Facing The Ron Paul Problem

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tumblr_lvrguu2uag1qe0jrmo1_400.png

Many die-hard proponents of “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedoms” consider a Libertarian government as akin to true Americanism – perhaps far more than our country’s preconceived perceptions of Left versus Right, Liberal versus Conservative, “Big” government versus “Local,” etc.

Libertarianism is especially popular among Tea Party Republicans; who more often than not tout an “anti-big government” sentiment alongside Republican political-hopefuls (while, ironically, simultaneously ignoring huge governmental oversight, taxation and spending wrought by Republican presidents, congressmen and statesmen and calling for even more governmental infractions concerning the private lives of American citizens, families and workers).

Meanwhile, “liberals” feeling the funk of a “not what I thought I bought” Obama presidency are also leaning toward Libertarianism – very often without concern for the inevitable endgame of a true Libertarian society.

This sentiment often calls attention to presidential candidates – like Congressman Ron Paul (R – Texas), who has been running on a platform of Libertarian “Constitutionalism” for years – and their allusions to the original Founding Fathers’ national intents as a proverbial call to arms for members within both major parties.

Disillusionment with the status quo – combined with the buzzwords swirling around a Libertarian campaign – often strikes just the right chord with frustrated American voters. But while the concept of a Libertarian presidency does have its appeal, there are inherent problems that outweigh the positives.

At the drawing board for what is now America, Libertarianism was based on the moral principle of self-ownership; where individuals possess the right to control his or her own body, action, speech and property. Government’s only role – as generally interpreted by the founders – was to assist its people in defending themselves against outside force and fraud.

“We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.” – From the Libertarian party’s official website.

But while Libertarianism was at the root of the nation’s beginnings, that does not mean it is substantially relevant enough in today’s society to set the course for our future.

Over two-plus centuries, American culture has evolved exponentially in ways that were entirely unfathomable to anyone daring to even attempt to literally change the world in the late 1700s.

Religion, immigration, agriculture, science, technology, business, energy, invention, war, weaponry. Emerging super-powers, a global economy, changing geography, natural threats, unnatural threats, social upheavals, global genocides. Cultural expansion, modern medicine, space exploration, mental discovery….

Our world is nothing that it was during our nation’s humble, noble and often tragic beginnings. And unfortunately – “American” or not – Libertarianism does not bode well against the test of time.

Each places far too much trust in our ability to live a good and reasonable life as Americans without societal checks and balances. For all our cooperative instincts, we are generally still too (or rather have been bred to remain) apathetically uninformed, undereducated and uninvolved to fathom the delicate intricacies of a nation’s best efforts for advancement.

According to the party’s statement of principles, governments “must not violate individual rights, [as] we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.”

Libertarianism insists that there are only two real factions of American society: the government and the individual – and that the former is the only one that, if too large, powerful and/or overtly ominous, will work to take away an individual’s personal freedoms. But this is simply not true.

On the surface, Libertarianism is supposed to be about individual rights and freedoms, yet when mixed with human nature and compulsion for personal gain, it becomes about business; where the very term “individual rights” becomes a sub-context for “private business”.

It even holds business in a higher regard than basic human and civil rights, as evident in its support for what I like to refer to as “regressive expansion” – a harkening back to pre-1964 Civil Rights legislation as it pertains to corporate America.

“Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade – for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.”

This is not to say that Libertarians are racist or hold racist views. What it does say, though, is that they believe it should be entirely within the rights of an empowered class to allow the empowered to dictate which race, creed or color gets to realize the American dream of freedom and opportunity – two monikers so highly revered by Libertarians.

As perhaps a “lazy idealist,” a Libertarian my be 100% tolerant and supportive of equal opportunity yet hold government’s intercession to guarantee such opportunity – even when presented with historical truths countering their argument – in great disdain.

As such, true Libertarianism would see American communities revert to a time of legal – if only for the sake of not daring to make it illegal – religious, racial or sexual discrimination in the workplace. It would turn a blind eye to whites-only schools, water fountains and restrooms.

Why? Because these all fall under the protections afforded to the American people by the American government – protections that stand in the face the Libertarian meme of “rights of association.”

A Libertarian nation would constrain rather than free the American public via a social monopoly of oppression at the hands of a non-governmental ruling/rich class. It would make it possible for the rich to control all lands and public commodities and therefore dictate who gets to live where, do what, work how, etc. It would allow for a citizen’s individual rights to be curtailed not by his/her government but by the vast “powers that be” in place of government: corporate bosses, self-organized community and ethnic movements, religions, work houses and other skewed, social conventions.

It would validate the revocation of individual freedoms by nearly any means necessary by placing little-to-no protections under the law that did not have to do with violence and property rights; thereby creating a nation – a world – that is anything but “free.”

As such, the resurgence of American Libertarianism – as personified on a national scale via Ron Paul’s popularity – is a metaphor for many who would rather stifle the legitimacy of a working, Democratic government in favor of “liberty” – allowing for workers to be abused at the whim of overseers, racism to thrive, and powerful theocracies to mandate social norms without the overbearance of government.

As a Libertarian, Paul is in favor of abolishing both the Federal minimum wage and the Occupational Safety and Health Act and “reforming” Social Security virtually to non-existence. He wants the United States to be withdrawn from the United Nations. He supports off shore drilling, constructing more oil refineries and mining on federal lands. He proposes to have no taxes on the production of fossil fuels, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. His tax codes would basically stick it to the country’s lowest earners (hardest workers) while placing the richest on a proverbial pedestal.

Socially, he is a nightmare. He believes that sexual orientation is a valid basis for discrimination and that government has no business suggesting otherwise. Yet, in direct contrast, while he has gained wide praise recently for suggesting that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries, he was an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004 – legislation that sought to prohibit recognition of same sex marriages across state lines.

He has sponsored legislation to repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools accusing of using race as a factor in denying entrance, and would seek to deny citizenship for anyone born in the US whose parents are not citizens, and eradicate some of the most “common sense” gun control laws in the country.

The list goes on for anyone with the time to read and the stomach to digest – but the real issue is where do we go from here?

In theory, Libertarianism is about the freedom of the individual, but in practice it is often about the freedom to oppress without repercussion and to regress the nation back to a simpler version of itself; a time when social norms prevailed and anything outside the box was simply outcast (there goes that “Archie Bunker syndrome” again).

Voting for Ron Paul would be akin to handing the Tea Party the keys to the White House and a pulpit to advance some of the harshest and regressive legislation and social commentary since the early 20th century.

That is not a country in which I would want to live.

- Joe Ascanio

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/11/no-liberal-hero-facing-the-ron-paul-problem/

[Taco John]

The Democrats hate him. The Republicans hate him.

He must be doing something right.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Democrats hate him. The Republicans hate him.

He must be doing something right.

"Hate" is too strong a word, I'm sure.

In any event, I suppose such a statement is one way to avoid an actual counterargument.

[alkemical]

The Democrats hate him. The Republicans hate him.

He must be doing something right.

I agree on one hand. But at the same time, it's easy to get caught up in a persecution complex. I do like Paul - i'm being his biggest critic - but that doesn't mean my support for him is lacking.

Having deeper conversations on policies to gain awareness and explore "game theory" on what policies would look like, is a great way for us to use this incredible technology to "open source" our education/information.

The Feudalism aspect bothers me. I have no interest in being more of a serf than I am. This isn't really Ron Paul's 'agenda', as i wonder if it's just more a 'by product' of what happens.

Again, many other things he represents i'm all for. But this has been a craw for me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Feudalism aspect bothers me. I have no interest in being more of a serf than I am. This isn't really Ron Paul's 'agenda', as i wonder if it's just more a 'by product' of what happens.


FTW.

The author made that case quite convincingly.

[Rohirrim]

Like TR said: "The Constitution was made for the people and not the people for the Constitution."

[Rohirrim]

We already know that Paul would be opposed to public schools and libraries. How about national parks? I wouldn't think so. That's government ownership of land. Imagine Yosemite turned into a private ranch owned by some Kuwaiti prince?

[Tombstone RJ]

We already know that Paul would be opposed to public schools and libraries. How about national parks? I wouldn't think so. That's government ownership of land. Imagine Yosemite turned into a private ranch owned by some Kuwaiti prince?

Oh the horror or RP!! He'd blow up the gubment, he'd turn everything over to greedy, war mongering capitalists!! Fear the RP!! Fear his extemist point of views!!!

:curtsey:

[Taco John]

I agree on one hand. But at the same time, it's easy to get caught up in a persecution complex. I do like Paul - i'm being his biggest critic - but that doesn't mean my support for him is lacking.

Having deeper conversations on policies to gain awareness and explore "game theory" on what policies would look like, is a great way for us to use this incredible technology to "open source" our education/information.

The Feudalism aspect bothers me. I have no interest in being more of a serf than I am. This isn't really Ron Paul's 'agenda', as i wonder if it's just more a 'by product' of what happens.

Again, many other things he represents i'm all for. But this has been a craw for me.



I understand the Feudalism concern you have, but what I don't understand is what you propose would be an alternative. How would society under Ron Paul be any more feudalistic than it is now? The key difference would be that Ron Paul would respect the rule of law and enforce property and contract law, where today the feds move with impunity with these laws being a mere formality that can be broken at will.

So I understand what you are saying, but what I don't understand is how you view it in the greater context accounting for the status quo.

[Taco John]

"Hate" is too strong a word, I'm sure.

In any event, I suppose such a statement is one way to avoid an actual counterargument.


Oh hell, I didn't even read it. I saw the picture you posted at the top of the page, laughed, and moved on. This is nothing more than red meat for your type - you know, Obama voters who will ignore that Obama is the Wall Street Candidate while promoting the OWS message. You've got some nerve pointing at the problems you have with Ron Paul when your own candidate sold you out. Which is the entire reason these articles are being posted in the first place - because the red meaters on the left are losing control of the party just like the red meaters on the right are - and Ron Paul's base is growing because of it.

[Tombstone RJ]

One of RPs ideas is converting the dollar back to the gold standard which would immediately increase the middle classes wealth.

Let me repeat that: converting the US dollar back to the gold standard would immediately increase the wealth of the middle class.

At the same time it would immediately decrease the wealth of the super rich. Yet for some reason many bone heads librals here think RP is crazy.

[ant1999e]

I understand the Feudalism concern you have, but what I don't understand is what you propose would be an alternative. How would society under Ron Paul be any more feudalistic than it is now? The key difference would be that Ron Paul would respect the rule of law and enforce property and contract law, where today the feds move with impunity with these laws being a mere formality that can be broken at will.

So I understand what you are saying, but what I don't understand is how you view it in the greater context accounting for the status quo.

This is why I'll support him. I'm tired of the same old and Paul stands out as being different. That's why both the Republicans and the Democrats hate him. They are both the same and like things the way they are.

[alkemical]

I understand the Feudalism concern you have, but what I don't understand is what you propose would be an alternative. How would society under Ron Paul be any more feudalistic than it is now? The key difference would be that Ron Paul would respect the rule of law and enforce property and contract law, where today the feds move with impunity with these laws being a mere formality that can be broken at will.

So I understand what you are saying, but what I don't understand is how you view it in the greater context accounting for the status quo.

Well, personally for myself TJ - There isn't another choice besides Paul. :)

I also agree/disagree on the: Is it worse or better re: feudalism/goldencagecapitalism. I've been a grass/green guy, and am always for the "new way" - I just want to make sure that a clear picture is understood before i "buy into it". (Well as clear as you can get with uncertainty.)

I'm a civil liberties guy, we all know that - but I want to make sure that it's clear - beyond idealization and talking points - what we're going to be dealing with for a little while.

[Taco John]

Well, personally for myself TJ - There isn't another choice besides Paul. :)

I also agree/disagree on the: Is it worse or better re: feudalism/goldencagecapitalism. I've been a grass/green guy, and am always for the "new way" - I just want to make sure that a clear picture is understood before i "buy into it". (Well as clear as you can get with uncertainty.)

I'm a civil liberties guy, we all know that - but I want to make sure that it's clear - beyond idealization and talking points - what we're going to be dealing with for a little while.

I understand what you're saying. At least I believe that I do. I've thought about this feudalism angle that you speak about because I've gotten in this discussion with progressives before - only they were using the word "oligarchy" to relay the concept. I've given it much thought, and what I've come to the conclusion is that you're either going to be a "voluntary serf" to the services and companies with which you voluntarily associate, or "forced serf" to the services and programs with which the government mandates for you to associate (or manipulates the market to support). I don't know that there is a middle ground except to say that in a society in which property rights are granted, open source thrives - which to me is the true progressive path; and I don't think we get there through the regressive means of federal intervention.

[alkemical]

I understand what you're saying. At least I believe that I do. I've thought about this feudalism angle that you speak about because I've gotten in this discussion with progressives before - only they were using the word "oligarchy" to relay the concept. I've given it much thought, and what I've come to the conclusion is that you're either going to be a "voluntary serf" to the services and companies with which you voluntarily associate, or "forced serf" to the services and programs with which the government mandates for you to associate (or manipulates the market to support). I don't know that there is a middle ground except to say that in a society in which property rights are granted, open source thrives - which to me is the true progressive path; and I don't think we get there through the regressive means of federal intervention.

Well, that's where learning history and such - and seeing how mercantilism replaced feudalism. I like the idea of the gold standard - but i have questions:

what sort of effect will switching the pegging of the currency do? I only hear "positive" tweets from salesmen, but i don't hear anyone addressing the ramifications.

I don't mind some pain in the process - but we need to start addressing what concerns we have about where we're going, and how we are going to get there.

Obviously dogmatic talking points aren't going to get us to where we can...find ways to maybe help phase in/out ideas/programs/etc to "get us there".

I'm personally trying to build a business using some "new principles" - we'll see if it works. If it does - well, i'll put it in the text book that's being written now about what we need to do. :)

In the meantime - i just want to learn. I don't care about anyone selling me answers to questions i don't have...and i don't really care to invest much time in the wasted pursuit of intellectual masturbation and self proclaimed victories. :) I just want to find people who can try some new philosophies out..it is a TEAM sport. :)

[Play2win]

We already know that Paul would be opposed to public schools and libraries. How about national parks? I wouldn't think so. That's government ownership of land. Imagine Yosemite turned into a private ranch owned by some Kuwaiti prince?

That would so sicken me. I recently watched the entire Ken Burns THE NATIONAL PARKS: AMERICA'S BEST IDEA.

Teddy, of course, was a main focus, but so were others, like John Muir. It was a most excellent series. :thumbsup:

[peacepipe]

The Democrats hate him. The Republicans hate him.

He must be doing something right.dems realize RP is your typical conservative republican.

[Blart]

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa23/holymusic55/Patriotic/Patriotic-OneNationUnderGodbyJonMcN.jpg

[Taco John]

dems realize RP is your typical conservative republican.

And as expected, dems have a problem with actual definitions - in this case the word "typical" seems to elude them.

[Blart]

Fun fact:

The Libertarian party used to be kind of awesome.

As recently as 1988, Native American Russel Means (who once led an armed rebellion at Wounded Knee) earned 31% of the vote for the LP Presidential Ticket,

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/24728_403329721943_258700721943_4918382_4405136_n. jpg

31% wasn't enough to beat the social-conservative Ron Paul. That ignited much in-fighting in the party, causing a rift which ended the Civil Libertarian movement. Libertarians have been accommodating to social conservatives ever since.

Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Murray Rothbard went on to form the paleo-libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism) movement, which encouraged rednecks and racists into believing one more ridiculous idea: Austrian Economics (hence, the RP newsletters) which is still successful to this day, as you can see from any internet forum.

Means went on to support Ralph Nader.

[peacepipe]

And as expected, dems have a problem with actual definitions - in this case the word "typical" seems to elude them.Liberatarian,republican. both are on the far right of the political spectrum. same product different name.

[Tombstone RJ]

Liberatarian,republican. both are on the far right of the political spectrum. same product different name.

Socialism,communism,democratic party. all are on the far left of the political spectrum. same product different name.

see, I can play your game too.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh hell, I didn't even read it.

That much is clear.


This is nothing more than red meat for your type - you know, Obama voters who will ignore that Obama is the Wall Street Candidate while promoting the OWS message.

Straw man.

1) I'm not voting for Obama.

2) Even before the '08 election, I pointed out that Obama wasn't too far to the left of most of the GOP candidates. The response from the Ron Paul Kool-Aid drinkers? "BS! Obama is a socialist!"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Socialism,communism,democratic party. all are on the far left of the political spectrum. same product different name.

see, I can play your game too.

Looks like someone needs to head down to his local community college and sign up for an introductory political science course.

You really should learn the basics, i.e., the difference between liberalism and socialism, before you try to participate in this sort of discussion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is nothing more than red meat for your type....

You just admitted you didn't even read it.

How do you know what it is?

[ant1999e]

You just admitted you didn't even read it.

How do you know what it is?

Uh, you posted it...:-[:pity:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Uh, you posted it...:-[:pity:

"Attack the messenger because I can't refute (or even bring myself to look at) the message" is all ostrich ideologues like you have got.

It's your SOP.

[Arkie]

Liberatarian,republican. both are on the far right of the political spectrum. same product different name.

Libertarians are right on the economic scale and left on the social scale.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Libertarians are right on the economic scale and left on the social scale.


You can be a social libertarian while embracing economic liberalism.

[peacepipe]

Libertarians are right on the economic scale and left on the social scale.

IDK about that considering their stance on the civil rights act.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/261104_108038612554992_1060330178_q.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/NoTeaParty)Americans Against the Tea Party (https://www.facebook.com/NoTeaParty)

The TEApublicans are for the 1%. "You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there... just to scare the **** out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs."


https://s-external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDCa0cVDcjsHPhm&w=90&h=90&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F465614%2Ft humbs%2Fs-SOCIAL-WELFARE-SPENDING-large.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/american-social-welfare-state-mitt-romney_n_1205357.html)

Social Welfare State, American-Style, Means Relief For The Rich (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/american-social-welfare-state-mitt-romney_n_1205357.html)

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has taken to accusing President Barack Obama of trying to turn the United States into a European-style social welfare state. The hyperbole about Obama's actions aside, the United States already is a social welfare state...(cont.)

[mosca]

Ron Paul is the only candidate out there, Republican or Democrat, who favors reforming the current policies of Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime, and the vast power of the Fed, NDAA, corporate bailouts, and more.

As Glenn Greenwald puts it - if you believe these are "merely minor, side issues that don’t merit much concern, then lock-step marching behind Barack Obama [or Mitt Romney] for the next full year makes sense."

If you realize that the policies Ron Paul confronts are the major issues of our time, then maybe you have started waking up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ron Paul is the only candidate out there, Republican or Democrat, who favors reforming the current policies of Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime, and the vast power of the Fed, NDAA, corporate bailouts, and more.

As Glenn Greenwald puts it - if you believe these are "merely minor, side issues that don’t merit much concern, then lock-step marching behind Barack Obama [or Mitt Romney] for the next full year makes sense."

If you realize that the policies Ron Paul confronts are the major issues of our time, then maybe you have started waking up.

Some of his ideas, e.g., foreign policy, the Fed, etc., are good.

I suggest you read the OP for a good analysis re: why his domestic policies would be disastrous.

[mosca]

Some of his ideas, e.g., foreign policy, the Fed, etc., are good.

I suggest you read the OP for a good analysis re: why his domestic policies would be disastrous.
Read it - and that's the thing - the most important issues of Paul's platform are the major issues of our time - stopping the undeclared wars, ill-thought foreign policy, police state running roughshod over civil rights, the mindless Drug War, Fed bailing out trillions to "Too Big to Fail" corporations. And he's the only one pushing hard on ANY of these issues.

The debate over whether or not Paul would end the Dept. of Education or try to overturn Roe v. Wade, or eliminate some federal programs or whatever other cherry-picked issues are minor compared to the above and are only being used as distractions from the issues that matter.

[Fedaykin]

Read it - and that's the thing - the most important issues of Paul's platform are the major issues of our time - stopping the undeclared wars, ill-thought foreign policy, police state running roughshod over civil rights, the mindless Drug War, Fed bailing out trillions to "Too Big to Fail" corporations. And he's the only one pushing hard on ANY of these issues.


Paul would be the absolute worst candidate for these issues. He may be politically against them, but economically they are exactly the result of his policies. He wants to hand this country over to private enterprise -- the same private enterprise that currently drives the military-industrial complex, the drug war, wall street, etc.

Does Paul really think the military-industrial complex is just going to let him stop handing them money by the boatload? Does you really think getting rid of a boatload of regulations will make these entities less powerful?

As with all economic libertarians, Paul is dangerously naive because he thinks a society would benefit from enterprise unconstrained by society. All of his idea boil down to : "let the market figure it out -- the market is all good and all wise!".

[mosca]

Does Paul really think the military-industrial complex is just going to let him stop handing them money by the boatload? Does you really think getting rid of a boatload of regulations will make these entities less powerful?
Sounds like you've thrown in the towel already.

Congress handles appropriations - not the President. Paul, however, would have veto power and the bully pulpit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Does Paul really think the military-industrial complex is just going to let him stop handing them money by the boatload?

If he does, then he must be getting senile, i.e., he must have forgotten what happened to the last president who tried to do that.

[Rohirrim]

Paul would be the absolute worst candidate for these issues. He may be politically against them, but economically they are exactly the result of his policies. He wants to hand this country over to private enterprise -- the same private enterprise that currently drives the military-industrial complex, the drug war, wall street, etc.

Does Paul really think the military-industrial complex is just going to let him stop handing them money by the boatload? Does you really think getting rid of a boatload of regulations will make these entities less powerful?

As with all economic libertarians, Paul is dangerously naive because he thinks a society would benefit from enterprise unconstrained by society. All of his idea boil down to : "let the market figure it out -- the market is all good and all wise!".

Bingo. The message is, "Don't trust government. Trust corporations."

The progressive message: "Control the government and use it as a tool to serve the interests of the general welfare of the people. The rights of man come before the rights of property."

You know, like the preamble says.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/401236_360482460643938_108038612554992_1431947_158 5006836_n.jpg

[mhgaffney]

JANUARY 16, 2012
One Against the Empire

America’s Last Chance

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

www.counterpunch.org

America has one last chance, and it is a very slim one. Americans can elect Ron Paul President, or they can descend into tyranny.

Why is Ron Paul America’s last chance?

Because he is the only candidate who is not owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military-security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby.

All of the others, including President Obama, are owned by exactly the same interest groups. There are no differences between them. Every candidate except Ron Paul stands for war and a police state, and all have demonstrated their complete and total subservience to Israel. The fact that there is no difference between them is made perfectly clear by the absence of substantive issues in the campaigns of the Republican candidates.

Only Ron Paul deals with real issues, so he is excluded from “debates” in which the other Republican candidates throw mud at one another: “Gingrich voted $60 million to a UN program supporting abortion in China.” “Romney loves to fire people.”

The mindlessness repels.

More importantly, only Ron Paul respects the US Constitution and its protection of civil liberty. Only Ron Paul understands that if the Constitution cannot be resurrected from its public murder by Congress and the executive branch, then Americans are lost to tyranny.

There isn’t much time in which to revive the Constitution. One more presidential term with no habeas corpus and no due process for US citizens and with torture and assassination of US citizens by their own government, and it will be too late. Tyranny will have been firmly institutionalized, and too many Americans from the lowly to the high and mighty will have been implicated in the crimes of the state. Extensive guilt and complicity will make it impossible to restore the accountability of government to law.

If Ron Paul is not elected president in this year’s election, by 2016 American liberty will be in a forgotten grave in a forgotten graveyard.

Having said this, there is no way Ron Paul can be elected, for these reasons:

Not enough Americans understand that the “war on terror” has been used to create a police state. The brainwashed citizenry believe that the police state is making them safe from terrorists.

Liberals, progressives, and almost the whole of the left oppose Ron Paul, claiming that “he would abolish the social safety net, privatize Social Security and Medicare, throw the widows and orphans into the street, abolish the Federal Reserve,” etc.

Apparently, liberals, progressives, and the left-wing do not understand that privatizing Social Security and Medicare and destroying the social safety net are policies that many conservative Republicans favor and are policies that Wall Street is forcing on both political parties. In contrast, a President Ron Paul would be isolated in the White House and would never be able to muster the support of Congress and the powerful interest groups to achieve such radical changes. Moreover, Ron Paul has made it clear that a welfare-free state cannot be achieved by decree but only by creating an economy in which opportunity exists for people to stand on their own feet. Ron Paul has said that he does not support ending welfare before an economy is created that makes a welfare state unnecessary.

Candidate Paul cannot take any steps to reassure Americans that he would not throw them to the mercy of the free market, because his libertarian base would turn on him as another unprincipled politician willing to sacrifice his principles for political expediency.

If libertarians were not inflexible, candidate Paul could endorse Ron Unz’s proposal to solve the illegal immigration problem by raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour, so that Americans could afford to work the jobs that are taken by illegals.

Economist James K. Galbraith is probably correct that Unz’s proposal would boost the economy by injecting purchasing power and that the unemployment would be largely confined to illegals who would return to their home country. However, if Ron Paul were to treat Unz’s proposal as one worthy of study and consideration, libertarian ideologues would write him off. Whatever liberal/progressive support he gained would be offset by the loss of his libertarian base.

Why can’t libertarians be as intelligent as Ron Unz and see that if the Constitution is lost all that remains is tyranny?

In short, Americans cannot see beyond their ideologies to the real issue, which is the choice between the Constitution and tyranny.

So we hear absurd accusations that Ron Paul, a libertarian “is a racist.” “Ron Paul is an anti-Semite.” “Ron Paul would favor the rich and hurt the poor.”

We don’t hear “Ron Paul would restore and protect the US Constitution.”

What do Americans think life will be like in the absence of the Constitution? I will tell you what it will be like, but first let’s consider the obstacles Ron Paul would face if he were to win the Republican nomination and if he were to be elected president.

In my opinion, if Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination, the Republican Party would conspire to refuse it to him. The party would simply nominate a different candidate.

If despite everything, Ron Paul were to end up in the White House, he would not be able to form a government that would support his policies. Appointments to cabinet secretaries and assistant secretaries that would support his policies could not be confirmed by the US Senate. President Paul would have to appoint whomever the Senate would confirm in order to form a government. The Senate’s appointees would undermine his policies.

What a President Ron Paul could do, assuming Congress, controlled by powerful private interest groups, did not impeach him on trumped up charges, would be to use whatever forums that might be permitted him to explain to the public, judges, and law schools that the danger from terrorists is miniscule compared to the danger from a government unaccountable to law and the Constitution.

The reason we should vote for Ron Paul is to signal to the powers that be that we understand what they are doing to us. If Paul were to receive a large vote, it could have two good effects. One could be to introduce some caution into the establishment that would slow the march into more war and tyranny. The other is it would signal to Washington’s European and Japanese puppets that not all Americans are stupid sheep. Such an indication could make Washington’s puppet states more cautious and less cooperative with Washington’s drive for world hegemony.

What America Without the Constitution Will Be Like

In the January 4 Huff Post, attorney and author John Whitehead reported on the militarization of local police. Some police forces are now equipped with spy drones. Whitehead reports that a drone manufacturer, AeroVironment Inc., plans to sell 18,000 drones to police departments throughout the country. The company is also advertising a small drone, the “Switchblade,” which can track a person, land on the person and explode.

How long before Americans will be spied upon or murdered as extremists at the discretion of local police?

Recognizing the privacy danger, if not the murder danger, the American Civil Liberties Union has issued a report, “Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance.” The ACLU believes, correctly, that liberty is threatened by “a surveillance society in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by authorities.”

The ACLU calls on Congress to legislate privacy protections against the police use of drones. I support the ACLU because it is the most important defender of civil liberty despite other misguided activities, but I wonder what the ACLU is thinking. Congress and the federal courts have already acquiesced in the federal government’s warrantless spying on Americans by the National Security Agency. The Bush regime violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act many times, and all involved, including President Bush, should have been sent to prison for many lifetimes, as each violation carries a 5-year prison term. But the executive branch emerged scot free. No one was held accountable for clear violations of US statutory law.

The ACLU might think that although the federal executive branch has successfully elevated itself above the law, state and local police forces are still accountable. We must hope that they are, but I doubt it.

The militarization of local police has received some attention. What has not received attention is that state and local police are also being federalized. It is not only military armaments and spy technology that local police are receiving from Washington, but also an attitude toward the public along with federal oversight and the collaboration that goes with it. When Homeland Security, a federal police force, comes into states, as I know has occurred in Georgia and Tennessee, and doubtless other states, and together with the state police stop cars and trucks on Interstate highways and subject them to warrantless searches, what is happening is the de facto deputizing of the state police by Homeland Security. This is the way that Goering and Himmler federalized into the Gestapo the independent police forces of German provinces such as Prussia and Bavaria.

Homeland Security has expanded its warrantless searches far beyond “airline security.”

The budding gestapo agency now conducts warrantless searches on the nation’s highways, on bus and train passengers, and at Social Security offices. On Tuesday January 3, 2012, the Social Security office in Leesburg, Florida, apparently a terrorist hotspot, became a Homeland Security checkpoint. The DHS Gestapo armed with automatic weapons and sniffer dogs demanded IDs from local residents visiting their local Social Security office.

Thomas Milligan, district manager for the Social Security Administration office, said staff were not informed their offices were about to be stormed by armed federal police officers. DHS officials refused to answer questions asked by local media and left with no explanation at noon, reports infowars.com.

The DHS gestapo justified its takeover of a Leesburg Florida Social Security office as being an integral part of “Operational Shield,” conducted by the Federal Protective Service to detect “the presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities.”

One wonders if even brainwashed flag-waving “superpatriots” can miss the message. The Social Security office of Leesburg, Florida, population 19,086 in central Florida is not a place where terrorists devoid of proper ID might be visiting. To protect America from the scant possibility that terrorists might be congregating at the Leesburg Social Security office, the tyrants in Washington sent the Federal Protective Service at who knows what cost to demand ID from locals visiting their Social Security office.

What is this all about except to establish the precedent that federal police, a new entity in American life, the Federal Protective Service, has authority over state and local police offices and can appear out of the blue to interrogate local citizens.

Why the ACLU thinks it is going to get any action out of a Congress that has accommodated the executive branch’s destruction of habeas corpus, due process, and the constitutional and legal prohibitions against torture is beyond me. But at least the issue is raised. But don’t expect to hear about it from the “mainstream media.”

Americans in 2012, although only a few are aware, live in a concentration camp that is far better controlled than the one portrayed by George Orwell in 1984. Orwell, writing in the late 1940s could not imagine the technology that makes control of populations so thorough as it is today. Orwell’s protagonist could at least have hope. In 2012 with the erasure of privacy by the US government, protagonists can be eliminated by hummingbird-sized drones before they can initiate a protest, much less a rebellion.

Never in human history has a people been so easily and willingly controlled by a hostile government as Americans, who are the least free people on earth. And a large percentage of Americans still wave the flag and chant USA! USA! USA!

The Bush regime operated as if the Constitution did not exist. Any semblance of constitutional government that remained after the Bush years was terminated when Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act. One wonders how the National Rifle Association, the defender of the Second Amendment, will now fare. If there is no Constitution, how can there be a Second Amendment? If the President, at his discretion, can set aside habeas corpus and due process and murder citizens based on unproven suspicions, why can’t he set aside the Second Amendment?

Indeed, it is folly to expect a police state to tolerate an armed population.

The NRA is very supportive of the police and military. Now that these armed organizations are being turned against the public, how will the NRA adjust its posture?

Many NRA members, pointing to the “Oath Keepers,” former members of the military who pledge to defend the Constitution, and to police chiefs who support the Second Amendment, believe that the police and military will disobey orders to attack citizens.

But we already witness constantly the gratuitous brutality of “our” police against peaceful protesters. We witness military troops all over the world murder citizens who protest government abuses. Why can’t it happen here?

If you don’t want it to happen here, you had better figure out some way to get Ron Paul into the Presidency and to get him a cabinet and subcabinet that will support him.

Meanwhile, the police state grows. On January 4, 2012, the Obama regime announced by decree, not by legislation, the creation of the Bureau of Counterterrorism which will among other tasks “seek to strengthen homeland security, countering violent extremism.”

Take a moment to think. Do you know of any “violent extremism” happening in the US? The regime is telling you that it needs a new police bureau with unaccountable powers to “strengthen homeland security” against a nonexistent bogyman.

So who will be the violent extremists who require countering by the Bureau of Counterterrorism? It will be peace activists, the Occupy Wall Street protesters, the unemployed and foreclosed homeless. It will be whoever the police state says. And there is no due process or recourse to law.

Given the facts before you, you are out of your mind if you think Ron Paul’s rhetoric against the welfare state is more important than his defense of liberty.

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached through his website

[Tombstone RJ]

Read it - and that's the thing - the most important issues of Paul's platform are the major issues of our time - stopping the undeclared wars, ill-thought foreign policy, police state running roughshod over civil rights, the mindless Drug War, Fed bailing out trillions to "Too Big to Fail" corporations. And he's the only one pushing hard on ANY of these issues.

The debate over whether or not Paul would end the Dept. of Education or try to overturn Roe v. Wade, or eliminate some federal programs or whatever other cherry-picked issues are minor compared to the above and are only being used as distractions from the issues that matter.

well said. Unfortunately many people don't get it.

[Tombstone RJ]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/401236_360482460643938_108038612554992_1431947_158 5006836_n.jpg

What this doesn't show is how DC is corrupted by lobbiests working for big banks, big business and Wall Street. The fed gov is to blame for the problems.

Why hasn't the fed gov prosecuted any of the banksters that cause the recession. Why is BO's cabinet filled with wall street insiders?

Yet you don't want RP?

[alkemical]

http://craphound.com/images/venn-of-paul.jpg

http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/MiCWZXFVN2Y/ron-paul-the-venn-diagram.html

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/venn-ron-paul

Mother Jones attempts a taxonomy of libertarian thought in order to figure out where Ron Paul fits. My feeling is that Ron Paul can only be understood by abandoning the traditional one-dimensions left-right political axis, or, rather, augmenting it with more axes: libertarian-authoritarian, centralist-decentralist, material-spiritual, and probably a few I've forgotten.

Congressman Ron Paul's third-place finish in Tuesday's Iowa Republican Caucus was a remarkably strong showing for a candidate who has so little in common with mainstream Republicans. Perhaps the nation's most politically unique congressman, Paul shares policy stances with conservatives, liberals, and libertarians, while differing markedly from all of them.

[Arkie]

http://craphound.com/images/venn-of-paul.jpg

http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/MiCWZXFVN2Y/ron-paul-the-venn-diagram.html

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/venn-ron-paul

Mother Jones attempts a taxonomy of libertarian thought in order to figure out where Ron Paul fits. My feeling is that Ron Paul can only be understood by abandoning the traditional one-dimensions left-right political axis, or, rather, augmenting it with more axes: libertarian-authoritarian, centralist-decentralist, material-spiritual, and probably a few I've forgotten.

Congressman Ron Paul's third-place finish in Tuesday's Iowa Republican Caucus was a remarkably strong showing for a candidate who has so little in common with mainstream Republicans. Perhaps the nation's most politically unique congressman, Paul shares policy stances with conservatives, liberals, and libertarians, while differing markedly from all of them.

RP is especially unique on the abortion issue. Not many Libertarians have delivered over 4,000 babies. He believes they have individual rights too.
RP said:
As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

He still believes that abortion is a moral issue that should be left up to the states. The federal government has no right to ban abortions. It's none of their business.

[mhgaffney]

I'd vote for Russell Means in a heartbeat -- if he was on the ballot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What this doesn't show is how DC is corrupted by lobbiests working for big banks, big business and Wall Street. The fed gov is to blame for the problems.

Why hasn't the fed gov prosecuted any of the banksters that cause the recession. Why is BO's cabinet filled with wall street insiders?

Yet you don't want RP?

If you honestly believe RP is going to change any of this, then you are living in a fantasy world.

[alkemical]

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbH7xy-wyXuMn4o3fHlg39Ng-7QWCJg7Fk1RHuO2OHsZhabvakXw

[Rohirrim]

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbH7xy-wyXuMn4o3fHlg39Ng-7QWCJg7Fk1RHuO2OHsZhabvakXw

Here's some prime advertising space.
http://www.valleyoutdoors.com/Hikes/images/halfdome.jpg

[Tombstone RJ]

If you honestly believe RP is going to change any of this, then you are living in a fantasy world.

I believe RP will serve with integrity and can't be bought by the system like your lame ass boy BO.

That's a start.

[mosca]

If you honestly believe RP is going to change any of this, then you are living in a fantasy world.
We need a leader that leads by example. Appointing Wall Street cronies to your cabinet sends out entirely the wrong message to the people at large, not to mention the corruption that follows.

It's simple - you can vote for a president that pals around with banksters or you can vote for one that doesn't.

[mosca]

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbH7xy-wyXuMn4o3fHlg39Ng-7QWCJg7Fk1RHuO2OHsZhabvakXw
I hope this is a joke.

http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2011/02/ParksAndRec-490x328.jpg

[pricejj]

I would love for any of you Democrats to attempt to explain how your party is anti-war when your party voted to go to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, as well as supplying arms to aid the war in Egypt, and Somalia, with continued unauthorized strikes in Yemen and Pakistan?

Not to mention Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan by 70,000 troops, and is about to go to war with Iran.

[alkemical]

Whom are you talking too, whom is a "Democrat"?

[alkemical]

I hope this is a joke.

http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2011/02/ParksAndRec-490x328.jpg

Show's you what's happening on the viral scene, doesn't it.

[pricejj]

Whom are you talking too, whom is a "Democrat"?

You are the guy who posted the insane diagram attempting to depict Democrats as "antiwar", so you explain it. How exactly are Democrats antiwar?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I believe RP will serve with integrity...

Integrity or no, he would be the most isolated man to ever occupy the WH when it came time to work with Congress.


....and can't be bought by the system like your lame ass boy BO.


Straw man. tsk tsk

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Appointing Wall Street cronies to your cabinet sends out entirely the wrong message to the people at large, not to mention the corruption that follows.

Preaching to the choir.

Like I've said so many times before, Obama = Republican Lite.

All Obama needs to do is switch parties, alter his complexion, and ditto monkeys like epicFail, Bronx, ant1999, Hobo, et al, will fall to their knees and kiss his ring.

It's simple - you can vote for a president that pals around with banksters or you can vote for one that doesn't.

No - it's not simple. Not at all. In spite of his good ideas on some issues, RP's domestic policies would turn America into a socioeconomic Darwinism clusterf_ck of epic proportions.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406582_363070547051796_108038612554992_1439055_120 1090420_n.jpg

[mosca]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406582_363070547051796_108038612554992_1439055_120 1090420_n.jpg
More scare tactics. Ron Paul has never came out in support of "ending" public school - he's called for an end to the Department of Education - huge difference.

Social Security is a total joke. Just about every person under 40 that I know already realizes they'll never see a penny of it. Something's gotta change with it because it's a garbage plan.

[Arkie]

I guess some people think public schools didn't exist before 1979. Ha!

[Rohirrim]

More scare tactics. Ron Paul has never came out in support of "ending" public school - he's called for an end to the Department of Education - huge difference.

Social Security is a total joke. Just about every person under 40 that I know already realizes they'll never see a penny of it. Something's gotta change with it because it's a garbage plan.

If Reagan, and the politicians following Reagan, had not rifled through the SS fund and stolen that estimated $1.3 trillion to fund tax cuts for the rich, the entire baby boomer generation would have paid for its own retirement and the fund would have been just fine until 2070. Remember Al Gore and the "lockbox?" People laughed at him, but he was warning them of what was happening.

[BABronco]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406582_363070547051796_108038612554992_1439055_120 1090420_n.jpg

Slander. But nothing new from you. Ron Paul will not get rid of SS. He will work to allow people under a certain age to opt out while still making sure that those who have paid in and who rely on it will get theirs.

[mosca]

If Reagan, and the politicians following Reagan, had not rifled through the SS fund and stolen that estimated $1.3 trillion to fund tax cuts for the rich, the entire baby boomer generation would have paid for its own retirement and the fund would have been just fine until 2070. Remember Al Gore and the "lockbox?" People laughed at him, but he was warning them of what was happening.
You are absolutely right on that part - and the raiding of the 'lockbox' was a travesty. Maybe you can educate me, but as far as I know, the damage has been done and it's too late now. But yeah, that money should have NEVER been touched and the pigs that used it to fund other stuff are some of the worst traitors that this country has known in recent memory. As a result of their actions, millions of Americans have been robbed of their SSN payments at retirement.

[Arkie]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406582_363070547051796_108038612554992_1439055_120 1090420_n.jpg

Ron Paul would put all of the power back in the hands of the people. A powerful central government that ignores the rule of Law enables powerful Corporations that violate individual rights.

Corporations in Ron Paul’s favored society would not be allowed to violate the property rights of others, pollute their air or water, defraud them, lie to them or hurt them in any way. In Ron Paul’s world of sound money where government does not bail out free-market failures, big banks would not have the licenses and privileges — which can only be granted by government — that allow them to generate wealth out of nothing on the backs of the middle class and poor. These are the same government-given privileges that enable these institutions to establish massive funds of shares in companies with no interest in them or their customers beyond the impact of changes in their stock price on their quarterly earnings. To cap it all, government then bails them out when they fail for fear of the consequences if it does not.

In contrast, in Paul’s free market, when such institutions mis-sell products or make bad decisions, they are fined for fraud as appropriate, and if the fines or their bad business decisions bankrupt them, they are gone, able to do no more harm — ever.

Which other presidential candidate will stand for that kind of corporate discipline? We have nothing like it today, nor have had for decades.

Moreover, in Ron Paul’s America, there would be no buying of special privileges by corporations that enable them to get away with hidden shenanigans — for the simple reason that those privileges would not be in the gift of the political class.

In contrast, in today’s America of extensive government regulation by unelected agents, various people over many years provided information to regulators about what Bernie Madoff was doing. Regulators turned a blind eye. More recently, we have learned that insiders even supplied information to regulators — in real time — about how JP Morgan has been allegedly manipulating the silver market to make millions at the expense of small investors. These are two examples out of hundreds of the rich or connected being enabled in their crimes by government — despite laws already on the books that would have sufficed to put an end to them.

Lest anyone believe that the current housing and financial crisis could have happened without distortive government policy, the one man in Congress who predicted it, Ron Paul, was able to explain in advance how and why the mistakes of government would precipitate it — and what government could do (or stop doing) to prevent it. Meanwhile, all other politicians, on the side of the protections offered by social democracy, regulation or big government voted for the policies that brought us to this point. (It turns out that good intentions do not confer knowledge or expertise on legislators.)

Any one of Paul’s free-market prescriptions — not least ending the Fed’s bias toward the banking and the financial sector, and just letting bad businesses go bankrupt — could have made the American people less poor, not more so, and would have done more, not less, to punish the corporations that harmed them.

Jon Stewart’s Challenge to Ron Paul (http://themoderatevoice.com/123995/jon-stewarts-challenge-to-ron-paul/)

[Arkie]

What's ironic about that slanderous Ron Paul graphic, is the fact that the 1% and all those corporations have already given millions to all the other candidates running against RP. He's their worst enemy. They have Romney and Obama in their pockets already, and they haven't given a dime to RP because it wouldn't benefit them.

[alkemical]

what if i said I like ron paul, i just can't trust most of the people who support him, to do the right thing consistantly.

[Taco John]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406582_363070547051796_108038612554992_1439055_120 1090420_n.jpg

Question for you: if Ron is so pro-corporation, then why is his the only campaign without the support of a single billionaire? Why do all the corporations support everyone else but Paul?

[BABronco]

what if i said I like ron paul, i just can't trust most of the people who support him, to do the right thing consistantly.

Are you talking about supporters or the staff he might pick?? If you are talking about supporters I agree there are a lot of "interesting" Paul supporters. But the could be said for any of the other candidates. And if you are talking about this staff... Did you trust Bush's staff? How about Obama's... Clintons?

[Bronx33]

Integrity or no, he would be the most isolated man to ever occupy the WH when it came time to work with Congress.



Straw man. tsk tsk


Notice when LA wants to avoid a valid question he calls it a straw man?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Notice when LA wants to avoid a valid question he calls it a straw man?

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc231/dinocicerelli/positive14.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Question for you: if Ron is so pro-corporation, then why is his the only campaign without the support of a single billionaire? Why do all the corporations support everyone else but Paul?

Because they know what you guys don't, i.e., that there's no way in hell RP will ever get elected.

Too bad you guys are all too young to remember what happened to the last president who challenged the fed and the military industrial complex.

[mosca]

Because they know what you guys don't, i.e., that there's no way in hell RP will ever get elected.

Too bad you guys are all too young to remember what happened to the last president who challenged the fed and the military industrial complex.
LABF, you've been making this reference to the JFK assassination for a while here as an excuse to why Ron Paul 'will never get elected'. So... because the powers-that-be offed JFK this somehow means that it's useless for the American public to back a president who isn't bought off by the banksters and corrupt Big Business? If so, you may as well throw in the towel now. Say, for example, Bernie Sanders throws his hat in the ring (highly unlikely). By your token, yup, no reason to support him because he'll 'never get elected' and "Look what happened to JFK!" Get real.

Even if it's not RP this time, it's important for Americans to to support a candidate with integrity who's not bought off, whether it be the 2012 election or the next one, 2016 and onward.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, you've been making this reference to the JFK assassination for a while here as an excuse to why Ron Paul 'will never get elected'. So... because the powers-that-be offed JFK this somehow means that it's useless for the American public to back a president who isn't bought off by the banksters and corrupt Big Business? If so, you may as well throw in the towel now. Say, for example, Bernie Sanders throws his hat in the ring (highly unlikely). By your token, yup, no reason to support him because he'll 'never get elected' and "Look what happened to JFK!" Get real.

Even if it's not RP this time, it's important for Americans to to support a candidate with integrity who's not bought off, whether it be the 2012 election or the next one, 2016 and onward.

The difference?

I know Sanders will never get elected (unlike you guys and RP.)

But I'll vote my conscience and write him in anyway.

[mosca]

The difference?

I know Sanders will never get elected (unlike you guys and RP.)

But I'll vote my conscience and write him in anyway.
Then we're in the same boat. I've stated before, even if Paul doesn't get elected in 2012 (and it will be a struggle for that to happen) what's just as important is that his message stays alive and continues to grow for the upcoming elections in 2016 and on. Same goes for any outsider candidate who refuses to toe the line with the broken ideas the establishment has been peddling.

Debating on whether or not someone 'will' get elected is a waste of time and is the same old trap that the establishment Republicans and Democrats have lured people into for decades to maintain their stranglehold on government.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Then we're in the same boat. I've stated before, even if Paul doesn't get elected in 2012 (and it will be a struggle for that to happen) what's just as important is that his message stays alive and continues to grow for the upcoming elections in 2016 and on. Same goes for any outsider candidate who refuses to toe the line with the broken ideas the establishment has been peddling.

Debating on whether or not someone 'will' get elected is a waste of time and is the same old trap that the establishment Republicans and Democrats have lured people into for decades to maintain their stranglehold on government.

It's not the Ds and the Rs who have a stranglehold on government - they're just two different management teams working for the same corporate sponsors.