Any thoughts?
I really don’t see how that hasn’t been brought up more at the GOP debates. I know most those republicans are cocks but Ron Paul has always been right up my alley. On Twitter he retwetted his sons campaign to block that shit but it’s not looking like it went so well.
I’m sorry but I can’t help but think ron paul failed economics in high school. I honestly don’t know much more about his platforms but I know his stances on financial matters concerning the nation are impractical and down right hazerdous to the average american.
Late,
grmpysmrf
A little elaboration would be appreciated.
The link is misleading because the original veto threat only applied to the bill as originally drafted. So in a sense The White House actually was able to stand firm on this one. Here’s a quote from CBS News…
----"The administration abandoned its long-held veto threat due to changes in the final version of the bill, namely that in its view, the military custody mandate has been “softened.” The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.
“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” the White House statement said.----
So you see what is really a compromise (and isn’t that what politics is supposed to be about?) is being painted in the RW media as either…“Obama caves” or “Obama is taking away your rights”. The reality is that the Republican version was much worse and the White House was able to make sure that didn’t happen by initially threatening with a veto.
Nobody should have that kind of power. Maybe you’re OK with Obama being able to decide to detain people without a trial because you like him, but what if it’s President Gingrich or President Palin?
Nobody should have that kind of power. Maybe you’re OK with Obama being able to decide to detain people without a trial because you like him, but what if it’s President Gingrich or President Palin?
I don’t think that’s what wempathy is saying…
Coma:
Ron paul wants to do away with the income tax and the IRS. Both of which are responsible for keeping the U.S. from quickly turning into a 3rd world country and/or succuming to the tyranny of the rich. The fact that he thinks congress has no power to impose a direct income tax is probably telling of his high school government grades as well.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Nobody should have that kind of power. Maybe you’re OK with Obama being able to decide to detain people without a trial because you like him, but what if it’s President Gingrich or President Palin?
If one were to believe that even with a strict law against detention by the Executive Branch that detention of American citizens somehow couldn’t be circumvented, then I’d say that person might be a bit naive. Just ask John Walker Lindh.
Secondly, the new law requires a waiver signed by the President. This leaves a legal trail.
And finally, here’s an official quote from the White House…
“The White House also objected to the possibility that the new law would apply to people within the United States: “Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets,” the statement said.”
Again Wemp shows he’s got one of the more informed and well-thought-out positions here. Dare I say “Elder statesman of Prongs”? Spot on, chief.
I’ve had a bunch of argument with Ron Paul supporters, the most vocal of which is my ex’s husband, who is otherwise a nice guy. Basically, the guy’s not really a Republican, he’s a Libertarian who runs as republican because his local electorate lets him get away with it. The basic argument I get from him mis that Ron Paul would immediately end the costly wars we are in (nice), legalize marijuana (also nice), and stand up for our constitutional civil rights (nice on paper, but not really the truth).
Where his platform breaks down for me is that he is a MEDICAL DOCTOR who DENIES EVOLUTION (shitty for our education system and the future of our workforce compared to the rest of the world), wants to repeal Roe v. Wade (what’s that about individual civil rights?), wants to bring back institutionalized discrimination (repeal of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act), wants to do away with the minimum wage, wants to do away with financial and environmental regulation of corporations (in worship of the free market), and repeal the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution which gave the public the right to directly elect their Congressional Representatives (instead of the state legislatures appointing them- which would partially disenfranchise EVERY CITIZEN), he wants to weaken the powers of the independant judiciary and upset the balance of powers among the three branches of government, etc. etc. etc.
Not to mention that his financial proposals are utterly untested and unsound. Yes, the situation now is bleak. Yes, no one is really standing up and getting the job done fixing the system. But to just do away with the Federal Reserve and government social welfare programs and put us back on the gold standard or whatever means we would be scrapping everything about how our system works and starting over from scratch with an every man for himself Ayn Rand wet dream, which really doesn’t help anyone except the people who are unscrupulous enough to grab everything they can for themselves. What he proposes is complete deregulation, and unless I’m mistaken, our economy did pretty well after World War II with increasing regulation all around, and then when Reagan came on the scene and started peeling all the regulations away things have been downhill ever since.
Why does anyone think his way is better? Name a country that runs their shit the way he wants? What is the quality of life in that country? Just as radical a change would be to go in the other direction with MORE regulation, MORE taxes, and MORE social welfare programs. A bunch of countries are doing that. Look at the quality of life in Sweden. Look at the income disparities in Sweden. There’s no 1% of that country that owns the other 99%. Yet in the name of “Freedom” people here are willing to give away their safety net and all the advances we have made as a society and let this guy slide on a bunch of really EVIL shit because they are fed up with the current crop of Reps and Dems who can’t seem to fix anything.
Yes, Reps and Dems are not getting anything done right now. Yes, you can’t really trust any of them to not pander to narrow interest groups and the businesses who contribute to them. However, to act like the blame should be shared equally is a false dichotomy. Republicans are actively being obstructionists and are willing to sacrifice our economy and the well-being of the country as a whole to score points against the Democrats, not to mention they blatantly trade on fear and bigotry to do so. Handing the country over to anybody who says “I would do shit differently than either of those parties” just because you’re pissed off at those two parties is not a good idea if what they are proposing are plain and simple against the interest of the general public. You have to look at all angles of the platform, and Ron Paul’s platform is simply abysmal.
It WOULD be nice if we had a valid third party that was an actual force to be reckoned with here. My ex’s husband always rubs it in my face “RON PAUL WOULD END THIS ILLEGAL WAR AND MAKE POT LEGAL” well, whoop-dee-doo. Know who else would? The Green Party. And they wouldn’t bring back government intervention in your uterus or trust corporations to not steal, pollute, or discriminate because of their “good conscience” and “free market pressures” to not do so. The Green Party platform matches my views almost to a point, but I vote democrat 9 times out of ten because I know in my heart and brain that the biggest threat that mankind faces is the hypocritcal, short-sighted, close-minded, and self-serving agenda of the religious right and the neo-conservatives. The only two candidates for President that came close to being someone I really wanted to vote for were Nader and Kucinich (love me some Denny, but again he’s as far out there (in the other direction) as Paul and didn’t have a snowflake’s chance in hell), and in the end I voted for Kerry and Obama, because sometimes, picking the lesser evil and hoping for eventual, incremental change is the best you can really do. Being impatient and rash and voting for something you’ll regret later because you didn’t pay close enough attention to what they really were saying is really really dumb.
In short, Libertarians bitch about hitting potholes in the road just like everybody else, but I don’t see them get out of their cars and start shoveling hot asphalt. But it’s SOOOO invasive and unfair to ask them to pitch in and hire someone to fix it. Assholes.
Very eloquent davely.
Nice posts
Late,
grmpysmrf
In short, Libertarians bitch about hitting potholes in the road just like everybody else, but I don’t see them get out of their cars and start shoveling hot asphalt. But it’s SOOOO invasive and unfair to ask them to pitch in and hire someone to fix it. Assholes.
Most of the people I know who claim to be Libertarians are totally helpless…which I find quite ironic since they claim they need no help with anything. And think twice before you ask one to pitch in with a shovel…not that many know how to use one.
Thanks for the kind words. “Elder statesman”…I never thought I’d hear that. I guess if you’re around long enough anything’s possible.
Thanks Grumps. And yer welcome Wemp.
Also:
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/24/ron_paul_presidency/
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/five-reasons-why-ron-paul-should-never.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/factchecking-paul/
http://pragcap.com/debunking-ron-pauls-talking-points
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html
http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2157&dt=1
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/why_is_ron_paul_so_popular.php
And a two-fer from the late great Christopher Hitchens, who I was very sad to hear died today and will miss terribly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIPdkLHOaEs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7c-Ei7btbI&feature=related
Wasn’t a fan of hitchens… I don’t think I ever saw an interview where he wasn’t tanked out of his gourd! He was alsmost physically combative on one of his daily show appearances. Wouldn’t wish death on him but certainly wouldn’t give him the coverage that he got… cancer?
Late,
grmpysmrf
Yeah, I won’t like I’m not really all that caught up on economics but what’s obvious is that the current administration isn’t handling it very well and all the plans outlined by the other candidates look pretty poor as well. The ideas that Ron Paul has in terms of allowing people to handle their money rather than the government funneling it into idiotic programs and spreading ourselves thinner across the globe seems pretty sound.
Regarding those sites as examples of Ron Pauls shortcoming, if they are all as liberal bias as Salon.com (which even the subscribers to that site seem put off by) than I’d rather not even click them. For the whole “He’s a racist issue” check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3p9s1cSzko. Anyway look I’m not a party guy by any means. I don’t care for the perpetuation of just seeing Democrats or Republicans as the only practical choices and i don’t believe supporting third parties only cause they are underdogs or something.
I look at it like this you hire one plumber to do your plumbing and they fuck up. So you call up another plumber and they are no better. Well it’s obvious neither of those two have the ability to properly handle the situation. So instead of just going back and forth between those two which just results in more mistakes and more money being spent maybe it’s time for someone different.
but what’s obvious is that the current administration isn’t handling it very well and all the plans outlined by the other candidates look pretty poor as well.
Not to be rude here but I think Davely touched on this very point in his first post. While yes, the current crop of candidates don’t really have a great plan but “not a great plan” is better than Paul’s plan
The ideas that Ron Paul has in terms of allowing people to handle their money rather than the government funneling it into idiotic programs and spreading ourselves thinner across the globe seems pretty sound.
The problem with this statement is most of america doesn’t have any money to manage and those “idiotic government programs” are all what some people have left. Also, the people that would be heavily taxed by these programs already have more money than they need and wouldn’t be burdened at all to give back to the country that made them wealthy.
What irritates me about the GOP is that they use scare tactics like this to get people to vote against their own interests. The people that are already broke are frightened into thinking the big bad government is going to take more from them in taxes when that is clearly not the situation. Since Ron Paul is playing into this fear (either that or he’s speaking directly to the rich and if that’s the case then he needs to clarify) he’s dishonest and just as bad as the general population of GOP
Regarding those sites as examples of Ron Pauls shortcoming, if they are all as liberal bias
what exactly is “liberal Bias”? That’s a foxism
For the whole “He’s a racist issue”
he wants to repeal the civil rights laws… how much more glaring need it be?
I look at it like this you hire one plumber to do your plumbing and they fuck up. So you call up another plumber and they are no better. Well it’s obvious neither of those two have the ability to properly handle the situation. So instead of just going back and forth between those two which just results in more mistakes and more money being spent maybe it’s time for someone different.
yeah but you’re not going to hire a guy that knows nothing of plumbing and even denies the existence of a drain…
Late,
grmpysmrf
Dude come on, really? To call something for what it is is to be associated with an equally bias competing network? No, it’s just what it is. Regarding peoples dependence on social programs it’s tragic that things are that way. I understand special circumstances exists but honestly it’s abused by tons and tons of individuals whose only mission in life is to be bottom feeders.
Once again I’m not going to defend the GOP or any other political organization. Party boys are part of the problem. Along with big businesses taking bail outs that’s money trails lead to places out of the US and not the individuals that deserved them. That was very irresponsible of this administration and the on previous and there like no way to defend that.
The whole Civil Rights issue is kind of misunderstood. All he was trying to say was that taking away people right to refuse someone business for whatever reason was wrong which it is. If someone is so ignorant to refuse someone business based on their color or associations than that business shouldn’t be forced to server them further aiding their profits. Instead they should loose business because of their bigotry.
Dude, you are speaking in sound bites, brother. Step it up with some sources or something, man. Tell me why what he’s saying is right, explain to me how he’s gonna make it work, and show how that outweighs all the negative impacts the rest of his policies have. Just saying “he’s got this awesome idea about this thing, man” and rebutting contrary arguments with “TLDR” ain’t gonna hack it when you are weighing credentials for the highest office in the country.
And “liberal bias” is a joke. Giving equal voice and consideration to arguments that are full of distortions, hypocrisies, ignorance and outright deceptions that you would give to rational arguments crafted from the best available evidence and mutual respect is not fair and balanced, it’s a FALSE BALANCE. Judging from the “on a mission to be a bottom feeder” comment, I’m probably expecting a bit too much from you in the empathy department.
But hey, I’m glad you like Ministry. Neato.
Dude come on, really? To call something for what it is is to be associated with an equally bias competing network? No, it’s just what it is.
I was being serious. What is liberal bias? I only hear that come out of fox people and those that associate with fox…cnn is suppoed to be liberally biased… I say bullshit. Cnn isn"t accidentally liberal. I see no liberal anything on tv when it comes to politics. Liberal bias is what is said when somebody won’t tow the rights lie… curic asks palin what magazines she reads, palin can’t answer and now its the liberal attack machine at work… its made up. Liberal has been turned into a dirty word by the right
Regarding peoples dependence on social programs it’s tragic that things are that way. I understand special circumstances exists but honestly it’s abused by tons and tons of individuals whose only mission in life is to be bottom feeders.
As you asked me, some clarification would be nice. Have you some data to back up this “tons of abuse” you speak of? Its harder than you think to get on those programs and they don’t pay all that well. Do people find the way to cheat the system? Sure. Is it everybody? No. Is it half? No. I’d be willing to say its not even 10%
Once again I’m not going to defend the GOP or any other political organization. Party boys are part of the problem. Along with big businesses taking bail outs that’s money trails lead to places out of the US and not the individuals that deserved them. That was very irresponsible of this administration and the on previous and there like no way to defend that.
I don’t think anyone is asking you to or even suggesting that you are.
The whole Civil Rights issue is kind of misunderstood. All he was trying to say was that taking away people right to refuse someone business for whatever reason was wrong which it is. If someone is so ignorant to refuse someone business based on their color or associations than that business shouldn’t be forced to server them further aiding their profits. Instead they should loose business because of their bigotry.
In a perfect world those businesses would fold but this world isn’t perfect and it would segregate our country even further. What happens when nbc doesn’t want to let black folk on the air anymore? What happens when they run news stories on how bad black people are? You can’t fight that. And if people really were smart enough to see through bigotry and racial discrimination then fox news wouldn’t exist let alone be the #1 cable news channel and people like ann coulter and rush limbaugh would have been homeless long ago instead of being multi millionaires.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Hitch was a powerhouse. I wasn’t fond of every aspect of him but he was a king at debating and wrote some brilliant articles. His book god is not great was… great, and he edited The Portable Atheist which is a wonderful collection. His excessive drinking was fine with me but his smoking most likely gave him the oesophageal cancer that led to his death (his died of complications from pneumonia in the end). He wrote an article a few weeks ago about his suffering, which was very stirring: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/01/hitchens-201201
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mQorzOS-F6w
RIP