Cock-Suckers for Ron Paul
 

I.e. me. Figured I'd just start a general Ron Paul thread instead of incessantly talking about him in others. Why start it now? he's gonna appear on The Daily Show.

I keep wanting to support him 100%, but I feel that I can't due to the racist allegations (his pamphlet from the early 90's that said that 95% of blacks steal and such), along with some of his voting habits that might look great on the surface (he voted no to bad bills, great) but actually might be limiting in the long run (oh look, he votes no to good bills, too).

Until his "cons" have been clarified, I just can't fully support this guy.

He definitely has said the right things during this campaign, though. I support that stuff, at least.

While my rampant dislike for the man has been elaborated on in other threads, I will grudgingly admit that he is the LEAST scary of all the current Republican Candidates.

Wow, I had no idea that racist claim had made the rounds so quickly.
Out of curiosity, where did you hear about it?

Anyways, the newsletter in question was often written by ghostwriters who publish in his name. Such was the case in this instance. The ghostwriter was fired, and Paul took the flak for it being published.
Afterwards, Paul was asked why he took ownership of the newsletter despite its racist claims, and he explained it was because he was told by his campaign manager that it is best that way, as making excuses about who wrote it and it being published under his name would only be confusing to his electorate.

Of course, Paul has never once said anything similar to that in all of his known public service. In fact, he has been very outspoken against all forms of racist thought (including affirmative action), citing his view that racism binds people into groups and empty numbers, rather than treating them as unique human beings.

One of the explanations I've seen for the newsletter and its racist overtones is that there tends to be a bit of overlap among racists and conspiracy theorists and libertarianism. Since Goldwater Conservatism has faded into obscurity and libertarianism is considered as the "conservative other" groups like 9/11 Truth and sociological racists have a few minor similarities with libertarians enough to the point that they think they're so.

More commonly a lot of libertarians simply use stupid rhetoric. The idea of 95% of DC blacks being criminal isn't that far-fetched considering the nature of Ghetto Economics and the real statistics being 85% (such stat-thumping doesn't necessarily have to be an indictement of blacks), but its presentation seems uncomfortably prejudiced. The kind of rhetoric used, for instance, by Lew Rockwell. What some libertarians derogatorily refer to as "Alabama racism."

Dr. Paul, even, is a contributor to lewrockwell.com, but mostly due to his history with Austrian economists than being a racist free market crazy.

With that in mind, it's not surprising that a racist ghost writer for the publisher would make his way into the libertarian circles to the point where he was trusted to write a letter in Paul's name.

Also:Press Conference tonight with Paul being backed up by Michael Scheuer for the purposes of "educating Rudy."

Here's also a speech Paul gave yesterday on the House floor on Patriotism and the nature of wartime rhetoric.

Paul on the World Bank:

YouTube Video

Edit edit: I was wrong about the conference, apparently it's already happened. Here's some coverage from Reason. No word on if there'll be a Youtube video.

I've been reviewing on his stances and issues and so far I largely agree with most of his positions. The Iraq War I really don't have a set opinion on (There just doesn't seem to be a 'right' solution for this whole giant mess), but in regards to other things, his issues, while probably more conservative then I'm usually going for (My personal beliefs are, I best described as moderate or 'middle-ground', as I am a registered Independent), have been at least more agreeable and less dishonest then some of the other candidates so far. Brady, you're a self-admitted proponent of this canidate, so can you answer for us (Me, Jazz, others?) on what his pros AND cons are/might be?

His little blurb about the World Bank was interesting. Oh and when is he supposed to go on the Daily Show/Colbert Report? Or is it undecided at this point?

I'm not the right kind of guy to ask, but if you're really interested, the David Weigel issue of Reason did exactly this for all presidential hopefuls from a small-L libertarian perspective.

Pros: Paul would scale back the power of the executive (I'm very much alluding to Packrat's thread). Would veto any bills he considered unconstitutional and actually read them. Make real overtures towards ending the drug war, and I believe he's even stated that upon being elected he'd pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Make a concerted effort to de-federalize institutions such as Education which have made massive headway under the Bush Administration.

Really though, I think the biggest pros to Paul is that as an anti-statist President, it would put a severe hault on the rapid expansion of power in the Presidency and the Federal government since the Wilson administration.

Cons: Fears concerning social safety nets implemented Federally would be heightened perhaps to the point of hysteria under a Paul administration. Congressional antagonism could seriously damage the nature of political discourse. Paul's immigration policy may cause a shortage of unskilled labor that will inordinately impact the earnings of women, particularly working mothers. Paul's attempts to withdraw the United States from the UN and other global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, etc., may cause negative international sentiment that may not be offset by a friendly foreign policy of trade and diplomacy.

More Pros:
-There is also the stabilization of the falling buying power of the dollar by, at least partially, tying it to a real good, like gold, and potentially silver. As it stands, the fiat dollar's value is purely imaginative. The significance of this is of course the fact that while gold is universally treasured by humans throughout the centuries, a complicated blend of linen and cotton with ink on it can, in a matter of years, become literally worthless.
(Some contend that this makes for a more volatile international market, potentially leading up to something akin to the Great Depression again. This claim is mostly unfounded, since Milton Friedman made a very thorough and convincing case proving it was the Federal Reserve's actions which caused the Great Depression.)

- Budget balancing. Since Paul is pretty much a rabid fiscal conservative, he wouldn't only reject bills which are unconstitutional, but also spending bills which force us to borrow money to fund. (current loan rates are $3 billion from China and Japan A DAY, according to Paul)

Another Con(actually, I just realized this is just an elaboration on one of Brady's points :p):
-His hardline stance against pork-laden and unconstitutional bills may unite the Congress against him, so that they can go over his head and overrule his vetoes, possibly making him an ineffective and powerless president. I don't buy this, but this is still an option. Who knows what 535 greedy men and women bought off by corporate lobbies might do.

-I recall reading that China might have a problem if we stopped borrowing from them, and we attempted to pay off the loans. Why this is, I don't really know, but I remember this being a cause for contention with Paul as president.

Quick Update: Here is the condensed YouTube video for Paul's "Educating Giuliani" press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

Paul on Bill Maher:

YouTube Video

I don't know how I feel about Ben Affleck listening.

+

= there would be plenty of empty-headed high Americans around to fill in as unskilled labor in the absence of 20 million criminals, but the country would get the munchies and have to take a snack break every 15 minutes. :p

Ron Paul is appearing on the Colbert Report June 13th, no word on whether as a guest or for "Better Know Your District."

Also here's PJ 'O Rourke and Affleck talking shit about Giuliani after Paul left Maher's show:

YouTube Video

Additional Spam:
Paul is on The Daily Show June 4th, the day before the debate.

LOL COMEDY

It depends on whether or not Jon Stewart's disbelief in free markets overcome his disbelief in non-interventionism being conservative.

Seeing Paul run the talkshow scene is great. Here's his appearance on Dennis Miller:

YouTube Video

It's funny sad how commited Miller is to the war machine.

Also, in case anybody doubted that Rudy knows his security:

YouTube Video

Psh. If Thompson announces it's all over anyway. Say what you want about liberal Hollywood, but ever since Reagan the Republicans haven't met a celebrity they won't run for office.

Ron Paul on the Daily Show:

YouTube Video

And you get this, what, from your subscription to the NYT in the Universe Where Politicians Are Honest?

Never mind that his reading of it disagrees with two hundred eighteen years of Supreme Court precedent.

It's like Supreme Court justices had their own interpretations, or something.

Not sure why one wouldn't think Ron Paul is being honest considering he's probably the most consistent and principled politician on the Hill.

Paul on NPR.

Yes!

Johnny, tell him what he’s won!

Thanks Bob.
You’ve won federal intrusions into the free market economy, subsidizing those who can get to the good lawyers and lobbyists first, ensuring the suppression of competition, and favored treatment over their competitors, with your tax dollars!
But that’s not all. You will also receive continual attacks upon your rights to own firearms, amongst many other eroding rights.

And wait! There’s more!
You will also receive an all-expenses paid trip to a communist state not of your choosing with the establishment of American detainment camps outside of constitutional jurisdiction, and the erosion of individual’s rights to challenge your detention. You will also recieve Federal funding programs which border precariously upon violation of anti-establishment clauses, and even disastrously failed federal education programs, all with a handy cheese grater!

Thanks for playing!

I feel like I've created a monster. :(

I feel like I just won a million bucks! =D

Anybody who watched the CNN debates is going to know what I'm talking about, as these were by far the worst ones yet. CNN made no apologies in regards to favoritism. At the Democratic debate, Gravel and Kucinich were at the right and left wings while Clinton, Obama, and Edwards positioned in the center, with Clinton seated inbetween the other two (current front-runner). Now in this Republican debate, Tancredo and Paul were in the left and right wings, while Rudy McRomney were positioned in the center with Giulianni seated between the other two (also the "frontrunner"). Once Fred Thompson joins the race they'll have to invest in a wider lens so they can get all of them in one shot.

Wolf Blitzer never had the balls to move the debate along, and since the top three in both parties were fielded the most questions they were able to dominate the longest amount of time without any formal limits. Obama and Hillary combined had 30 minutes in the Democrat debate while Gravel got little over 5. Now Tancredo was given a grand total, I think, of 4 statements which I doubt exceed 3 minutes in total.

I don't think I've ever been more disgusted with a Cable News Channel, and the way CNN formatted this catastrophe made Fox News seem credible by comparison.

More specifically as a Paul supporter, I found it highly suspect that they didn't look for Paul's insight on healthcare, despite being the only MD on stage. Those of you who might be interested in his take can find it in the NPR interview I posted.

Chris Dodd's blog reported on the time division as it did for the Democratic debate:
Paul got less time than Tancredo? Really? I guess his "smash Mexican" diatribes took up more time than I thought.

Ok it looks like those were just the numbers for the first half of the debate, here are the Dodd numbers in full:

That sounds about right, and come to think of it Thomson really did get gipped. Poor guy. :(

Doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's the fact of the matter that our entire nation's history agrees with the current broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause. All 3 branches and the voting population are in agreement over that fact, whether the libertarians choose to acknowledge it or not.

I don't think he's really arguing about the popularity of the decisions. The point is who's ultimately right, and I think the case can be easily made that a broad interpretation of the Constitution creates more problems than it solves.

That's what he gets for having that stupid as fuck name. I wouldn't want to call on Tommy Tom Tommel Thomson either.

You'll be missing him when F. Thompson brings out that goddamn pickup truck.

It isn't his fault. His name just always reminds me of Tommy Tutone.

YouTube Video

That's not ron paul...

In real news, a pollster predicts a 3-5% surge for Paul in the polls:
Basically 18-29 year-olds don't represent a significant enough voting block for pollsters to bother going after since they more often lack landlines and don't really vote anyways. The theory is that Paul is inspiring a lot of young 'ins through the intercats, and once all these bums come home for the summer from college we might see a small surge in numbers for Paul.

Too hot to pander, too cold to poll

"The dryest fish in the lake"

But he makes me want to believe.:niki:

Youtube of Paul talking about Medicare and Nuclear power:

YouTube Video

Basically, at the end of the day, Paul's a libertarian. And libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people.

Anarchy is as anarchy does.

Me too. After the last debate on CNN, I'm totally in. Although it'd take a miracle for him to get the party nod cause he's not as handsome as the mormon and people buy Rudy's/Lois Griffin's approach when he weasles his way out of corners by mentioning "9-11 was bad!"

Actually, its looking like a couple of the "top three" were really nothing more than placeholders for Fred Thompson. Since each of these three men appeal to a slightly different demographic, and then they bow out in deference to the Bush in actor's clothing (ZOMG AN ACTOR LIKE REAGANREAGANREAGANREAGAN... REAGAN), they will likely consolidate a lot of their supporters to the Thompson campaign. Lets just hope that McCain is more senile than we already know, and that Giuliani's self-glorifying aspirations supersede any of these possible political tricks.

I liked how Bill O'Reilly and some other talking head couldn't wait to talk about how "Reaganesque" Fred Thompson is. How much is he like Reagan? Well... uh... he's an actor.

Wanna know more about Ron Paul? Get it from the horse's mouth right over here!

Dude, yesterday while driving into work in an awesome traffic jam a whole bunch of callers starting wailing on CSPAN about Ron Paul and how noone in the media was talking about him, and how Ron has consistently won out in online polls, and showed how noone at CSPAN really knows that much about him because obviously they aren't getting paid to cover Ron Paul. But yeah my dad hadn't even heard of Ron Paul until I was all holy shit over the callers being awesome.

Moon bats who bother calling into CSPAN can be pretty awesome, yeah. The funniest thing is that CSPAN probably has more coverage of Congressman Paul since they actually broadcast the House floor.

This is superficially related to Ron Paul since either he or his people were at the speech, but Andrew Napolitano is endorsing Paul because he loves freedoms that have been violated as outlined:

YouTube Video

The really scary stuff is in Part 4.

Just for fun here's Paul from his 1988 campaign punk'n fatties on the Drug War:

YouTube Video

I saw an ad for Tucker Carlson having Ron Paul on his show tonight. They're advertising it as saying something along the lines of, "Have you heard of this Republican who's raised even more money than Rudy Giuliani for his campaign?"

Oh wow Ron Paul is getting good backing in funds? I thought he was doing terrible there as well. This is good news if so.

Are you sure it was Giuliani, and not John McCain?
Because Paul has definitely raised more funds than the McCain campaign, and now its become clear that they are jumping ship. (Three of the lead staffers are resigning or fired.)
$2.4 million is the estimated total cash on hand for the Paul campaign(as opposed to McCain's $2 mil), and since they've been very stingy, as well as having a strong volunteer support base, this can last them a long while.

In contrast, I saw a recent Gallup poll which registered a whopping zero percent for Paul. Power candidate indeed.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics...llup-poll.html

One does not necessarily relate to the other. McCain has raised around $25 million since the beginning of the year. McCain has also been spending it while slipping behind in the polls.

Now that you mention McCain it might have been, but I really can't say for sure since I saw the ad last night while cooking dinner, so my attention wasn't really 100%.

The standing cash is only impressive insofar as it keeps him in the race, and makes him the leading financial 2nd-Tier despite having no presence in the polls.

Paul's been pretty up front about him having more money because he hasn't spent it.

YouTube Video

Some neat statistics from Q2 filings:

Received the most money from every branch except the Marine Corps, and received almost half of all money donated to Republicans from the military.

Half of all the money is from donations of less than 200 dollars.

He's got more Cash on Hand than all other 6 second-tier candidates combined:

RP: $2,354,855
Other 6: $1,959,358

Obama Girl eat your heart out.