Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Why Ron Paul is a better liberal than Barack Obama

Apr 27, 2011#1

The Lovely Boehner

http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/04/ill-take-reactionary-over-murderer.html

I'm a liberal, and I can't find much wrong in this, and basically agree with it all.

By no means should you take this as some support of libertarian endorsement. But fuck.

Apr 28, 2011#2

Ravenpoe

tl;dr version:
Ron Paul has never been president during a war.

Apr 28, 2011#3

Tress

Ravenpoe said:
tl;dr version:
Ron Paul has never been president during a war.

I hit the "Like" button, but that somehow isn't enough. Thank you.

Apr 28, 2011#4

@Li3n

Ravenpoe said:
tl;dr version:
Ron Paul has never been president.

There, much more accurate.

Apr 28, 2011#5

The Lovely Boehner

Ravenpoe said:
tl;dr version:
Ron Paul has never been president during a war.

I missed the part where Congress declared war on Libya.

Apr 28, 2011#6

Jiarn

You missed the part with common sense too.

Apr 28, 2011#7

sixpackshaker

The Lovely Boehner said:
I missed the part where Congress declared war on Libya.

I missed the part where we went to war in the last 60 years.

Apr 28, 2011#8

SpecialKO

Given the difference between Obama's statements when he was Senator and didn't have war powers and when he became President, I'm not sure how taking Ron Paul's statements as facts of "what would happen if I was president" as a true basis for comparison makes any sense at all.

Apr 28, 2011#9

Jiarn

Read my previous post.

Apr 28, 2011#10

Joe Johnson

Right, I was going to say, Obama hadn't done any of that before I voted for him.

Apr 28, 2011#11

Krisken

In the comments section, larryy puts it better than I ever could.

Damn good post. But don't assume decrying Paul is somehow giving Obama a free pass. Obama's single biggest failing, IMO, is that he seems genuinely blinded by the fruit salad on a military jacket. There is no question that he has failed us on this front.

But as for Paul, I fear two very large things, amongst many others... One is that his actions will result in the deaths of many more Americans than we have killed Iraqis or Afghanis. The other is that he wouldn't really stop killing Iraqis and Afghanis anyway.

If you believe that he is so principled that he will act on all of his pronouncements then I suggest you are as naive as any Obamaphile. Case in point, Paul now says he wants to move abortion legislation to the states. But he has also stated that Roe v. Wade was damaging to the Constitution, and it is entirely obvious that moving legislation to the states is just code for banning abortion. He thus proves himself to be a dissembling politician like every other.

He also wants to allow school prayer, supports the teaching of creationism in schools, supports home schooling (read religious mental abuse of children), is for spending tax dollars to support christian schools, essentially eliminating the barrier between church and state. He fights any controls on CO2 emissions, votes against any kind of support for energy conservation or renewable energy sources, is against medical care for children (even voted against establishing the AMBER alert system), is extremely pro-gun rights, wants to abolish medicaid in favor of pro bono treatment (sure, that's going to work), is vehemently opposed to any kind of national healthcare, wants to eliminate social security, and is an Ayn Rand true believer (reason enough for me to despise him).

I'm for legalizing *all* drugs, period. I'm for getting out of *all* wars, period. I applaud Paul for his recent rebuke of the whole Sharia law nonsense. But if Paul has his way, the death toll amongst the poor and the sick is likely to surpass those in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe he'd do all the good and wonderful things you seem so ready to credit him with. It's easy to say "I will end the war"--hell, Obama said it; it seems always to be different once in office, and expecting Paul to be any different is seriously naive.

What I think you *can* count on Paul to do is eliminate the commonwealth--literally, the common wealth. Medicare, medicaid, social security... These are the bugaboos for him. It is a good Libertarian's highest calling to make sure no resources are diverted to support anyone, period. The sick, the poor, the unemployed, can all look out for themselves, as everyone *must*, and if they can't, well, then that's their lot in life. Basically, those leeches can all go die. And I have no doubt they will.

I think the "false dichotomy" here is yours--Paul to end the war, Obama to continue it. Obama deserves every bad thing you've said about him for failing to end these wars. Good luck if you think Paul is going to be any different on that front, and you'll get what you deserve if he's elected (unless you're a billionaire, in which case you'll chortle all the way to the bank).

The bold ares are the very reasons Ron Paul isn't the perfect candidate for liberals and progressives (not the same thing) that the author seems to want to make him out to be. There are a lot of things I agree with Dr. Paul on, but the things we don't agree on are just as important.

Apr 29, 2011#12

@Li3n

Joe Johnson said:
Right, I was going to say, Obama hadn't done any of that before I voted for him.

I'm pretty sure i pointed that out earlier with a clever* edit...

*edit not guaranteed to be clever, mgiht be un-clever up to 99,9%

Apr 29, 2011#13

Hailey Knight

I think a lot of us miss the "clever edits" because we assume the editor is just quoting what we already read.

May 2, 2011#14

@Li3n

That's why i made sure my text pointed it out...

May 13, 2011#15

Zappit

Well, he declared he's running, so now we know who gets fourth place in the Republican primary. The man's a lock.

May 13, 2011#16

sixpackshaker

It depends if the Tea Party will swing his way or not. They can only hang onto Palin so long.

Jun 2, 2011#17

AmazingP

As mature citizens, we have to learn the reality that a person who is still a candidate is presented with tremendously different facts once he is already in the position. This is true with all the Presidents and leaders since time immemorial.

Jun 2, 2011#18

Charlie Don't Surf

AmazingP said:
As mature citizens, we have to learn the reality that a person who is still a candidate is presented with tremendously different facts once he is already in the position. This is true with all the Presidents and leaders since time immemorial.

I really despise this argument

Jun 2, 2011#19

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I really despise this argument

I agree.

"If you only knew what I knew, you would want to curtail your Constitutionally-granted rights in favor of security theater."

"If you only knew what I knew, you would support the idea of assassinating American citizens without trial or oversight."

"If you only knew what I knew, you would know we have to invade Iraq to secure their WMDs!" (oh wait)

Jun 2, 2011#20

MindDetective

The fact remains that the person making campaign promises has less information than the person who is sworn into office. That should at the very least make those campaign promises less appealing to everyone.

Jun 2, 2011#21

Dave

I wish instead of saying, "I will do this..." they'd instead say, " I intend to do this to the best of my ability." Really, every politician makes wild promises based on incomplete information and then is forced to amend or outright break the statements. Add in the fact that they really can't do shit on their own without Congress and it makes campaign promises just dumb.

Jun 2, 2011#22

Krisken

The problem with that Dave is they will be labeled as weak and indecisive. Unfortunately unless you take a hard stance on everything, people will call it weakness.

Jun 2, 2011#23

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I really despise this argument

While it's worth despising it is true. I suspect there's a lot of... interesting... things you get told when you walk into the Oval Office that might affect what you do and why you do it.

Jun 2, 2011#24

Covar

Espy said:
While it's worth despising it is true. I suspect there's a lot of... interesting... things you get told when you walk into the Oval Office that might affect what you do and why you do it.

Almost certainly.

Jun 4, 2011#25

SpecialKO

Espy said:
While it's worth despising it is true. I suspect there's a lot of... interesting... things you get told when you walk into the Oval Office that might affect what you do and why you do it.

Then they should explain at least some of why they changed their minds, and acknowledge that in this case they won't be able to deliver what they promised. After the Iraq-WMD thing, "it's classified" just doesn't cut the mustard.

Forums