Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100

Thread: A Good Ron Paul article...

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default A Good Ron Paul article...

    This is spot on, IMO. An excellent analysis of the effects and consequences of giving the power of governence over to people like Bush - to people who hate government. BushCo.'s intentions are not to competently manage government and make it effective on behalf of the public interest. Quite the opposite, actually. Competently managing government in the public interest is actually an anathema to their ideology and goals; e.g. they simple can't AFFORD to see a well-managed, cost-effective, and popular public program like SCHIP exanded to more working and middle class americans.

    And, the natural reacton among some people horrified by this republican incompetence, is to swing wildly towards fringe ideologies (i.e., Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky, per this article) which appear to them, at the surface, to be a realistic alternative to the abuses of Bush conservatism:


    Did W. Create Ron Paul?

    Gordon Robison argues that his stance on the Iraq War almost single-handedly explains Rep. Ron Paul's amazing fundraising ability (which recently outstripped that of Sen. John McCain, the last unreconstructed hawk on the Iraq War.)

    I'm not sure it is just Iraq that drives Ron Paul's popularity, though of course that is part of it. I suspect that it is in some important part the abuse of government by W. and his administration that has made rightwing anarchism so popular. (It has done wonders for leftwing anarchism too: witness the reemergence of Noam Chomsky as a major voice after he had been marginalized for decades).

    Government is a set of bargains, a 'moral economy.' We let the government take a certain proportion of our money, and we expect it to organize services for us that would otherwise be difficult to arrange. Anyone who has studied any history and economics knows that the market is going to leave some people destitute, and you need government to correct for that imbalance. It is no accident that government was invented by irrigation-based societies like Egypt and Iraq, where if someone did not organize the peasants to do the irrigation work and keep it up, everybody would starve.

    Bush has broken the US government. The US military was there to protect us. Bush has used it to fight a fascist-style aggressive war of choice.

    FEMA is there for emergency aid. Bush did not deploy it effectively for New Orleans.

    Social security lifted the elderly out of the poverty that had often been their fate before the 1930s. Bush declined to use Clinton's surplus to fix the system, and has essentially borrowed against the pensions of us all to pay for his wars.

    Government is there to ensure our security. Bush has used it to spy on us, to prosecute patently innocent persons, to manipulate the media and instill us with lies and propaganda.

    If government is to be conducted on Bushist principles, then who would not like to see the damn thing abolished?

    I don't think Ron Paul would have run well in 2000, after Bill Clinton had demonstrated the ways in which government could contribute to our prosperity and well-being. Indeed, it was so important for the Right to destroy Clinton precisely because he did make government relatively effective and popular.

    Ron Paul's popularity does not derive only from his opposition to the Iraq War. It derives from the sanity of the American people, who love liberty and reject Bushism. The opposite of fascism is not democracy but anarchy.

    Given how horribly corporations like Walmart treat their employees, denying them the right to unionize and cleverly avoiding paying anything toward their health insurance, I have never understood why Libertarians think corporations would be nicer to us if we could not organize government protections from them. It is the government of the state of Maryland that protected workers from Walmart's exploitation of them. Libertarian faith in the utopia that comes from the withering of the state strikes me as just as impractical as the similar Marxist theory.

    But after 7 years of Bush, I don't find it at all astonishing that large numbers of internet contributors would give Ron Paul money to campaign on getting rid of the Frankenstein's Monster of a government that George W. Bush has been constructing in his macabre basement of a mind.

    http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/colu.../10162304.html

    http://www.juancole.com/
    Last edited by Cypress; 11-22-2007 at 05:16 PM.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    9,472
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default FU...Putin Ho!

    get a real life...Mr.Veterarian...quit playing with the kitties and doggies already!

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,856
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    I would give this guy's opinion more credence if Libertarian beliefs came about this year because of Ron Paul but they didn't. Classical liberalism or today what we might call libertarism (sp) has been around for centuries.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,856
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Not to mention this author is just another liberal calling for more big government. Republican issues with Bush are not caused by a lack of him growing government enough.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    7,458
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Cawacko is right.

    Cypress is being a moron as usual.
    There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.

    -Oscar Wilde

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I would give this guy's opinion more credence if Libertarian beliefs came about this year because of Ron Paul but they didn't.
    That's not what the article said

    Classical liberalism or today what we might call libertarism (sp) has been around for centuries.

    See my first comment.

    The article has nothing to do with this.

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    6,900
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 274 Times in 105 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 7 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    Is your point that the failures of W are what's causing the momentous, gargantuan, awesome Ron Paul Revolution? Or are you merely trying, Cypress style, to show how Ron Paul is not worth talking about?

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefy View Post
    Is your point that the failures of W are what's causing the momentous, gargantuan, awesome Ron Paul Revolution? Or are you merely trying, Cypress style, to show how Ron Paul is not worth talking about?
    beefy, I'm pretty sure the thesis was made crystal clear in the article and my blurb.

    Some people are so fed up with Bushism, that they are seaching for something that is wildly anti-bush.

    Other respected posters here have said virtually the exact same thing - that even some on the anti-war left are pondering supporting Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure you've read those comments before.


    Which has a lot to do with Iraq, but at some level may have something to do with a natural reaction of some people to crave something that is truly, and radically "anti-bush"

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Come on guys! this article is spot on.

    Ron Paul has and is attracting disgruntled Republicans because the traditional R party is bent on destroying anything in our government which works well. If we had a guy like Ike running the country you would see vurtually no support for People like Ron Paul.

    Clinton did a decent job and if the L party was going to succede merely on the basis of it philosphy then THAT would have been the time it would have taken off.
    Last edited by evince; 11-23-2007 at 09:26 AM.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    28,583
    Thanks
    10,247
    Thanked 13,294 Times in 8,007 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 1,132 Times in 1,059 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Cypress, I agree with you, this article is a good article.

    Ron Paul is an act of political desperation, not just because of Bush, but also because of the absolute failure of both political parties to adequately address the most critical issues before us.

    One thing the article didn't address is the type of politically unlearned people who are attracted to Paul's brand of bizzarro non-government.

    The good news is that the curtain is falling on this dog and pony show and the reality that bizzarro non-government is never going to play well with mainstream America.

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackascoal View Post
    Cypress, I agree with you, this article is a good article.

    Ron Paul is an act of political desperation, not just because of Bush, but also because of the absolute failure of both political parties to adequately address the most critical issues before us.

    One thing the article didn't address is the type of politically unlearned people who are attracted to Paul's brand of bizzarro non-government.

    The good news is that the curtain is falling on this dog and pony show and the reality that bizzarro non-government is never going to play well with mainstream America.
    Thanks. I thought the thesis was crystal clear. Desh got it, and gave some great insight.

    You too.

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    28,583
    Thanks
    10,247
    Thanked 13,294 Times in 8,007 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 1,132 Times in 1,059 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Thanks. I thought the thesis was crystal clear. Desh got it, and gave some great insight.

    You too.
    As you've correctly said, it was crystal clear .. but denial of what is crystal clear is the first criteria of being a Paul supporter.

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    the funny thing is, that posters who said they couldn't figure out what I was talking about (you beefy! you warren!) are actually a perfect example of the thesis of this post: that the profound backlash against Bushism is causing some people to flirt with extreme ideologies that they would never consider voting for under normal cirucumstances.

    Several conservatives on this board have said they would vote for either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich (as their second choice). Huh??? When would that have ever happened, except in an age of backlash against Bushist incompetence? The answer: Never.

    Because on a broad range of issues having to do with the role of government, economic justice, and corporate goverance, Kucinch normally would be an anathema to self-professed conservatives. YET, some will say Kucinich would be their second choice after Ron Paul. WTF? I think this article is correct, that the flirtation with candidates - those candidates one would normally never vote for - is a reflection of an extreme backlash against Bushism. And it may be largely about the war, but its also about other facets of Bush conservatism: wire tapping, torture, civil liberties, corruption, incompetence.
    Last edited by Cypress; 11-23-2007 at 10:22 AM.

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,505
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    I would never vote for Kucinich.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    I would never vote for Kucinich.

    I'm not suprised Damo. Kucinich is super liberal. Outside of his anti-Iraq war appeal, I can't imagine you have much in common with him.


    I'm actually probably one of the few people on these boards, that have actually cast a vote for kucinich.

Similar Threads

  1. A Good Article
    By Fear&Loathing in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-09-2008, 02:22 PM
  2. Good article
    By Canceled.LTroll.29 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 02:21 PM
  3. good article on blair
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-11-2007, 12:35 PM
  4. Good article... well worth the read.
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-29-2007, 01:36 PM
  5. Good Article on Gore
    By klaatu in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-28-2006, 03:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •