PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul distortions and smears



Tylerdurden
11-13-2007, 07:06 AM
Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/)


Monday November 12, 2007 14:31 EST
Ron Paul distortions and smears

(updated below - Update II)
I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited (http://www.memeorandum.com/071112/p12#a071112p12)) post today about Paul's record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html):
Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag.He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning. But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic Party front-runner who (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html), "along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal" -- Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced that amendment solely to make a point -- one he makes frequently -- that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.
Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to do it that way -- i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the floor of the House (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html) explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be "very unnecessary and very dangerous." And he urged his colleagues to vote against them, including the ones he introduced:
As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines. It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. . . .
It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people -- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach.
Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.



continued.................http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

Tylerdurden
11-13-2007, 07:07 AM
This is in response to the smear merchant on the forum.
Read yourself and make up your own mind. Seems a lot of people are doing that these days and its a good thing.

elf
11-13-2007, 07:16 AM
Jeez, guys. Haven't you got anything more important to get all strung out about than flag burning? Give it a break. It's irrelevant in a world of melting ice caps, quintuptillion dollar debt, 30% of our population without health insurance, increasing descent into poverty by the middle class, massive oil spills in the black sea and up the Thames at the same time, religiofascist violence throughout the world.

It's even irrelevant compared to child labor to harvest chocolate.

JimD
11-13-2007, 07:17 AM
Ron Paul duz hereowin. I seen him do it.

Tylerdurden
11-13-2007, 07:22 AM
Elf read the whole thing, its in response to the smear campaign. The repubs brought all this stuff up and twist it to their own ends.

Most people I talk to who haven't really looked at Ron Paul come back with a canned response that one can see comes from ignorance.
Those who have dug deeper always have good things to say even if they disagree with him. Thats my take on it too.
I don't agree with him on some issues but taken as a whole he is an honorable man above most in Washington today. That and the Fed chairmans crap themselves when he confronts them with the truth is just icing on the cake.

Tylerdurden
11-13-2007, 07:24 AM
Ron Paul duz hereowin. I seen him do it.

Is it any wonder why I get medieval on peoples arses?

JimD
11-13-2007, 07:26 AM
Is it any wonder why I get medieval on peoples arses?

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, Mark, but it sounds uncomfortable. Possibly even intrusive.

Tylerdurden
11-13-2007, 07:30 AM
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, Mark, but it sounds uncomfortable. Even intrusive.

"Prison sex is not torture" Tyler Durden

JimD
11-13-2007, 07:37 AM
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Baby.jpg

"You don't honestly expect me to kiss a baby that ugly, do you?"

Tylerdurden
11-13-2007, 07:43 AM
You know Jim, I think the American public rejects doctors as presidents because they are afraid they will try and pull their heads out of their collective arses.

JimD
11-13-2007, 08:00 AM
http://www.three-stooges.com/3-stooges.jpg

I hear ya.

Ian McColgin
11-13-2007, 08:59 AM
We are told of this thread that, "This is in response to the smear merchant on the forum." (#2)

I don't read every bit of every thread but I cannot recall any one here smearing Ron Paul. We dis most anyone, especially each other, and occasionally descend to some ugly ad hominem but smear ?

An example might help.

Thank you.

JimD
11-13-2007, 09:09 AM
Ron Paul sucks.

Ian McColgin
11-13-2007, 09:18 AM
Actually, Ron Paul was perfectly wonderful on Real Time. I find important parts of libertarianism really a stalking horse for irresponsible individualism, but Paul's more an old fashioned conservative and he's got great constitutional integrity, refreshingly enough.

His is a make-a-point candidacy as he has about zero leadership ability and less broad support. Thing is, his constitutional points are generally well taken, important to be heard.

Tylerdurden
11-13-2007, 09:20 AM
We are told of this thread that, "This is in response to the smear merchant on the forum." (#2)

I don't read every bit of every thread but I cannot recall any one here smearing Ron Paul. We dis most anyone, especially each other, and occasionally descend to some ugly ad hominem but smear ?

An example might help.

Thank you.

11-11-2007, 12:21 PM
Cuyahoga Chuck (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/member.php?u=7644) http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_1691649", true);
# 7727
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: on-the-cuyahoga
Posts: 3,558


Ron Paul on CBS
This was the first time I got to hear him elucidate at any length. He is one of those people who is so glib he's dangerous. If you feed him a question he's off and running and you may have difficulty reigning him in. The problem is his answers aren't usually within a mile of the query.
Bob Schiefer asked him about some of his more extreme opinions. He came back with the proposition that he wasn't exrtreme at all. He was "for the constitution", "for the second amendment", "for state's rights", "for private property", "for the gold standard" and a lot of other generic right-wing jargon. The only thing that separates him from others on the right is his opposition to the war. Even there his opposition is based on ideas that seem quite different from the majority of war desent.
He did admit he wanted to see the demize of a lot of institutions that are part and parcel of American policy. For instance he suggested that our foreign military bases were a bad policy because having troops overseas meant they were not here to protect us from the 9/11 attackers. That got right past Schiefer because of all the other extreme measures Paul thew out at the same time.
Paul is a nice old man and he smiles a lot but, what he is offereing is a recreation of the America that existed in the 1880's. Anyone who wants to bring back Plessy v. Feruson, child labor, 12 hour work days, a class of robber barons, and hang'um high justice will thrill at Paul's vision.
Personally, I think the good people of his congressional district have elected themselves a gold plated psychotic. He is talking about a right-wing wonderland that would even make right-wingers say "ouch".

Cuyahoga Chuck


#2 (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showpost.php?p=1691691&postcount=2) 11-11-2007, 01:53 PM
Norman Bernstein (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/member.php?u=9217)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sharon, MA
Posts: 10,433


Re: Ron Paul on CBS
I think that at least some of Ron Paul's 'shtick' is incorrectly attributed to conservatism... when it's realy libertarianism. Part of what we're observing here is a situation where two very different world views (progressive vs libertarian) happen to have coincident objectives (i.e., ending the war)... but for very different underlying reasons. The libertarian foreign policy stance is really isolationism, whereas most progressives/liberals aren't isolationist, at all.

Pauls other views, especially the extreme ones (return to the gold standard, abolishment of the IRS and virtualy all social programs, etc) make him most decidedly non-viable as a candidate. Since he's a minor player now, and since his anti-war stance gets all the attention, few people are aware of what else he stands for. If he ever got that far, his support would collapse rapidly.
__________________
Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. .... The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure." (H.L. Mencken)


From the worst two in the bunch!

crawdaddyjim50
11-13-2007, 10:20 PM
You guys don't know this, but I drive about 150 miles per day doing my job.
It is amazing how many Ron Pauld signs I see. And not just the cheap spray painted ones.
And the guy did raise 4mil the other day. How much did the other doctor raise before his meltdown and ultimate loss?

Uncle Duke
11-13-2007, 10:49 PM
TO: TylerDurden
RE: Post #16
Subject: WTF????
Tyler - do you really think those posts constitute "smears"? I mean - really? That's the best example you've got?
Dude.... you've got to do better than that. Those aren't smears - those are commentaries. Not a smear to say:

Paul is a nice old man and he smiles a lot but, what he is offereing is a recreation of the America that existed in the 1880's.
Maybe incorrect, maybe correct, but it's not a smear.
Neither is:

I think that at least some of Ron Paul's 'shtick' is incorrectly attributed to conservatism
Unless your post has been edited/modified by ghosts, those aren't 'smears'.
Dang. That's disappointing.

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-13-2007, 11:35 PM
Tylerdurden,dude,
I don't expect you to accept what I wrote. But, be aware that I spent a half hour listening to Paul be interviewed by Bob Schieffer. I made my judgements on what he said and spent considerable time composing and editing my evaluation.
If you want to call me out on any of it be my guest. But you have to sort out what differences we have and attack them directly. Cranking out endless C&P from people none of us has heard of certainly does not illustrate your take on Paul's stances. In short , you are not making any points. This place is not the Oxford Union where mighty intellects clash. It is more like a shooting gallery where the only rule is "everybody keep your muzzles pointed at the targets".