‹ Scott Horton Debates the War Party •
Bush Doctrine? In what respect, Charlie?
Well, here’s some audio of Ron Paul getting it right, on Antiwar Radio, in April, 2007.
 |
Highlights |
While ignobley having been unwilling to risk his own Republican congressional seat to run an independent campaign for President when it would most have counted, Ron Paul nevertheless has scored something noteworthy with his recent attempt to unite the Baldwin, Nader, McKinney and Barr candidacies around “four principles” for the upcoming election. The shmendrik this time isn’t Paul, its Barr, who snubbed the press conference Paul had called to announce the matter. Barr, contemptuous of any attempt at anti-system unity because it might dilute what he regards as his own uniquely scintillating contribution to American politics, has inspired a petition calling for his ouster as the Libertarian Party’s standard bearer. Sadly for the Libertarians, the petition has failed. One wonders whether anti-system voters here that had intended to vote for Barr might be influenced to consider other third party or independent candidates after this snub to Paul?
Very disturbing news about the Bob Barr campaign. Any principled opponent of our current Imperial politics should be glad for any principled united front that can be devised by anyone of good will, and I can’t see why Paul would have gone through all the trouble if he weren’t sincere. At best, Barr is abandoning principle in favor of ego; at worst, he has made some kind of deal with the Republiscums. But, I’m not yet ready to abandon ship just yet. Has he betrayed his constituency in regard to the questions of the war and civil liberties, the key questions that must be tackled at this most dangerous time? Do you have more information on this disturbing turn of events? Any weblinks?
A write in candidacy seems to be a complete waste of time, since your vote will probably not even be counted, let alone actually count. Are any of the other third party candidates even on all 50 state ballots?
A.G.,
Fairly thorough coverage of these questions at:
http://thirdpartywatch.com/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/
You’ll probably have to scroll back to late last week to see the articles at these sites at this point. A good bit of animated but not particularly high level discussion at both sites. Lots of emotion about this matter, both sides. On balance, Barr comes out of this rather damaged in my view. I lost my interest in and respect for Paul when he bailed out on an independent candidacy early last Spring. But in earnestly trying to unite the disperate anti-system parties into a kind of bloc, or front, he’s truly made a lasting contribution it seems to me. He doesn’t try to argue in favor of one of these candidates over another, simply to unite them around four agreed upon themes and hope that their combined support will be significant. Imagine McKinney and Baldwin on the same platform! Remarkable. Yet Barr, after having said he’d appear, cancelled at the last minute saying that a common front with the others would detract from the destinctives and importance of his own campaign. For all intents and purposes he snubbed Paul and the others and probably cast away any support from Paul’s enthusiasts he may have enjoyed at that point.
“Uniting around four principles” at this late date? How very Chinese and what nonsense.
Paul easily could have come you urging the same bloc voting for Obama and strictly as a negative vote against the Republican Party of Bush and Cheney.
This is the stated strategy of Paul Craig Roberts, and the only one that makes sense without impeachment.
Destroying the Republican Party also does more to open up the playing field for third (and more) parties than all the rhetoric in the world.
Finally, destroying the Republican Party would be as much a lesson to the Democrats, as impeaching Bush and Cheney would be to anyone in the executive who succeeds.
At the very least, making sure that McCain and Palin lose means replacing the whole Neo-Con and Born Again Zionist establishment entrenched for eight years in the Federal government.
If one listens very carefully to Paul’s remarks one will note that he seems to concede that McCain may be a little better than who Paul calls “his opponent”.
Instead of saying, “No, that is not the case”, or, “They are equally bad”, he changes the subject and says that it is time to leave all that behind, to wit, apparently, the lesser of two evils.
Very cute.
Is there really any doubt what the agenda here is?
Paul looks more and more like what the old Soviets used to call the “controlled opposition”.
coor: could have come out urging
Ron Paul would not tell people to vote for Obama because Obama is a warmonger and part of the War Party. I do agree that nothing is gained if McCain wins. I want Obama to win and shatter the people’s belief in him and the Democrat Party. I will not soil my soul by voting for evil. Read up on Woodrow Wilson to understand how deeply evil the Democrat Party is. The evil from the Democrat Party jumped ship to the Republican Party too in the late 20th. Thus forming the great party of evil called the War Party.
“I will not soil my soul by voting for evil
Ah, voting as a religious or spiritual activity.
The Democrat Party as “deeply evil” but not the Republican Party? At least not until recently when the evil “jumped” across the electrodes.
And you “want” Obama to win.
Very emotional about your politics I should have to say. Must be intensely distressful without any sense of the the comic.
Most “Christians” are incapable of understanding Greek Tragedy. Tragedies were never performed singly or in isolation. The ratio at any one sitting was three comedies to one tragedy as I recall.
Eugene,
Haven’t we been over this ground and just recently, Eugene, this business of Roberts and supporting Obama so as to finish off the Republican Party? If not, I’ll point to the central flaw in this argument, the thought that the Democratic and Republicans are somehow qualitatively different from one another when in fact the two constitute a unity. The Democratic Party IS the Republican Party and the Republican the Democratic. Equally it is fanciful to believe that the election of Obama is to be prefered to that of McCain as McCain IS Obama and Obama McCain. This Roberts strategy is simply the product of the pitifully hopeful imagination of all too many in this country these days: That, despite what we sense, we’re not really in the hands of a single ruling caste and that the fables of our childhood about democracy are true after all, darn it! Agreed, Paul has been a shmendrik in the past. But his “four principles” is the first honest attempt to bring the disparate venues of anti-war, anti-system thought together in one place and for that he deserves our appreciation.
I’m not religious. I just like using imagery. I do try to be entertaining! At least to myself! I hope I entertain you too! ;)
I think both parties are evil incarnate. I would say the Republican party is more evil now. Yet at one time it was “isolationist,” meaning it wasn’t as eager to go around killing people. Where did all the evil come from? A great deal of it came from the Democrat Party. The Democrats deserve their due and they shouldn’t be treated as little anti-imperial angels. Dixiecrats (Wilsonian progressive imperial segregationist), Holy Rollers, and Scoop Jackson Democrats (Neocons) jumped ship and infected the other party with their disease. The Republicans are paying for it right now sleeping with so many repugnant people. It is going to kill them like AIDS. Victor Gold wrote a book called the “Invasion of the Party Snatchers” and had an interview with Bill Moyer whining about how his party left him. Obama wants to continue American imperialism. He wants to bring Ukraine and Georgia into Nato. He knows as well as Palin what may happen (war with Russia) but she is open about it and he is not. He wants to continue fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, occupy Afghanistan and start war with Pakistan. It sounds like Bush’s foreign policy to me without the macho window dressing.
I rather have most people unhappy and awake is one of the reasons why I think Obama is the lesser evil (besides “the extreme crazies” don’t love him like Lieberman). It is going to be boring if McCain wins because he isn’t going to alienate anyone with Sarah but with Obama I can watch those smiles turn to frowns and look in fright at the wild eyed true believers. Obama will have inherited Bush’s foreign policy, who inherited Clinton’s and so on. It is a comedy and tragedy in one. Gravel didn’t want Obama to win because he’d make the youth cynics. I want them to be cynics. The more the merrier. I personally don’t know a Republicans who likes the Republican Party except for the delusional few. I’m afraid Hillary is right and the White Racist Democrats might stay home and not elect Obama or worst and vote McCain.
Greek Tragedy and Comedy? I went to American Public schools, we don’t learn important things there. We are taught blind obedience and parrot what we are told by self proclaimed experts.
John Lowell–your central flaw is a mirage, and perhaps the result of your own wishful thinking.
Even if what you said were true, there are still important differences.
First, the Republican Party would be held to account by being overwhelmingly rejected at the polls–and would be figuratively destroyed (the remnant would have to regroup around something and somebody else).
That leaves room for Thrid Parties.
Second, the Republican Neo-Cons and Born Again and the rest have been in power for eight years.
At the very least, everyone would be out and it would be a completely different group.
That also has consequences.
An uncle knew many “important” politicians.
He had a way of saying the word “politician”, eep, that sounded very much like your use of “soil”, as if he were soiling his tongue saying it.
What is interesting is that he said it that way to the important politicians and to their face as well, including a few that he considered fairly trustworthy human beings save for that one grievous failing in life.
He also used the word for some of the people that worked for him, indeed one or two he even promoted.
In that case he was using “politician” figuratively, and the tone was a bit more that of a smile.
Incidentally, eep, though I did for some of my younger years on and off work for the uncle, I consider it a great compliment still that he never called me a “politician.”
Your Uncle is wise and he is right to think that way about any politician. None of them deserve worship which I think is the point you are making in this thread. If people want a savior they can get religion. I think we need to treat politicians like dogs. Punish them when they do bad and reward them when they do good.
I do give Ron Paul credit when he spoke truth to power in front of a bunch of fascist Republicans but his politician ways caught up with him and brought him down. Ron Paul’s get together was a start. However those anti-imperial groups aren’t going to get together until a vision of the future is articulated that unites them.
This is the vision I am starting to articulate:
1. Federal protection of civil liberties.
2. Then Decentralization of power back to the individual.
3. Knowledge is power and the educational system purposely keeps people impoverished. The most prestigious schools give us Bush and McCain. Proof it doesn’t work as intended. We have the most incredible tool available (the internet) to spread information why not use it. Have neighborhood centers for children and adults to better themselves. Remove the barriers. No one should need to spend thousands of dollars or have a high GPA/SAT to be allowed to better themselves. Children are segregated to economic brackets at an early age. They are broken up into advanced, average, and the remedial groups. It is easy to recognize which ones will be in the trailer park and which ones will have the SUVs. The system is designed to keep the poor, poor with an educational glass ceiling and a hidden curriculum of learned helplessness.
4. If people don’t want abortions then improve birth control technology and make it easily available and find ways to save these unwanted children.
5. The basic infrastructure of the country such as roads and taking care of the sick will require taxpayer funding. Corporate Socialism isn’t the solution. Because through secularism from my understanding the state took over the function of helping the sick from the church.
Eugene,
“Ah, voting as a religious or spiritual activity.”
There’s that nominalism again, either that or a strange kind of dualism. We vote as persons, not as monads, Eugene, and there is no separating what we are, body and spirit, from who we are, Eugene or John or whomever. Its that, or you see voting as an activity of cadavers. Every act of the human person is more or less moral; to see it otherwise is to make of humanity something resembling an animal. There is no such thing as a isolated sphere where spirit doesn’t intrude. We carry it with us wherever we go.
I will not vote for Bob Barr for the reasons stated above. He also lost any future credibility as a viable candidate. I look for him to cut a deal with McCain. Glad we found out about him now.
But, we still can’t deny that Bob Barr came out publicly for the impeachment of Bush, and, I think, of Cheney, and testified against the policies of the Bush Administration at the congressional hearing chaired by
Conyers, a record of which was posted at this site. I’ll still vote for him because he is the only third party candidate on the ballot in my state. I am terribly disappointed in his “snubbing” Paul’s last initiative, but not, knowing what I know about Barr’s personality and past record, was not very surprised.
“…because he is the only third party candidate on the ballot in my state.”
Would the possibility of writing in someone else’s name have any appeal to you?
In most states a person needs to register as a write in candidate for their votes to count. If they are not registered as a write in candidate your vote will only count as a write in. For instance you can write in Ron Paul or even none of the above it will still count as a write in non-vote. I will most likely write in Ron Paul, but none of the above is also a good choice.
Peace!
I can’t see anything wrong Ron Paul deciding to hang on to a congressional seat rather than throw it away by running an expensive and futile independent presidential campaign. We’re going to need him in congress no matter which of the establishment candidates ultimately wins the election. Plus, Paul taking another stab at the Republican nomination in 2012 might have a lot more national impact than an independent run this year.
I’m an ardent admirer of Representative Ron Paul. Unlike the career political hacks in Congress, Paul “has a life”
(he’s a medical doctor). The Israel Lobby doesn’t own him.
He believes in the Constitution and freedom.
I’m sorry as hell that he didn’t make it. Also, I’ve really soured on Bob Barr.
Both establishment parties have virtually the exact same foreign policies (anyone think we are going to start trading with Cuba in 2009, or jettison that millstone around our neck Israel? Anyone think we are going to leave South Korea or dissolve the military-industrial complex?). We have the illusion of democracy. Both parties represent very deeply entrenched, all-powerful special interest groups. There is no real accountability or independence. As for the “Bush doctrine” it is impractical and immoral. It is really just rationalization and self-deception for the vile neocon agenda. It is a repudiation of all the established rules of international diplomacy since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Look at the ruin the Bushling and his band have led us to.
The DemoPublican Party’s two candidates–Saint Barack of Obama and Mad Bomber McInsane–are unprincipled, bought-and-paid-for hacks. Vote for either of ‘em, and you’ll get more war, more economic distress, more destruction of civil liberties.
To all practical purposes the United States functions as a de-facto one-party state. The two establishment parties should be seen as two branches on the same tree. We need to cut down the tree. Any serious study of U.S. foreign policy shows it is remarkably consistent, whichever party is in power. Did the Democratic congress in 2006 end the Iraq war? The Clinton administration expanded NATO. The Bushling administration expanded NATO. The senseless Cuba embargo has survived numerous Democrat and Republican administrations. Does either party plan to end the annual 3 billion shakedown by Israel? Does either party have any intention of telling AIPAC to get stuffed? The democrats launched an illegal war of agression against Serbia and the Republicans launched an illegal war of agression against Iraq. The every-four-year-election-farce changes virtually nothing.
Right on Andy .. the only significant difference between the two parties is on things that have to do with the vagina (or the lack of it): Abortion, sex ed, same-sex marriage … etc. Yeah, they call it democracy.
I think from now on when I’m asked a tough question and I’m totally clueless I’m gonna pull a McCain-Palin and retort with, “My friends, in what respect?”
First of all, Ron Paul has pulling a Ralph Nader in reverse: He has gone from politician to ideologist and movement leader. I think sensable people will recognize that this is the correct direction. He is now more of an asset and inspiration than anything else…and his position in the House gives him a bully pulpit which will be very important during the financial crisis.
Also, for those readers of Anti-war.com who fall into the free enterprise camp, please consider Chuck Baldwin as an alternative to Bob Barr. The only objections I can think of to Chuck Baldwin are:
1) he is a white male southerner
2) he is an Evangelical pastor
3) he comes from Pensacola Forida
4) recently he’s been talking almost exclusively about immigration.
Regarding objections 1 through 3: Just get over it! Regarding objection number 4 well, when you are running on the Constitution party ticket it’s hard to establish your “brand identity” by starting off on an anti-war rant. But make no mistake, Chuck Baldwin is a very conciencious and ethically consistent individual. If he tells you he’s against the war, even if it is not his lead talking point, he still means it and his position isn’t going to fluxuate with every change in the direction of the political winds. Unlike some!
Paul and Nader have much in common indeed–they are both proven frauds and hypocrites, among other things.
Incidentally, may I note that I am quite happy after all these years to learn, from one of antiwar’s front page links, that Dick Armey was lied to by Cheney–flagrantly lied to–to get him to vote for the war against Iraq.
I was very disappointed by many in Congress voting for the war in Iraq, but especially by Dick Armey.
As it turns out now, if the story is true, he was hoodwinked into it. With a more sceptical and less trusting Armey this could not have happened. But that does not excuse Cheney or his pathological deceit in starting a war that has cost an enormous amount in blood, on all sides.
This alone is enough to impeach Cheney and Bush. So where is Ron Paul’s outrage and resounding voice to impeach now?
According to every Constitutional principle Paul has ever espoused, Bush and Cheney are criminals. And yet Paul initially opposed Kucinich’s move to impeach Cheney, then voted to table it. He has also played no role in Kucinich’s intiiative to impeach Bush.
Paul is derelict in his duty as a Congressman. And the dereliction is far worse because of how enthusiastic he was to impeach Clinton.
I had great respect for Dick Armey, not the least for his proposal to get rid of the IRS and go to a flat tax, as the Russian Federation now has. I lost some of my respect for him because of his playing a leading role in Congressional approval of the war. Hearing now what story he was told by Cheney, some of that damage is undone.
I urge him to make the story public and become a voice behind Kucinich and some of the Democrats for immediate impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.
Had some Republicans, including Paul, enthusiastically joined behind Kucinich a year or even six months ago in impeachment, the Bush and Cheneny lunatics would never have been able to ignite the tinder in Georgia and begin what looks like a new cold war with Russia–perhaps even a hot one if Palin is any sign.
So too does impeachment put to a stop any plans to attack Iran before the year is out.
Ron Paul is far and above the best we have in Congress. No sense or value in attacking him. He has had a definitive impact on American politics and will continue to do so as long as others “step up to the plate” and follow in his footsteps. He woke up an entire generation to what ails this country. If we don’t accept it, well thats OUR fault collectively.
Its easy to complain and criticize but difficult to join the battle and get your ass kicked on a regular basis. As I have stated before, some in this blog need to turn off their computers, go outside, breathe some fresh air and interact more with people.
If all you are doing is bitchin, complaining and criticizing….well, you really aren’t doing anything.
The best in Congress constitutionally right now is Kucinich, hands down. Paul has talked a good game but where the rubber meets the road he has been absent.
An objective evaluation of what Paul has done over the last year or so, step by step, is not a pretty picture.
Having entered the presidential primaries as an antiwar candidate, he collected $35 million dollars and just as he was gathering some votes suspended his campaign and stated it as his goal to “save the Republican Party”.
On impeachment, which is the essence of the matter constitutionally, he has shown himself to be a hypocrite and a fraud.
Having managed to do nothing at all at the Republican Convention, he now is advising people to vote for a Thirty Party, including Nader in the mix?
That it not the best, and if it were, one might as well give up right now, whatever one’s political views.
The Bush adminstration has now given the American people two losing wars, the start of a new Cold War with Russia, the beginnings of a war in Pakistan, the collapse of the currency, untold debt and the prospect of complete economic collapse, as well as the wholesale destruction of the Constitution.
The next item would seem to be an attack on Iran.
Meanwhile, Paul, mouthing platitudes, twiddles his fingers.
I have considerable respect for many of the followers of Paul’s stated agenda.
They have been led down the garden path and sold out by Paul himself as far as I can see, and that includes antiwar voters who crossed party lines to vote for him in NH, for example, where he spent his money on anti-illegal immigration commercials on TV.
The man obviously has a hidden agenda quite at odds with what he voices as his positions.
corr: “Third Party”.
I’ve never posted in the comments on antiwar.com before, but you’re apparent dedication to the Democratic Party and pointless rants against Dr. Paul have me a little wound up.
Let’s take a look at some of your post:
The best in Congress constitutionally right now is Kucinich, hands down. Paul has talked a good game but where the rubber meets the road he has been absent.
Hands down, eh? Dr. Paul frequently votes by himself as the lone dissenting voice against un-Constitutional bills. His guidance is the Constitution, and if an act is not authorized by that document, he will vote against it. It’s that simple. Maybe you think Kucinich is adhering to the Constitution better than Dr. Paul, which is fine, but to say he’s hands down the best? That’s a stretch.
An objective evaluation of what Paul has done over the last year or so, step by step, is not a pretty picture.
He introduced the Tax Free Tips Act; he has stood up and made statements against the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, the Protect America Act, the Economic Stimulus Bill; he cosponsored the Combat Veterans Debt Elimination Act. In addition to his Congressional record, he managed to spark a nationwide movement that has brought together thousands of Americans who are sick and tired of the two party system and our collapsing economy. I’d say he has a pretty decent record over the past year or so.
Having entered the presidential primaries as an antiwar candidate, he collected $35 million dollars and just as he was gathering some votes suspended his campaign and stated it as his goal to “save the Republican Party”.
What? He entered, and exited, the presidential race as an antiwar candidate, just as he’s been voted to represent Texas for decades as an antiwar Representative. ‘Just as he was gathering some votes’? He collected ~1.2 million votes, but obviously had to suspend his campaign when McCain had mathematically won the contest. And what’s wrong with trying to save the Republican Party? If a traditional Republican party was in power, a party that advocated a small federal gov’t, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc., we’d be a lot better off today. Just as we’d be better off under Democratic rule if they stood up for any type of principle as a party.
On impeachment, which is the essence of the matter constitutionally, he has shown himself to be a hypocrite and a fraud.
I’m personally quite disappointed in Dr. Paul’s weak stance towards impeachment, but to call him a hypocrite and fraud is just plain malarkey.
Having managed to do nothing at all at the Republican Convention, he now is advising people to vote for a Thirty Party, including Nader in the mix?
He was not invited to speak at the RNC. His supporters were even searched and had their belongings seized when they entered the RNC. Kinda hard to get something done under those circumstances, wouldn’t you say? But wait - he did do something. He held his Rally at the Target Center and brought together ~12,000 individuals to unite and fight to get our country back from the warmongering Republicrats. And why shouldn’t he encourage people to look to a third party, or even Nader? Ralph’s views may differ on some issues, but he’s been an honorable representative for the people of this country, and a vote for him is a vote against the disgusting plutocracy that’s running our country.
The Bush adminstration has now given the American people two losing wars, the start of a new Cold War with Russia, the beginnings of a war in Pakistan, the collapse of the currency, untold debt and the prospect of complete economic collapse, as well as the wholesale destruction of the Constitution.
Yes, and they should be impeached for that. I agree. But what have our great Democratic leaders done for us? Made impeachment impossible, authorized special forces entering Pakistan, funded these wars for the past 6 years. And that’s just the past decade or so. Look back at the last century. Both parties support foreign intervention. Both parties support the war on drugs. Both parties support the central bank of the US. Neither party has truly stood up for environmental, labor, or civil-liberty issues. Bush and Co. are terrible, but the Democrats aren’t far behind.
The next item would seem to be an attack on Iran.
Obama & McCain both have pandered to the Israel lobby, promising to protect them at any cost. Both parties are basically exactly the same in regards to Iran.
Meanwhile, Paul, mouthing platitudes, twiddles his fingers.
Twiddles his fingers? He’s done everything possible in his elected position to stop these stupid interventions from happening. This is a 73 year old man who takes every media opportunity granted to him, who speaks out against more war on the House floor every chance he gets and has managed to give a voice to more than a million antiwar minds in our country this past year. Twiddling his fingers?
They have been led down the garden path and sold out by Paul himself as far as I can see, and that includes antiwar voters who crossed party lines to vote for him in NH, for example, where he spent his money on anti-illegal immigration commercials on TV.
Who else should those voters have supported? No other Republican had any type of an antiwar agenda or record. Obama, Hilary and the rest of the Dems may have spoken about peace and used buzzwords like ‘change’ to try and secure votes, but any rational-minded, researched and level-headed voter could easily see through their fake antiwar front. Kudos to those, and all, voters who saw through the bologna and voted for the only true antiwar candidate in the primaries - Dr. Ron Paul.
The man obviously has a hidden agenda quite at odds with what he voices as his positions.
Obviously. That’s why he returns surplus money from his office to the Treasury every year, refuses to enter into the Congressional pension plan, stood up for farmers last year with the introduction of the hemp farming act, gives a voice to opressed minorities by being consistantly against the failed War on Drugs, wrote multiple books on the Constitution and economic policy, refused to name-call or disrespect any candidate on and off stage during the primary season, brought together the leading alternative party candidates to try and unite votes for them and voted against the Patriot Act, FISA amendments and war funding every chance he’s gotten.
You’re right. He obviously has a hidden agenda.
Ah, an Apology For Doctor Paul, and in the mode of Luther no less. Nail it up on the cathedral door, my good fellow. You answer every point, and in answering confirm the gist of what I said.
The most hilarious of your responses is that Paul is a “73 year old man who takes every media opportunity granted to him.” How old is McCain again?
You are quite welcome to your bent and senile Messiah–you and him (reflexive), blameless as the Ethiopians no doubt.
Merely by the way, the reference to Luther is not to his theses–but the fact that he often simply wrote his criticisms of a book or text in the margins and just sent the whose mess off to the printer, who produced it as another “book”.
An interesting innovation in the graphic representation of the polemic form.
It could have been done with MSS as well, but the expense of distributing the “new” work would have been much greater.
With cut and paste computers and the internet have made this mode of polemic fairly easy.
Some people do it in e-mail, merely as a means of communication and not necessarily as a polemic.
An underlying consequence is the loss of the global. Every communication is reduced to a number of discrete points, and no whole is seen.
This is also one of the consequences of looking at the world in debater’s terms.
corr: “whole mess”.
Welcome Mitch,
you say:
“… but to call him a hypocrite and fraud is just plain malarkey.”
I think its fair to use the term “fraud” of Paul - although I’ve preferred in the interests of precision to use the Yiddish, “schmegeggie”, of him instead - when describing his opting out of an independent candidicacy in favor of the comfort of his Republican House seat last Spring. And while I appreciate his encouraging anti-system unity among the minor party candidates, he’s still got that original blot and its hard genuinely to trust him at this point, actually.
Bush’s doctrine:
“Killing fields every where”
If Ron Paul is a fraud then Eugene Costa is an intellectual.
Go, Ron. Go!
Right On Will !!
Muchas gracias, Senor Blalock.
Merely by the way, where is “Ron” going–has he let you on illud mysterium tremendum?
An interesting definition of an intellectual, Senor Blalock:
Un intellectual est un homme ou une femme qui use de sa celebrite acquise dans le domaine des sciences, des arts ou de la culture, pour mobiliser l’opinion publique en faveur d’idees qu’il considere justes….sa fonction consiste, de surcroit, a donner du sens aux mouvements des societes, a eclairer la voie menant a plus de liberte et a moins d’alienation….
[I.R., LMD]
In the US, for various reasons, a intellectual might observe that intellectuals are indeed overwhelmingly outnumbered by the dumbasses and the pseudo-intellectuals (like the Neo-Cons) perhaps a thousand to one.
This is nothing earthshaking but when the dumbasses and the pseudo-intellectuals get together, you get the Bush and Cheney administration, which the intellectual also might observe is a total F’ing disaster.
Pardon my French–I am too lazy to access the accents, and who would see them anyway?
A spot of verse, Senor Blalock? Believe or not, as part of a longer work and in another context this is intended to evince Pauline Christianity:
Paul
Where does he lead?
Not yet led–leading to.
Not all—just true believers.
To:
Work.
Obedience.
Worship.
Self-owned cold shouldered souls.
Gold.
Aquiescence.
They went that-a-way.
Shearing themselves.
[copyright EAC]
If you are interested in the subject, you will find a brilliant volume on it by Arthur Darby Nock entitled, well, er, Pauline Christianity.
In off hours he was, among other things, a very dedicated drunk.
“Paul didn’t know enough about Hellenism to pass the mid-term exam in my under-graduate course.”
Arthur Darby Nock
The guy is the best we have:
http://www.house.gov/paul/
If that is the case, it is simple. It is not good enough.
I rest my case.
The best never rest.
Extremely interesting interview with former governor Jesse Ventura touching on: (1) not being allowed, despite contract, to be on MSN-NBC because of being against the war in Iraq, and (2) being interrogated by the CIA while Governor about his campaign and Third Party status:
http://www.infowars.com/?p=4579
The two parts are a little long but both have important segments.
To John Lowell and Eugene Costa, Your obvious bias against Ron Paul has become a joke. Why are you wasting your time slamming one of the few people who has worked hard at reforming a broken system? You don’t agree with him 100% so what? If you deny the fact that he has woken many sheep from thier slumber your either liers or idiots. Which is it?
Eugene, if your saying than Ron Paul has given false hope to a segment of the population and thus given credence to a broken system I might agree. However, what has Kucinich done, the same thing? Either opt out of the whole mess or back the few principled people who are still allowed to try and affect true change. Stop wasting your time and mine railing against Ron Paul, he is fighting many times as hard as you or I.
If on the other hand you believe that he is a willing agent of propaganda who is mearly another pawn than say so. It’s always possible that this man who has devoted his life to speaking the facts about government ignorance is only doing it to make money. I’m sure that bucking every governmnet trend for over twenty years was the easy way to go, yah sure right! It’s obviously been his plan all along, I’m sure he spent most of his life just waiting for the moment when he could rake in the big bucks.
As for not backing impeachment, again so what? It did not have one chance in a billion of going anywhere. When it came to Clinton it did. Are you now defending Clinton? He wasn’t exactly a saint. Who cares about his bj but I still would have loved to see him go down for all the other cr@p he did.
John Lowell your still an idiot, and Eugene stop acting like one just so you can debate John.
Peace!
Brad, I don’t disagree with Paul’s stands on most issues although his statement of many of them is naive, especially economically.
That’s not the point.
He is also a hypocrite as a Libertarian.
But that is also not the point.
The point is, on the most important issue, the Constitution and the impeachment he is missing in action.
He cannot even bring himself to do his duty as a Congressman sworn to uphold the Constitution by joining in the impeachment movement vociferously and enthusiastically.
What has that got to do with his age?
And as far as the Paulists are concerned I see a lot of whiners and apologists who believe in the good character of a man, quite apart from his standing up, when it would actually be effective, to defend the Constitution.
And not standing up is exactly what they criticize Obama for.
No one sees into another man’s conscience.
From all external signs Paul is a shill and a sell-out to a Republican Party that contradicts a lifetime of stated principles.
Who knows–perhaps he has been threatened or he has something to hide. But there is no excuse for his not leading the charge to impeach the criminals in the Executive.
None.
Eugene you say “The point is, on the most important issue, the Constitution and the impeachment he is missing in action”. It’s the most important issue to YOU not me or many others. As it’s NOT going to happen I see it as a non issue. You casually dismiss the good he is done only to focus on your “most important issue”. That is simply marginalizing everything else that he has done. You also state “quite apart from his standing up, when it would actually be effective” how effective has it been for Kucinich?
You say he is economically nieve. Based on what? That he is waging a losing war against the fed. If so than you should concur that Kucinich is nieve on impeachment.
Peace!
It’s the most important issue to YOU not me or many others
End of discussion, Brad. You accept criminals in office and the final destruction of the whole Constitutional structure and fabric, including the Bill of Rights.
Effective has nothing to do with it, though Kucinich has been very effective. So effective that, if you research the matter, you will discover that selected Neo-Cons were financing his Democratic opponent in the primaries big time.
Kucinich also challenged the New Hampshire results legally, and not as a front man for Obama but as part of his initiative against theft by Diebold.
He made lots of headway in his presidential campaign, on a shoestring, and then was banned in the televised debates.
Besides his antiuwar views, his real offense is his Health Insurance proposal, which would cost very little and save much, is based on risk pool, and is completely Constitutional.
Paul reminds me of Galba–a great Congressman had he never been a Congressman.
I will not go over his Libertarian inconsistencies again. I have already voiced some of them and could say much more.
I would have been satisfied if he had done his duty in Congress, according to his stated principles and under the oath he took to defend the Constitution.
He hasn’t.
And the contrast between his stance now and what he said during Clinton’s impeachment makes him look altogether cheesy.
Just another politician.
The Fed has to go, and it will, either by collapse and disaster or by legislation, but it is very complex. The currency is collapsing. I have read Paul on the subject–he has a very confused understanding why that is so.
And what he says on silver and gold as the basis of a new commodity currency is grade school stuff and will not work.
That does not mean silver and gold are not good investments–only that they will no longer serve as the basis of a workable currency.
And even if they did, all US gold (if there is any left) would disappear in Asia in a few years, with the same sucking sound that Perot said would accompany NAFTA.
You really may not appreciate the profundity of the insanity the Republican Party has displayed, and not just as a matter of “foreign policy?” but as economic policy, in sponsoring the Georgian attack on Russian peace keepers in Ossetia, and then threatening the Russians with reprisals for their response.
And Brad, if you are going to start giving peremptory orders in defense of Paul or anyone else, and attach “idiot” to them, you are less the fellow than I pegged you for, and much more an adherent of a man or a doctrine than I would have expected.
I have no truck with a government of men.
If the men cannot agree to rules and keep their word–in this case, observing the Constitution–which is the structure under which their agreements and disagreements must unfold, there are no rules save force and trickery. Moreover, the rules cannot be applied here but not there, as in impeaching Clinton but not Bush and Cheney.
Perhaps you are more attached to the US than I am. For me the US is the Constitution. That is the American contribution to humanity. Apart from some literature and one or two philosophers (Peirce and Santayana) the rest is, after Eliot, a wasteland.
And there are plenty of other places in the world where one can live a lot more pleasurably, amid natural beauty, and even with a modicum of Constitutional government. But it is not the American Constitution.
So when the Constitution goes, I go with it, unless there is a fight to the death to regain it.
A group of very great, extraordinary men had power to structure a new government any way they could agree on and choose to restrict that power as much as they thought possible.
In known history that has occurred exactly twice that I know of–in the Roman overthrow of the Etruscan King and with American Independence.
There have been many men who have not taken absolute power, or laid it down after they were given it, and that includes Solon and Cincinatus and such, but those are different events in context.
Paul in my opinion is now a proven fraud and hypocrite, whatever his motives.
Monarchies are a dime a dozen. And that’s exactly where this country has been going since Lincoln. It cannot go much farther than what Bush and Cheney have wrought. The Executive, according to the original Constitution, should be among the weakest arms of government.
Bush in effect Bush is now declaring war on Pakistan without even the illusion of Congressional approval.
This is as bad or worse, and certainly more dangerous, than Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia.
Isn’t it significant that when the greatest men, Jefferson or Madison, for example, were President the office had the least power, while when most dominating and unrestricted it has an utter moron like Bush or a pathological liar like Clinton?
Every society has its “politicians” as a personality type. There’s picture of an Afghan tribesman on the antiwar front page. Look closely, he may descend from Alexander’s Macedonians, who were not blue-eyed, blond-haired bodybuilder types. Do you think an assembly of men like that sits around docilely while a leader regales them with lies?
They are armed to the teeth and their chosen leader walks among them unafraid.
The interesting thing is that even in this century Presidents could walk around in public with little or no protection, and even assassinations did not result in heavy bodyguards.
Read Herodotus on Solon and Pisistratus. Both had their places in forming Athens (”tyrant” in Greek does not mean someone who is “tyrannical” as in English). Pisistratus was the best of the type, and was probably necessary. But how does Herodotus say Pisistratus gained his singular power?
corr: “as bad as or…”
Eugene,
Do your cultural interests extend to music, to opera, perhaps? If so, just found an extraordinary rendering of Tito Schippa’s of Se il mio nome from Il Barbieri which was done as a segment of a movie made in the 1940’s:
http://www.last.fm/music/Tito+Schipa/+videos/+1-xvaIvv9z408
Just marvelous in my judgement. Thought you might enjoy.
Indeed, John, thank you. I note Rosa Ponselle was American, discovered in vaudeville by Caruso. Without Caruso–probably in vaudeville for the rest of her life, eh? Nowadays, if she were around she’d likely be singing background jingles for television commercials or Walt Disney cartoons.
Eugene,
“Nowadays, if she were around she’d likely be singing background jingles for television commercials or Walt Disney cartoons.”
Which is exactly how Beverly Sills got her start, as the Rinso Girl on radio, something I’m old enough to remember. Some morph, from the Rinso Girl, to an exquisite Violetta, eh? Anyway, thought you might appreciate the Se il mio nome.
Well, John, there’s Ponselle and Callas.
And then after them, and bringing up the rear, there are a good number of really superb female voices.
I quite understand. I feel the same way about Alfredo Kraus, in my view THE tenore di grazia of the period 1958-1979. He had an epic copling with Callas in a 1958 La Traviata, perhaps you’re familar.
“I have no truck with a government of men”. Unless it’s Kucinich? Who’s the hypocrite now?
“Idiot” was originally created to refer to “layman, person lacking professional skill”, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. With all the faulty logic I see going back and forth between you and John it seemed an appropriate term. The two of you both seem so interested in using extrordinary reasoning that it leaves you incapable of ordinary reasoning. I know we have had this debate before but I still think it comes down to education vs intelligence. Being able to throw around 10 dollar words doesn’t make your ideas or reasoning correct.
Peace!
Brad, you should be careful–you are beginning to look like the idiot. Must be your temper. Clouds judgment and memory,
I don’t want to be governed by Kucinich. Nor does Kucinich want to govern me. Kucinich wants the Constitution observed and has stood up and fought for that, in the Congress, against his won party, against the adminsitration.
If it were not for certain rules of politeness observed (rightly) on this forum my reply would be much briefer.
In fact, two words.
The second would be “off”. Note the subjunctive. It is yet non-real.