Ron Paul on the Bush Doctrine

Scott Horton, September 15, 2008

Bush Doctrine? In what respect, Charlie?

Well, here’s some audio of Ron Paul getting it right, on Antiwar Radio, in April, 2007.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.




101 Responses to “Ron Paul on the Bush Doctrine”

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?”

  6. 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.

  7. “…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?

  8. 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!

  9. 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?

  10. 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!

  11. 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.

  12. Paul and Nader have much in common indeed–they are both proven frauds and hypocrites, among other things.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Bush’s doctrine:
    “Killing fields every where”

  19. 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.

  20. corr: “Third Party”.

  21. “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”.

  22. coor: could have come out urging

  23. If Ron Paul is a fraud then Eugene Costa is an intellectual.

    Go, Ron. Go!

  24. Right On Will !!

  25. Muchas gracias, Senor Blalock.

  26. Merely by the way, where is “Ron” going–has he let you on illud mysterium tremendum?

  27. 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?

  28. 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.

  29. “Paul didn’t know enough about Hellenism to pass the mid-term exam in my under-graduate course.

    Arthur Darby Nock

  30. The guy is the best we have:

    http://www.house.gov/paul/

  31. I rest my case.

  32. 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.

  33. The best never rest.

  34. 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.

  35. If that is the case, it is simple. It is not good enough.

  36. 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.

  37. “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.

  38. 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.

  39. corr: “whole mess”.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.”

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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!

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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?

  52. corr: “as bad as or…”

  53. Read closely Brad, even the tyrant Pisistratus did not change the constitution–he worked outside it.

  54. I watched Ron Paul this morning on CNN. Basically, he said that bailing out the crooks on Wall Street once more will destroy the value of the dollar which in turn, will bring down the world economy, which is tied to the dollar. An honest true statement. Nothing complicated about it. As a long-time Libertarian, I have paid some attention to Ron Paul. My belief is that he has his “head on straight” but he has his idiosyncrasies, e.g. his devotion to the GOP – the big tent of scoundrels. The remarkable thing about Ron Paul is that corporate news somehow allows Ron Paul (and apparently only Ron Paul) to say these things. The leadership of our country (political, corporate, and the media) is totally corrupt. And they are cohesive in their corruptness. Generally, they speak as one advocating for continued corruption. So when, they allow a rational voice to be heard, that voice comes across as the voice of God. Similarly, a shiny dime set upon a dunghill will appear like a treasure.

  55. no it’s “in what respect churlie” or “chrlie”

  56. 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.

  57. richard vajs,

    Well put, richard. While eating out at a rib joint nearby last night, I watched the CNBC take on the latest bailout plan – the one trillion dollar one – on the restaurant’s big screen TV. I haven’t watched cable TV for many years now, and its extraordinary just how in the pocket of these reptiles the broadcasters and their guests are. They cheerlead, that’s all. I’ve forgotten the word Orwell used to describe the television sets the regime installed in people’s homes in his work, 1984, but we should use it here to describe the embarrassment that TV journalism has become. It’s simply a creature of the filth that runs the system.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. I can understand where you guys are coming from, but I still disagree. Paul chose to stay in the GOP because it gives him the ability to effect our government. If he would have run as an independent for president, he would’ve most likely lost his Congressional spot, therefore losing any power he retains now. By running as a GOP candidate he got on national TV in the debates too – the media was forced to at least show his face a few times.

    Yes, Dr. Paul should be front and center on the impeachment issue. Kucinich is more admirable in that respect.

    But there is no excuse for his not leading the charge to impeach the criminals in the Executive.

    None.

    Does Kucinich have a valid “excuse” for not leading the charge against the unconstitutional Federal Reserve? Does he have an excuse for being an advocate for unconstitutional gun laws? Does he have an excuse for wanting to provide unconstitutional free college tuition to students?

    I think we both agree that Kucinich and Paul sit at the top of our Congress, while we may differ in who we think is “best”.

    Eugene, you say that when the Constitution goes, you go with it. Do you mean the entire document, or only the section detailing impeachment powers?

    John: “…we should use it here to describe the embarrassment that TV journalism has become.” I’m going to school right now, pursuing a degree in Journalism. It’s such a disheartening time to watch the news, and experiencing what professors teach their students in mass communication courses is sickening. I would recommend CurrentTV if you get the chance to see it. It’s probably the best journalism you can find on television.

  62. I can understand where you guys are coming from, but I still disagree. Paul chose to stay in the GOP because it gives him the ability to effect our government. If he would have run as an independent for president, he would’ve most likely lost his Congressional spot, therefore losing any power he retains now. By running as a GOP candidate he got on national TV in the debates too – the media was forced to at least show his face a few times.

    Yes, Dr. Paul should be front and center on the impeachment issue. Kucinich is more admirable in that respect.

    But there is no excuse for his not leading the charge to impeach the criminals in the Executive.

    None.

    Does Kucinich have a valid “excuse” for not leading the charge against the unconstitutional Federal Reserve? Does he have an excuse for being an advocate for unconstitutional gun laws? Does he have an excuse for wanting to provide unconstitutional free college tuition to students?

    And while those issues may pale in comparison to impeachment in some people’s eyes, any claim that Kucinich would strictly adhere to the Constitution and only use executive powers granted therein does not hold much weight.

    I think we both agree that Kucinich and Paul sit at the top of our Congress, while we may differ in who we think is “best”.

    Eugene, you say that when the Constitution goes, you go with it. Do you mean the entire document, or only the section detailing impeachment powers?

    John: “…we should use it here to describe the embarrassment that TV journalism has become.” I’m going to school right now, pursuing a degree in Journalism. It’s such a disheartening time to watch the news, and experiencing what professors teach their students in mass communication courses is sickening. I would recommend CurrentTV if you get the chance to see it. It’s probably the best journalism you can find on television.

  63. Sorry for the double post.

  64. You display your ignorance about both the Constitution and Kucinich.

  65. 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!

  66. 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.

  67. Please, inform me.

    I’m a self-admitted rookie when it comes to the Constitution. I think I’m developing a solid base, but I always want to get information from anyone and anywhere I can.

    Tell me where I’ve been ignorant.

    Why is Ron Paul a fraud and hypocrite and Kucinich an untouchable example of Constitutionality?

  68. “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!

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. The Constitution does not prescribe an economic system, for example. It rather recognizes both public and private property, and even specifically provides for nationalization of private resources with compensation. Public property is also a fact, and public property can be made private.

    There is nothing unconstitutional about the Federal Government, or any other government entity, providing free education at any level, or there would be no public schools. So mentioning “free college tuition” is a red herring.

    Moreover, the Federal government has been providing very limited scholarships (NDA) for many years, as well as running universities of its own like West Point and Annapolis.

    How it would be financed is a good question, but Kucinich’s point is that it would more than pay for itself over the years. And If Kucinich is naive, it is in his not understanding just how bad American education is right now, at all levels. So making it free will not change much in regard to quality except over a very long term (30 years)

    That is one of the reasons so many skilled immigrants are taking over whole areas in US technology and engineering, for example.

    If I tell an American that the grade schools in Kenya are better than the American elementary schools for the most part, Americans laugh in my face.

    It was as much a surprise to me as it seems to them, but I don’t deny it. I have seen it.

    Mexico also has better general education at all levels than the United States, as does Canada.

    Don’t believe that? You are welcome to your fantasies.

    Russia has a higher literacy rate than the United Sates, but it’s worse than that–the Russian figures a real, the American ones are faked.

    One might go on and on.

    This is not just an economic collapse. It is a national emergency, much worse than the Great Depression in its implications, if certain basics are not taken care of immediately.

    Also Paul seems to have no understanding, as most of the Austrians do not, that “Capitalism” is distinct from free enterprise and in the US is nothing but Corporate Fascism, left and right.

    And not to go on interminably, Paul also does not understand property at all, and how public and private property are economically complementary.

    In fact, Paul’s Lockean understanding of property is downright childish and outright illogical.

    Meanwhile, though I have researched the matter, I still have not found a statement of Paul on faith-based initiatives. Someone mentioned to me that he thought he had come out against them, but I have found nothing on the subject specifically.

    In fact the Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional.

    That will have to be accepted legally and judicially for a bit, but this is clearly the wrong ruling, but I can’t find Paul saying a word on the subject.

  72. 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.

  73. The second would be “off”. Note the subjunctive. It is yet non-real.

  74. By the way, Brad, your etymology of idiot is wanting. Originally it is ancient Greek and refers to a private person or citizen, quite close to the English “peculiar” in some ways, itself for the Latin peculium, which you might find it interesting to investigate.

  75. Don’t worry Eugene I’m not even a little mad at you. In fact I’m laughing at you as I would bet others are too. It’s truly funny how you think it’s fine to be insulting to anyone and everyone, but no one should every question your inteligence or reasoning. Your coming off as just another educated idiot. That’s my point and I’m sure others get it even if it’s below your level of comprehension.

    Peace!

  76. Well, Brad, I am not laughing at you. Rather disappointed. You seem very much the politician, confronted by facts that can’t be talked away, like how the Constitution reads, and behavior, like what Paul has said and what he has actually done and not done, that is tracked over time.

    Nor Brad would I care a flying cluck whether you were mad at “me” or not. You are dealing with stereotypes.

    I am not only educated, I am highly educated, both formally and informally, in some ways beyond your immaturity and comprehension. The informal would really surprise I suspect.

    Incidentally, Brad, did you ever run into, “S&W R.I.P.”? That was my coinage for the campaign against Smith and Wesson. So, now Brad, cluck off.

  77. I would like to make one other point in regards to Ron Paul. It also applies to Kucinich, Nader and a few others. These few people are allowed by the state to say the things they do for a very obvious reason. They are the voice of the disinfranchised intelectuals. In every tyranical state their is fear of the inteligent, educated or not. In many nations and all through history the people who see through the lies are subjected to state control. Imprisonment, banishing, even deaths usually follow. In this country we are given an outlet. The state allows us to have people such as Kucinich, Paul and Nader to rally behing. It gives us a false sense of choice. It gives us an outlet and keeps us from forming a true revolution. The state is afraid that the people will wake up, giving us a few good people to rally behind keeps us in line.

    The state is afraid that the facts will come out. They know that some of us already get it, so they throw us a bone in the form of Ron Paul, Kucinich, Nader, etc. They don’t want to make the same mistake that many other nations have by trying to silence the opposition. The tyranical oppression of thought has directly led to many revolutions. They think they can avoid this by giving us an outlet. It may work or it may not. But the state may be making one critical mistake. That possible mistake is that they underestimate the power of thought. Why is Ron Paul so popular? Because he makes people think, thats why. He is waking people up, that’s his true strength and power. The internet is also helping to make this possible.

    All the BS arguement about who is best, Paul, Kucinich, Nader, etc. don’t really mean a thing. The point is that people need to start getting it and fast. The up and coming collapse of both our empire and financial rule is coming soon. This combined with the internet and the voices of a few good people could lead to a true revolution, one in which we take our country back from the tyrants. I truly hope it’s not violent and I will not participate in any violence. However, a true change is coming and coming soon, so people get ready cause here it comes.

    Peace!

  78. Keep tooting your own horn Eugene it only makes my point more valid. All your education formally or informally hasn’t made you any smarter, and your vast ability to put your thoughts on paper doesn’t make them correct. All your education has done is given you a false sense of superiority, and when confronted by anyone you attack by attempting to talk over their heads. Same old sad story.

    Peace!

  79. “Being able to throw around 10 dollar words doesn’t make your ideas or reasoning correct.”

    Brad Smith

    Nor does it make them incorrect. Nor does silent or talking in grunts make one intelligent.

    Yours is a common American rhetorical trick, akin to an argumentum ad populum, and designed to make the “common man” feel he is sitting on the pinnacle of all previous history and civilizatimon, confident that he will muddle through, with “See Spot Run” and “Dick and Jane climbed Blueberry Hill.”

    What a thrill.

    Who was it said–you can’t sit on bayonets?

    It is also akin to the Plain Language School of philosophy and the Basic English Movement, which Orwell develops.

    In the Lockean context, you might investigate “Populus”, from which “People” and “Populace”, and “Popular”, and even “Poplar” derive.

    Is it singular or plural or both and something else too? Is it individual or collective? If collective, is collective itself only composed of a sum of discrete individuals?

    I once had a discussion with one of the people directly responsible, to my mind, for the fact that twenty percent of the freshman class at a good university where I was teaching at the time were functionally illiterate.

    Among other things, when the person blamed the parents, I mentioned that the person and co-workers had the the students in question weekdays from 8:00AM in the morning till 3:30PM in the afternoon for nine months a year for twelve years, and that given that amount of time I could teach a chimpanzee to read.

    That was before chimpanzees were indeed taught to read and talk on a computer designed for that purpose.

    The conversation turned to grade school readers, and I said they were pernicious exactly because they were graded, giving simple monosyllables as supposedly easier and more fit for the poor child’s stunted mind, to be led, step by step, grade by grade to the full glory of another adult teacher who could not teach another six year to read a quarter of a century later.

    The person in question, who was vested in such graded curricula, then told me, straight-faced, that “on time” was a much easier concept for a child to master than “punctual.”

    At any rate, Brad, should you really exert yourself you will, I suspect, eventually find yourself a prisoner of the Scottish Common Sense School, like Reid and the rest, without ever having any idea either what “Common sense” is, what it implies, or how many mistakes about the world it leads to everyday before breakfast.

  80. Keep tooting your own horn Eugene it only makes my point more valid.

    Brad, here is how unintelligent and defensive about education you really are.

    For one thing in repeating the above you toot your own horn.

    For another, saying one is highly educated is not tooting your own horn, but tooting the horn of your teachers.

    As for how much I taught myself–there too I am highly educated far beyond your understanding apparently, partly because I learned from my mistakes, which apparently the whole US elite is now incapable of.

    In fact, even there I owe great teachers, who teach their students to teach themselves as the first priority and give them the best methods they know to do so.

  81. The state allows us to have people such as Kucinich, Paul and Nader to rally behing. It gives us a false sense of choice. It gives us an outlet and keeps us from forming a true revolution. The state is afraid that the people will wake up, giving us a few good people to rally behind keeps us in line.

    That is exactly what Marcuse says, in part at least.

    That is also behind the concept of the Marxists’ “controlled opposition”, and is part of what in the ’60′s was called (see, I almost said “we”) “cooptation”.

    So what else is new?

    Kucinich and Ventura are way beyond that. Saying why would take too long and why give it away?

    Paul is not at all beyond it, but is part of the problem.

  82. As a matter of fact, Brad, there is a version of what you are getting at already in Hegel,but Hegel maps it out as a wanted strategy.

    Staruss too also has his version.

  83. Teaching people to teach themselves is not teaching by authority.

    Hey–that one is pretty good if I do say so myself–I think I’ll claim it as my own (which it is):

    “Teaching people to teach themselves is not teaching by authority.”

    [EAC]

  84. Eugene, TOOT TOOT TOOT. I know, I get it your vastly superior mind can’t be debated. Standing on the shoulders of giants is one thing. Believing it makes you a giant is another. Get over yourself.

    Peace!

  85. Hi Mitch,

    You say:

    “I can understand where you guys are coming from, but I still disagree. Paul chose to stay in the GOP because it gives him the ability to effect our government. If he would have run as an independent for president, he would’ve most likely lost his Congressional spot, therefore losing any power he retains now. By running as a GOP candidate he got on national TV in the debates too – the media was forced to at least show his face a few times.”

    Your’s, of course, is the most common rationale offered by Paul apologists, that somehow Paul’s remaining in Congress does more for us than his having run for president would have. But that one just doesn’t pass the “pinch test”, Mitch. Ask yourself one question: How much of what Paul has done in Congress has meaningfully impacted Congressional behavior, and then pinch yourself. Does the number zero come to mind? It should. And, frankly, here’s one person that doesn’t particularly require the presence of some graying eminence to give expression to and serve as a symbol of his grievances. I can manage those duties sufficiently well myself, thank you. No, Ron Paul isn’t a kind of an essential, show-the-flag figure without whom the “cause” is lost. The “cause” would seem lost in any case. At best, as a Republican Congressman, Paul is utterly obscured by everything and everyone else that occurs in that den of thieves. What is most noticable about him there, sadly, is his utter powerlessness. And there are less generous interpretations than the one you offer here, of course, as to why it may have been that Paul walked away from an independent candidacy. I find them more persuasive than your’s, actually.

  86. “Telescreen” is the term you’re searching for.

  87. Your false humility becomes you, Brad.

    The trope is much older than Einstein by the way.

    Nietzsche turned it on its head–a dwarf on the shoulders of a giant reduces everything he sees to his own small and petty dimensions.

    And I add: when he looks down, even the giant.

  88. It is not so much that our country is being run by tyrants – that would indicate that there is some sort of organization to it. No, what is going on is “pack behavior” as in a pack of hyenas. What motivates hyenas – fear, hunger, territorial agression. What motivates America – fear, greed, territorial agression (dressed up as “patriotism”). What disgusts me so much is the total lack of noble thought to be found anywhere in this land. Why are we not absolutely mortified by our slaughter of innocent Iraqis – our hyena-like response to 9-11. What is our response to the Wall Street crooks poisoning the World with toxic financial products – we excuse their criminality and bail them out to save “our” temporary financial comfort. How can we seriously vote for morons like McCain/Palin – we will do anything to keep the blacks in their place. Why do we arm Israel with bunker busters to kill Iranians – because our elected officials fear offending the Zionists. Why are we choosing to alienate so many other countries (Russia, Venezuela, China) – because we feel “threatened” by anyone else’s success or independence from us.
    This is deep corruption. This is not petty, nickel-dime stuff, but serious corruption of our national soul. And there is no intelligent plan behind it.

  89. 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.

  90. Richard,

    Yet again, a most perceptive remark, Richard. Yes, I think you are right, at core there would seem to be a genuine moral vacuity among our people, their pretensions to a presumed morality on either left and right notwithstanding. You point to a total lack of “noble thought” in our land and you are right to do so. I’ll submit to you that the lynchpin of this derth of nobility has its basis in the utilitarian notion of the human person that holds sway today and that is butressed by a certain, almost gnostic, dualism which envisions the person as distinct from his/her biological reality. If, for example, one views one’s self as having “rights” over ones body, one objectifies – and trivializes – one’s biology. The body, and the world, are unconsciously seen as inferior to the “self”, so-called” and, therefor, perhaps not undeserving of abusive or callous treatment. Something of this mentality is at work in a culture that tolerates abortion, infanticide, pre-emptive war, and the like. The denegration of the dignity of the human person to “terrorist”, “nigger”, “fetus” and so on is much more easily tolerated that way. The selective claims to a moral basis which are made for the various projects of ideology today are disclosed as fraudulant as a consequence. The solution, therefore, lies in the re-personalization of culture and that cannot be achieved by some sleight of hand. If one correctly understands who it is that one might potentially abuse, and the absolute nature of the basis of a claim all have to human dignity, a way out is at least possible. Absent that, the descent into the abyss will be inexorable.

  91. Brad,

    Why bother ? Like Eugene is some kind of expert, community leader or something. Like I said before, some guys in here need to get outside, get some fresh air and interaction with real live people. Go smell the flowers, Brad, and stop arguing with idiots who love to claim how smart they are. Based upon your posts, you sound like someone who has performed community service or some type of civil service trying to help others.

    Who cares how many times this guy posts as he is only talking to himself anyway.

    You are better than that. He needs to get a real life and he is not your problem.

  92. Thanks Corkey and your right of course it is a waste of time. actually I just got back from a morning and afternoon fishing trip with my father and my son. Great time too. Pulled out a few bass and a bunch of bluegills.

    I make my living on line so while I’m at it I try to get the word out with a little blogging. However, your right that there is no point in trying to debate with some of the people. It’s of no use and I could be spending my time more efficently (and having more fun too).

    Peace!

  93. Corkey,"NOW THATS PRACTICAL ADVICE YOU CAN TAKE TO THE BANK. START HEEDING IT ! LOL" It's funny but that was exactly what I thought too. He hit it right on the head.

    It might have been a Ray Lewis quote?

  94. Hey Brad,

    “Nietzsche turned it on its head–a dwarf on the shoulders of a giant reduces everything he sees to his own small and petty dimensions.”

    NOW THATS PRACTICAL ADVICE YOU CAN TAKE TO THE BANK. START HEEDING IT ! LOL

    PS: Is that Ray Nietzsche from the 1960′s Green Bay Packers you are quoting ?

  95. It was Nitzsche. A linebacker, in a boring if effective system. Lombardi’s sweep was the right stuff, on the other hand.

    American football has produced one defensive genius, Buddy Ryan, and a dwarf like Corkey, by the fact of being a dwarf, has very likely no idea, beyond what the media and the press tell him, either what the system was or why it was such an innovation.

    The hilarious thing is that these dyed-in-the-wool dumbasses also don’t know much about their own chosen icons.

    Ever hear of a 4-4 in the late ’50′s? It was a predecessor in its dynamics to what Buddy Ryan came up. Ryan added a key and brilliant next step.

    Joe Namath and the Jets? Oh, that was Ryan’s first Superbowl Ring, won by a defense no one of these dumbass fans pay much attention to.

    Ever note the similarity of the flamboyance between Namath and McMann?

    That was also part of Ryan’s pattern.

    Ditka could not have won a bowling trophy in the NFL without Ryan, though I give him some credit for inventing a few offensive plays hinging on understanding the psychology of the tight end.

    And no, I never read a word about it.

  96. One of the greatest defenses of all time was a college team the dwarfs also likely know next to nothing about, “The Chinese Bandits.”

    It was that team, with its defensive platoon, that was the first important step in the development of a new understanding of defense, and defensive theory–known to very few and really grasped by even fewer–that culminated in Ryan.

    Plus haut les jambes, mes manchots, plus haut les jambes!

  97. corr: McMahon.

  98. Do the War Colleges in the Russian Federation study American football?

  99. What bank? What money? Cluck off.

  100. Anyone who knows what Ryan did can state it in less than a paragraph, and anyone else who knows will catch it immediately. And anyone who doesn’t will beat around the bush.

    Incidentally, even Ryan has never said publicly what the essence of the innovation was, so far as I know.

    An Old Master keeps the secret.

  101. You lost me at the bakery.