Ron Paul?! Is this a joke?

I almost spit out my coffee this morning when I read this. What is the world coming to?!

Ron Paul a Democrat? NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sorry, just because you opposed the war in Iraq doesn't make you a Democrat.

http://www.dcguide.com/articles/opinion/ron-paul-the-best-choice-for-democrats.html

:wtf: :puke:

Obviously the answer is a Republican.

from a Moderate or Rockefeller Republican. Pro-Business
and when it comes to the crunch very often will support
business over the people.

to corporatism that drives me crazy. I can support a lot of the ideals he stands for (personal freedoms, etc.) but we part companies when it comes to giving carte blanche to corporations.

The depth of this guy's thinking is exemplified by the fact that he rules out Edwards because of the infamous $400 haircut. Maybe if Edwards got Elizabeth to cut his hair with a bowl at home...

In a perfect world where the best Dem candidate had the nomination locked and my vote there would be meaninglesss .... I can actualy imagine myself crossing over to vote in the GOP primary .... Imagine how deighted GOPers would be to fund that Ron Paul was their candidate ... lol ...
Only thing is, I did this once before, a long time back.
The only thing it got me was the joy of casting a symbolic vote and 15 years of mail from Ronald Reagan that always started out with the words ... DEAR FRIEND ... no matter how many times I tried to make it stop the letters kept coming ... I considered suicide (not) but fortuanatly when I returned to voting in dem primaries the letters stopped ... phew...

and ANTI-WAR. Libertarians believe in absolute liberty.
and getting involved in "foreign" entanglements unless
you have been directly attacked. "Live and Let Live".
You have responsibilty only for yourself and your family.

Ron Paul a Democrat??????

...as Communism.

A disaster that, thankufully, hasn't happened yet.

And a great retort for my next argument with a Libertarian.

Not how I see it. The free market seems to rely on the inherent greed of mankind. That each man or woman who perform in their own self-interest performs in the best interest of society, no?

I can respect him - unlike every single other GOP candidate in that debate, he does believe in individual liberty. Unfortunately, he still has those libertarian beliefs I used to have that I've rejected - he's a total laissez-faire free-market guy - a free market fundamentalist, who believes that if only what was left of government regulation would go away, the free market would make it easy to get affordable health care, housing, clean water, uncontaminated food, etc.

I rejected laissez-faire after three years of being unemployed and uninsured, and with no safety net except for my weary parents. That's when I realized that government is not the only source of tyranny - corporations and other powerful economic entities can be at least as bad. So yes, I do believe that there is a big place in our society for free enterprise and capitalism, but there has to be rules to keep things fair, otherwise you end up with not a free market, but an anarchic market, where the biggest sharks dominate and eat everyone else - a recipe for tyranny. You also need a social safety net - universal health care would be part of this net, along with Social Security and welfare, as well as having rules in place that guarantee a minimum wage that makes it possible to eat, keep a roof over your head and get decent school, health care, etc. Ironically, when you don't have to worry about being completely cut off at the knees if you don't comply with the demands of your current corporate warlord, you're more free than you would be in an anarchic market.

So while I respect Ron Paul, I won't vote for him.

OK, while I agree with you, I would want to reiterate (even more than you did) that corporate greed would thrive under a Ron Paul presidency.

What we have now is governement that actualy subsidizes the corporations ... With Ron Paul that would stop.
Also my guess is there would be enough weapons on the street so that when the corps got to screwing people they would always have to worry about someone coming hunting for them, literaly ...
I dont know. The anarchist in me would like to see, just for research purposes; but I kind of have gotten used to getting my trash picked up.

to do the job? What's it going to take?

Imagine when you buy RPGs and SAMs at the convenience stores

Private armies and police officers(think Robocop), ensuring the working poor punch in at the factory on time, while at the same time their houses burn down because they can't afford fire protection at "fair market value" through the privatized fire system. Not to mention the fact that having a car would be a LOT more expensive, what with all the highways turning into toll roads, Gods only knows what the traffic would be like.

Ron Paul would leave our society at the mercy of the greediest, most corrupt bastards imaginable who would somehow run their odious principles through the magic black box of the Most Holy and Redemptive Free Market, May Blessings Be On Its Name, and it would come out a net positive. Melamine in the food supply? Well, sooner or later a company that poisoned its customers would probably go out of business. Sucks to be you if you can't afford a team of food testers for everything you buy, but the FDA is unconstitutional!

He would gut the country's safety net. Even worse, I think he would be against efforts to provide humanitarian aid to countries around the world. Sometimes intervening is just the right thing to do. Darfur, for example.

put it out yourself, cut off your finger--don't be such wimpo and sew back on yourself.

because he believes i am a second class citizen.

voting record rated ZERO by NARAL.

fvck Ron Paul.

I thought that with his libertarian philosophy, he'd be pro-choice.

His abortion-related voting record is indeed dismal.

Oh well, yet another reason not to vote for him. He's better than the other Republican candidates, but that's like saying strychnine is healthier than cyanide.

I'm trying to understand where a Libertarian is in the spectrum of liberal to conservative. Anyone offer any insight?

Is Liberal on social issues (pro gay, pro choice, against war on drugs)

They are right wing on economic issues, absolutely no government regulation. If a company builds a plant and pollutes the river and you die because of it market forces will react and the consumer will theoretically choose the company that didn't kill you, but of course you're already dead so it doesn't matter to yoy.

Unbridled capitalism is just like unbridled socialism...it's a fantasy, neither work unconstrained, but both working together can create a great society.

"Unbridled capitalism is just like unbridled socialism...it's a fantasy, neither work unconstrained, but both working together can create a great society."

That's the best quote I've read all day!

OK, I understand the pollution example, but wouldn't Paul say that pollution could be regulated, just not by the federal government? I've been reading the Wikipedia entry on Libertarianism and there seems to be a theme of "leave it to the states."

The last time we left it to the states we got slavery. I think you just can't trust the people in the states to make the right decisions.

In other words, some states will have few regulations, and, unfortunately, pollution doesn't know state or national boundaries, so you can still die.

rated a big fat ZERO by NARAL.

Thats not the same as we think of liberal, the connection is a recent one.
The libertarian theme on social issues is basicaly, what you do on your time is your business and noone elses. Up until at least the 70s that was considered conservative. Now with the new definition of conservative, dictating all aspects of ones life which may be considered acceptable ... the libertarian view is thought of as liberal.
On many social issues I take the libertarian view. While I dont necesarily embrace the underlying issue, I understand it isnt my business.

By modern standards they would be considered social liberals and economic conservatives ...

As that rarest of critters, a relatively conservative Democrat on DU, I want to say one thing:

Ron Paul does not speak for me.

I consider myself a Democrat in the Truman/Kennedy mold.

Truman Dems are generally pro-labor. Ron Paul isn't.
Truman Dems support an engaged foreign policy that works with our allies and international institutions to keep our country safe and to foster prosperity and human rights abroad. Ron Paul is a fervent isolationist.

Truman Dems believe that government has a role to play as a catalyst, as a means of empowering individuals to improve their lot in life, as a way of expanding opportunity. Ron Paul is part of the hands-off, pull-up-the-ladder crowd.

As primitive1 said, "By modern standards they would be considered social liberals and economic conservatives ..."

So you're a conservative Democrat, but the reverseof the example above: a social conservative and an economic liberal?

So, do Libertarians believe in free trade?

I'm basically center-left on both economic and social issues. In the NH House, I had about an 85-90% rating from the AFL-CIO (some votes on charter schools and teacher tenure ticked off the AFT), and about 90% from NH Citizen Alliance, a progressive grassroots group. I'm generally for free trade, lean pro-life (NARAL-NH called my record "mixed"), but favor gay rights, including civil unions.

I'm curious, what factors informed your decision to "lean pro-life?"

My leanings on that issue are rooted in large part in "seamless garment"/consistent life ethic Catholic social teaching. I believe that doing what we can to protect the lives of the unborn is consistent with a commitment to building a society where a child can be raised without fear of hunger, abuse or disease. I see it as consistent with Hubert Humphrey's call to stand with those in the dawn, sunset and shadows of life. In other words, I lean pro-life for reasons that I see as fundamentally progressive. I'm not alone in this approach. Sen. Bob Casey and his father, Gov. Bob Casey, Rep. Tim Ryan, Rep. Rich Neal, and Rep. Stephen Lynch all approached the issue froma similar perspective.

n/t

Other than running as a Republican, I'm not sure how you can say that. I'm no Paul fan, believe me, but he doesn't seem like a run-of-the-mill Republican.

I don't mean to be glib, sarcastic, or cryptic, but do the math.

From the highly reliable (yes, dripping with sarcasm) Wikipedia:

"Maher describes himself as a libertarian and a liberal and is a reliable proponent of the Minarchist school of libertarian thought, claiming, 'government is really there to do the things that people absolutely can't do for themselves;' however, some have questioned the validity of Maher's self-proclaimed libertarianism."

The article also goes on to say Maher supported Bob Dole for president. :hippie: :smoke: :crazy:

Most are less and more .

The author of that opinion piece is merely a lunatic.

we can most certainly agree! :)

He's sort of nutty and extreme (and impractical) on many issues, but watching a few minutes of the debates, he actually comes off as not being insanely delusional (the others were such incredibly unappealing asswipes).

He is a diversion more than a Democrat.

In fact he wouldn't be able to be a subject of DEMOCRATIC Underground if he didn't switch parties.

He'd Naderize the Republicans.

:thumbsup:

Ross Perot. He's not going to split the ticket enough to make a difference. There may be Republicans who would break and vote for him, but I would imagine that more than a few Democrats (Bill Maher-types) would break and cancel out the positive effect for Paul.

Remember, Perot took votes from both sides. When he dropped out in the summer of '92, Clinton's lead over Bush actually increased.

Nader didn't get many votes - only 2.74%.

Even if Paul only got 1% of the vote, that could make a difference in a few key states. And that's not too far-fetched, because he got half that in 1988. Nader ran several times before he broke 2%.

about that!

"When he dropped out in the summer of '92, Clinton's lead over Bush actually increased."

"Hillary Clinton was an ardent supporter of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Ron Paul is the Barry Goldwater of 2008 and I believe that he deserves more than a passing look from conservative Democrats."

Is this even a fair comparison? Did she even support Goldwater in 1964 (and if so, WHY?!)

Without his expert analysis, I never would've known that John Edwards got a $400 haircut.

with his hair? I'm sure he isn't the first person to get a $400 haircut. I'm sure these politicos think nothing on spending $400 on a dinner. At least a haircut lasts for a few weeks. Sheesh, gimme a break.

Conservatives have a cartoonish idea about what constitutes liberal ethics, and they believe that we share their slavish devotion to cult figures.

Hence, conservatives believe that not only do we think, en masse, that John Edwards is not permitted to hire the best professionals to perform certain tasks because that'd make him seem out of touch with the common man (as if we all loathed FDR for his wealth... but never mind that); we'll also abandon Edwards because we're shocked, shocked, to learn that Edwards is not poor.

In short, conservatives think we're even more foolish than they are.

Is essentially the Texas Republic Militia's man in Congress. He is the nutty brother-in-law who babbles about 'black helicopters' and U.N. take-overs if you let him talk to you for more than five minutes....

The man has been around for a while; he did not spring into existance with the current campaign season....

about 'black helicopters' and U.N. take-overs...

I can't believe that I've gone from criticizing Paul to defending him. There are reasons to oppose him, but these aren't good reasons. Republicans think Democrats are "babbling about black helicopters" when we voice opposition to provisions in the Patriot Act. It's ugly when Republicans do it, and sir, ugly when you do.

You will find over the years he has endorsed, sometimes even in the Congressional Record, just about every fantasy sprung from the fevered brows of the militia movement. My description of the wretch is a cold statement of fact. He is an enemy.