul is my representative and he's like every other crooked politician.

He's the old bait and switch. He rails against Monsanto and the agri-business abuses of that company, but Paul is actually the Congressman from Dow Chemical (Dow being the largest employer in Paul's district and his chief source of money). He's Dow's hired gun to go after their rival.

He has a long record of racism, supports Minutemen at the border, and opposes choice for women. He tries to come off as a great libertarian, but the only thing he's libertarian about is money ... he doesn't want anyone taxed to provide safety nets for the poor, aged or disadvantaged. Social Security and Medicare are anathema to him. Ron Paul is the poster child for Buyer Beware!

And .... he really sucks at constituent services.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ter]

77. He opposes Roe vs. Wade and thinks there is no right to an abortion

in the Constitution. He opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning all abortions. Some anti-choicers hate him.

[pepperbear]

30. once again for the cheap seats in the house.....

HE WANTS TO PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING.

[blondeatlast]

54. ...

:thumbsup:

[iris27]

31. He is like Huckabee on that he can make totally batshit crazy ideas sound

perfectly reasonable; it's only when you look behind the scenes that you see him saying stuff like 95% of the black men in DC are criminals,

[Johonny]

32. Woodrow Wilson the First Neocon

yeah he's really sounding sane LOL. As far as I can tell he's longing for the Victorian economy.

[bertman]

34. I watched the interview and thought he was DEAD ON THE MONEY when he said that both

the right AND the left are getting pissed about the failure of Congress to do anything other than look out for the interests of the Military-Industrial Complex. And that the course the nation is on now will lead to major societal unrest and major changes (or something to that effect) in another four or so years.

Also, his comments about the once-taken-for-granted interests of the right (fiscal conservatism and foreign restraint) and the left (social issues and personal rights) having served as a national sort of point-counterpoint made sense. Although, given the current state of affairs it's hard to imagine ever getting back to that. If we were ever really there.

[BurtWorm]

37. If he's talking about war, he sounds saner than some Democrats.

If he's talking about race or welfare, his true colors tend to come out.

[Raine]

39. Yes he did

but I'm not forgetting what party he speaks from, I don't trust him at all. :yoiks:

[LeftishBrit]

41. On the one subject of the war, yes. On most other issues, he's even less sane than most

He is extreme right-libertarian on economic issues. He is opposed to all welfare benefits as 'theft' and thinks that it is a 'serious error in judgement' to regard people as 'entitled' to medical care just because they need it (remember at this point that he is a *doctor* by profession!) Despite his economic libertarianism, he is against choice for women. He calls gay rights 'heterophobia' and environmentalism based on 'mytholology'.

Here is a link to a post where I discussed my views on him in more detail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6072607&mesg_id=6072863

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. exactly.

[mmonk]

42. He does not love the bloodshed and spending of the war parties

and empire. So in that regard, he is. His libertarianism and following von Mises, not so much.

[OnionPatch]

47. That's the dangerous thing about him. He SOUNDS sane.

But you have to hear his entire philosophy, and believe me, you won't like it. (Unless you're at the wrong website right now.)

[Orsino]

48. Less money is corrupting him.

Therefore, he's going to sound saner on those points on which corporate money would otherwise dictate a stupid response.

[ThomWV]

50. The only thing Ron Paul ever gets right is naming a problem, he never has an appropriate solution.

Sure he sees what's wrong - any idiot can do that (and most elected Republicans can not) the trick is coming up with a reasonable solution. He has none.

[blondeatlast]

56. Exactly. I've been wondering why he appeals so easily--and you nailed it.

Combined with his hatred of the poor, ill, and non-lily-toned, he's well, vile.

[madfloridian]

59. Ron Paul's views are very scary. No aid to Katrina victims, no Soc. Sec....

No Medicare.

Ron Paul...every man for himself on health care

His views on health care go along with what he said about Social Security above. Every man for himself. That philosophy scares the hell out of me. That is a bare bones hands off approach that I find appalling.

"As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

"Voted NO on sending aid to Katrina victims.

"Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted.

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

[bobbolink]

74. Thanks for laying it out there. Yet, so many "progressives" seem not to notice these little issues.

Until, maybe, THEY might be affected.

[akasa]

110. RE: No aid to Katrina victims

quote:
"Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted"

Well, reading this comment he pretty much seems to be a monster without any empathy nor mercy for his fellow men.
But why not having a look to why he decides that way?

Ron Paul quote (subject hurricane Ike):
"As many of you know, I represent Galveston, which was hit hard by Hurricane Ike last fall. My office has worked hard to help our constituents, and I am proud of the work we have done.

After the Hurricane, Congress rushed to pass a "relief" bill. Unfortunately, the bill was anything but that. It was loaded with over $6 billion dollars in pork and special interest money that had nothing to do with helping people in need.

And, any actual benefits for the people hurt by the natural disaster were run, or should I say hijacked, by the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA.) We all remember how well FEMA did helping out in New Orleans"

[madfloridian]

60. Stormfront supported Ron Paul

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1649

[silverhandorder]

64. To be fair Black Panthers support Obama

I know how much it hurts us when people play the association game lets not do it to them.

I find Paul very agreeable on the war issue. He seem to reluctant to wield federal power but his own party does not even agree with him.

[iris27]

98. Yeah, but Stormfront has more of a reason to support Paul...I've never heard

Obama talk about white people the way Paul's newsletters spoke about African-Americans. The 1992 riots in LA ended after blacks went to "pick up their welfare checks"? Fucking really?

[tnlefty]

96. So did the crazies in the

League of the South.

[SidDithers]

62. He's just as insane as the rest of 'em...

but he's got his followers, even here.

Sid

[butterfly77]

63. He is still a...

fruitcake in many ways even though he says a lot I agree with...

[Odin2005]

73. He is a racist asshole. Fuck him.

[mdmc]

81. Ron Paul!

[mdmc]

82. Ron Paul!

[Kltpzyxm]

87. I think RU Paul sounds a lot saner

than GOPIGers in the House and Senate

[HarveyDarkey]

88. other than

being a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic, corporatist reich wing nut job, what's not to like?

[HarveyDarkey]

89. other than

being a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic, corporatist reich wing nut job, what's not to like?

[HarveyDarkey]

90. other than

being a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic, corporatist reich wing nut job, what's not to like?

[elleng]

91. No you're not the only one.

[HarveyDarkey]

92. other than

being a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic, corporatist reich wing nut job, what's not to like?

[elleng]

93. No, you're not the only one.

[HarveyDarkey]

95. other than being

a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, theocratic, corporatist reich wing nut job, what's not to like?

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

106. Green olives and red onions for me, thanks for buying! nt

[akasa]

107. Why is RP a homophobic racist?

Could anyone explain me, why Ron Paul is named racist and homophobic still?
He gave an interview on CNN regarding the racist newsletter issue, and after seeing it, he does not seem racist or homophobic at all to me anymore.
He explains why Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Gandhi are his heroes, why he got that many votes from the black community during the pres campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmk8oCGNac0

Please take a minute to watch the video and to comment his argument, that liberals (contrary to racists) do not see people in groups, and that the character of individuals counts, but not their skin color or sexual orientation.

Have I been tricked by him? He sounded quite honest and sane to me.

Please comment to this video. This is really important to me.

[akasa]

108. false premises

Calling someone a "fucking racist" or "misogynistic, homophobic, racist", "corporatist reich wing nut job" is no chicken feed and really bad stuff. At least if based upon false premises.

Without doubt RP is to be charged for not having checked and stopped the newsletter and firing the editors who are responsible for this mess immediately.
But imo, this does not prove him a racist or the other names he's been called.

So where is the evidence apart from those newsletters, which haven't been written by himself?
Is there any audio or video evidence?

He has some strange views on many things. But that newsletter crap definitely does not belong to them.

RP is the only GOPer who gained my interest, btw.
After watching some of his interviews, I think he deserves more credit.