Shared publicly  - 
1
2
Jeremiah McCoy's profile photoWade Aaron Inganamort's profile photoMatthew Gregg's profile photoCB Tabor's profile photo
32 comments
 
...and this is coming from one of the foremost proponents of corporate power and laissez-faire capitalism. Oh, Ron. You confusing old man, you.
 
I think you may be confused. Corporate power? Where do you get that from?
 
Deregulation assumed to be more Corp. power. I assume:-)
 
I believe he is referring to the, not unfounded notion, that deregulation is an increase in corporate power. We have limits on them for a reason, and it is now in vogue to forget what it was like before we had those limits. Congressman Paul is well known for his hands off approach to deregulating industry.
 
If only we could remove the corporations are almost people, related to rights idea.
 
He wants to corporatize most branches of government (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/), supports the idea of corporations having equal vote and representation in political matters (http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-29/ron-paul-nyc-mosque-demagogues-peddle-hate-to-justify-war/), is for the complete privatization of education (Paul, Ron (2011). Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom), wants to sell most public/government land to corporations (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4483248 or http://www.ronpaul2012podcast.com/2011/05/18/ron-paul-with-kxnt-newsradios-alan-stock-5182011/), and the vast reduction of corporate taxes to 15% or lower. His policies in regard to the economy and ecology of our planet are blatantly pro-corporation, anti-human, and toxic in every regard.

+Jeremiah McCoy - I am completely in agreement about the "now in vogue to forget what it was like before we had those limits."
 
Not sure how one can publicly support OWS and be "one of the foremost proponents of corporate power." Now I'm confused.
 
Wade, and yet, he manages it, like the nutty uncle we all know.
 
Obama was in support of state rights in regards to medical marijuana, and yet he is now mysteriously against it. Bizarre how politicians say one thing and do another, no? Funniest is how big of a force the privatization of education has impacted OWS, and yet he is in total support of bankrupting our education system.
 
+Jonathan Cruz True. That and transparency, secrecy, indefinite detention, illegal wiretapping, vindictive prosecution of whistleblowers, etc. etc. On that we can agree.
 
+Wade Aaron Inganamort - See, I used to be a HUGE Paul supporter. Spent much time, energy, and money trying to spread the message. But then I stepped back, and realized I was just cherry-picking the awesome issues he was for, and ignoring the issues behind them. He's got a lot going for him that I totally agree with - but the few that most people don't talk about are just plain toxic for our world, our society, and our species. And I can't get over them so easily. Because, as much as I would love a president that would support legal drug use and states rights, I cannot with good conscience support a candidate who is for the deregulation of environmental protection protocols, or supports the further privatization of law enforcement and prison systems. That last part alone makes me fear for our future.
 
+Jonathan Cruz There will always be trade-offs. No candidate or person is perfect. I'm not too happy with the guy we've got murdering American citizens with remote control airplanes and authorizing permanent dungeons while illegal domestic surveillance skyrockets. Let's try something else.
 
Totally! Let's try something new and different. But, can it please not be someone who says that climate change isn't an important issue that effects us (http://grist.org/politics/paul1/) or that supports laissez-faire capitalism (which is inherently anti-human) in every aspect of their political stances? I think trading a turd for a different turd is still a bad idea.
 
But isn't that exactly what we do every 4-8 years when we flush the toilet, I mean vote.
 
Wade, not for nothing, but Ron Paul is bad enough that it would be like complaining that eating junk food is bad for you, so for something different, you drink Draino.
 
Can't really agree with that. Honestly, do you guys think Paul would do a better job than Obama at making Bush look like a hippie?
 
I think Pauls policies would be apocalypticly bad. Honestly, there is a narrow range of things I agree with him on, but the rest would pretty much ruin this country, economically, ecologically, and on civil rights. It is one thing to be for getting government out of regulating your life, it is another to do that, but also remove all checks on corporations doing exactly that. I get that Obama is not exactly living up to what I would like. I really hate some of the things he has done. It doesn't mean I will embrace someone who is totally different, just because they are different. Crazy people are totally different, it doesn't mean I want them running things. Corruption is bad, but anarchy is worse. Ron Paul is as close to an anarchist as you can find, and he is just crazy enough to not be just blowing smoke. It is far more terrifying to me that he might actually try and believe the things he spouts.
 
Re: civil liberties. I really don't see Paul authorizing indefinite detentions, ramping up illegal wiretaps, or assasinating US citizens like Obama. Way off.
 
Interesting that someone that is an avowed Constitutionalist is conflated with being an Anarchist. What strange times we live in. Well, I doubt we'll have to live in them much longer once the domestic drones take to the skies. (that's tongue in cheek, btw)
 
Sure, but he wont stop the corporations from tapping your data, your phones, and your email to "protect their interests." He will not oppose the expansion of corporations taking over law enforcement, and their already too large involvement in the prison systems. He is fine with that. How are those not issues for civil liberties again? We are talking about a guy who is still proud of the fact he opposed the civil rights act. He is so addicted to state rights, that he is willing to over look when the states are violating civil rights, because the federal government shouldn't stop it? Seriously?

I mean I can understand wanting to reduce the size of government. Fine. I can disagree on extent but in principal it is not a bad idea. He defended the jim crow laws of the 1960's, because the federal government cant tell states what to do. This is the guy you want?

Look, I am against the detentions and illegal wire taps too. That doesn't mean it is okay to replace it with corporations doing the same without oversight. I am not okay with banks being given even more of free hand to screw over people. I am not okay with our economy being returned to the pre 1930's instability. I am not okay with a guy who is proud of his standing against the civil rights act. I am not okay with a guy who wants to remove us from obeying any treaty obligations. I am not okay with a guy who thinks it is a good idea for the system where your rights are most likely to get trampled, being run by corporations.

There is a lot wrong with the system, and how it runs. Yes, it needs to be fixed. Someday, people will come along, and we will be the ones to fix it, but this guy, is not that guy. Ron Paul is fixing it by tossing it off the cliff.
 
+Jeremiah McCoy Most of the companies illegally spying on us (AT&T, etc) do so by executive order in the name of "national security". It's easy to get them to stop: stop ordering them to do so.
 
Actually, the Comcast, ATT and other would dearly love to inspect your packets regularly, if the FCC would let them. This is for a purely buisness reason. It is not awesome that they have the NSA getting them to do it as well, but they perfectly happy to invade your privacy if it means they make a buck.
 
If they weren't forced to illegally spy on us, electronic privacy laws would have meaning again. You can't simultaneously expect to order them to break the law and follow it at the same time. The buck stops at the top.
 
Isn't his hole point, that the buck doesn't stop at the top? If it stops anywhere, it is local, and even then, it doesn't stop at all. Corporations are given a free hand to do as they see fit, in his philosophy. As long as they don't kill or outright steal, he is fien with whatever they do. Deregulation is the name of the game. He wants to get rid of the bodies that would prevent these abuses.
 
I think you may be misinformed about his stance on civil liberties and reaching a bit on the practical application of your interpretation of his philosophy. The current administration is downright the worst since Nixon on these matters and makes Bush look like a schoolgirl. Name one of these abuses that he voted for or supported.
 
+Wade Aaron Inganamort - Deregulation would lead to exactly what Jeremiah is talking about. To have no balance or protection against the rule of corporations would cause a myriad of privacy and civil-rights issues. Just look at the recent mergers and anti-trust cases. He's basically pro-monopoly in every bit of his voting, legislation, and economic policy. He's consistently voted against network neutrality (HR 5252, Amdt. 7), and this sort of talk doesn't help:

"Paul: The government has no constitutional authority to interfere in market transactions. Legitimate concerns about the abuse of customer privacy should be addressed via private contracts between companies and consumers." and "Congressional hand-wringing about the violation of privacy by private businesses is a distraction."

He also has an ATROCIOUS record when it comes to women's rights. I mean...just read for yourself:

"I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that. "

or

"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.

Ron Paul on sexual harassment in the workplace:

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. "

He also also voted YES for HR 3396, secifically preventing homosexual marriages from being recognized in states that the marriage did not occur in (which was protected in the past until the law was passed). Also, sponsored HR 958, to prevent federal courts from enforcing any civil rights claim relating to sexuality, directly opposing the idea of civil unions.

Don't even get me started on his insane immigration policies. I don't want that man anywhere near my rights. He is not our friend.
 
It is not those abuses I am afraid Paul will pursue. I am not saying he will authorize wire tapping or monitoring by the government. I am saying he will authorize companies to do a lot of the same things. He wants to abolish all the bodies that are responsible for policing such things. That is well reported. FCC, FTC, DOE, Agriculture, and education are all on the chopping block. The FCC has been the only thing preventing the private internet providers telling you what you can see, monitoring your internet activity and sharing your email with anyone who has a financial interest. I am saying we will have our civil liberties violated by private organizations rather than the government, and have no one to go to about it, because Paul wants to get rid of them.

Even if I agreed with you on the Obama is worse than anyone since Nixon, which actually I don't(Bush2 and Reagan still out stretch him, not saying I liek what he has done, but there are worse), that still doesn't justify going with Ron Paul. I am on fire, is not a reason to cover yourself in in liquid nitrogen, to pout the fire out.

There are sane ways to get rid of the problems. Ron Paul is not one of them.
 
What's so sad is that this entire conversation can be reduced to: Obama is awful, Bush was awful, Ron Paul would be awful (as would Romney). In the end, there's no concensus as to who would make a legitimate, pro-liberty candidate.
 
Also, I want to state the obvious which seems to be overlooked in nearly every Paul discussion: Ron Paul does not care about your civil rights. He cares about the Federal Government passing legislation regarding your civil liberties. This is a very big distinction that I never see made. In fact, he has pretty consistently either voted against, or not voted at all, any legislation that would protect liberties on the federal level - even while voting against legislation that would violate them. He wants a return to state's rights - including the state's rights to spy on you, incarcerate you, and dictate who you can and cannot fuck (as seen clearly in his opposition of repealing Texas' anti-sodomy laws). His platform is simple: Private institutions should be free to do whatever they want, with no regulation (or protection) by the federal government. Money is king in this land.

Again: Paul does not care about your liberties, except when it comes to having federal laws on the books. That's it. Plain and simple.
Add a comment...