the only way I can sleep at night is knowing he's unelectable. I would probably vote for Hillary Clinton if it was between her and Ron Paul.
You'd rather have the US killing by the hundreds of thousands with a massive military intimidating the world? Hmm.
Where I'm from actions matter most, and Ron Paul, in his actions, is an anti-choice racist.
He's anti-choice--he wants to push it to the states. I assume you watched the video I sent you the URL to. What did you have to say about his points?
Even though he couldn't vote yes on a medal for Rosa Parks, because it's not in the consitution. He voted yes on a "partial-birth" abortion ban 4 times.http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote ... can_id=296
Yes. He believes life begins at conception, so he would be against that. When does life begin, anyway?
Voted yes on banning federal research into abortion pills twice.http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote ... can_id=296
Completely in line with anarchists, I may note. Why should the state be researching /anything/? They'll likely just use the info to find new ways to kill. Also, if there were a "pro-life pill" he would be against federal funding of that too. It's the funding of "non-constitutional" things he's against, not what the subject matter is.
For my part I'm completely against the government funding this too.
He has actually said he thought the border fence was a stupid idea and would be ineffective. I don't remember what else was in that particular bill, but I have heard him address this directly and he was for the other things in the bill.
Very "subtle". Very "positive".
It's issues like this that make me give the usenet forum the benefit of the doubt.
Well, that's just dumb. I mean, some ancient usenet post? Come on. We're talking about a guy that has a 20 year voting record, has his congressional weekly newsletter on his website (hundreds of issues), has written innumerable articles, given hundreds of speechs (hundreds of hours available on youtube), and written half a dozen books. In all that shit there has to be some dirt that is substantive. Using stupid usenet posts discredits you, not him. I mean, come on.
Noam Chomsky wrote:
Soviet COmmmunism rullllz!!!!@11!!!
A decade from now will that suddenly be a good source. Get real.
A person who thinks a wall between the US and Mexico is necessary is a racist.
Actually, like I said, he thinks the fence itself is a bad idea and won't work. I also don't think that shows racism, but nationalism. There is a difference. I find them both obnoxious. (You're talking to a guy who has been bordercamping and has a son that doesn't speak english...)
He tries to hide it behind clever slogans like "I won't vote for anything not specified in the constitution", but that's not true. He votes for things not in the constitution all the time.
And even that ideology is reactionary. The constitution was written by backwards racist rich white men, and Ron Paul carries that torch beautifully.
Well, they were racist, but I wouldn't exactly call them backwards (considering the time).
I mean, seriously. As much as those quotes scare me, it is indeed conceivable that they didn't come from him.
As someone who has actually taken the time to read his writings extensively, I can tell you he didn't write them purely for stylistic reasons alone. Surely you can bring up something more credible than that? Can we drop that finally?
There's plenty of writings to pick thru here:http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
Also, Noldrin is right in one respect. Ron Paul is not the only racist, Bill Cosby is one of the biggest anti-black racists there is. But the fact that we can go to his own campaign site and find racist bullshit. He even wants to eliminate birthright citizenship. That level of ignorance is well above and beyond any other candidate.
Ya, that position definitely sucks, but citizenship itself is bullshit. You sound a lot more like a progressive than an anarchist though. Why do you care about federal funding and citizenship?
This election is terrible, not only because when I look at the debates, I see a big gaggle of people with no sense, clawing one another to try to run this terrible country. Not only because it's got people like you, Jebba, who seem like otherwise sensible people trying desperately to defend reprehensible sexists and racists. But because it's a distraction and a spectacle, the likes of which have drawn us all in, and averted our attention from real tangible revolutionary action.
Oh trust me, I'm working all the time building stuff. But I do find Paul different. And not different in a Nadar/Kucinich kind of way. He's far far more intelligent. I really think he sees deeper into the functioning of the empire more than most, due to his years in direct opposition to it and also since he's been so /close/ to it. He's the only one I've heard in my lifetime that brings up monetary issues which are really at the core of the control. Democrats may say "oh raise minimum wage!" without thinking "why would it even need to increase?" They don't understand money, and thus their proscriptions create more problems than they solve. Paul is for /unlimited competition in currency/. In other words, goodbye dollar. I've never heard any other candidate, whether democrat, republican, green, or socialist calling for that.
Re: the spectacle, I've ignored it for years. I do delight in Ron Paul getting fox news reporters to say great things like "Governor Huckabee isn't selling fascism, it's just a Christmas message!". heh.