Let’s Be Clear, Ron Paul Fucking Sucks. Here Are 20 Reasons Why

RonPaul5-19-07ATX-a-2661Before admirers of Representative Paul go crazy, I didn’t write this post (or the headline) and I don’t endorse it (neither does disinformation), but I am interested in your well argued debate as to whether or not the little red umbrella author is right about any (or all?) of his points:

Every single one of the candidates currently running for the Republican nomination is a walking disaster. But one of them, Texas congressman Ron Paul, seems to be getting a disturbing amount of support from liberals. Mostly that’s because his nut-job libertarian views happen to not sound so nutty on a handful of issues. He wants to end the War on Drugs. He is against the death penalty. He would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He was opposed to the War in Iraq and wants to end all American military intervention abroad. All of that sounds pretty good to us left-wing types — downright refreshing coming from a Republican. Some progressives have claimed they’d rather vote for him than for Obama. Even Occupiers have sung his praises.

But if you’re a liberal who supports Ron Paul, you either haven’t been paying enough attention or you’re out of your fucking mind.

Here are 20 reasons why:

1. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. That’s the 1964 law that made segregation illegal and outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. Paul claims it infringes on people’s freedom. If a restaurant or hotel wants to ban African-Americans, he believes they should be allowed to. As he put it in a speech to Congress: “the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

2. He’s also against the Americans With Disabilities Act. That’s the 1990 bill passed by the first President Bush, which followed up the Civil Rights Act by making it illegal to discriminate against someone because of a disability. Paul wants it gone, too.

3. He is against public health care. You know how you think Americans are crazy because they can’t do any better on universal health care than the watered down bill Obama got through? Well, President Ron Paul would do much, much worse. He thinks that in an entirely private system, poor people would have all of their needs taken care of by charitable doctors who would be willing to work for free. Ron Paul, by the way, is a medical doctor.

4. He wants to dissolve the public education system. He promises to eliminate the Department of Education entirely and leave the question of whether to offer any public education at all up to local governments. He calls public education “socialist” (which we actually agree with, but he, unlike us, doesn’t think that’s a good thing) and says, “I preach home schooling and private schooling.”…

[continues at the little red umbrella]

, , , , , , , , ,

231 Responses to Let’s Be Clear, Ron Paul Fucking Sucks. Here Are 20 Reasons Why

  1. Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    Way to stir the pot. Frankly, I could never support Ron Paul because of Ron Paul supporters. My general rule in politics is that if you’re support for a candidate has you rubbing shoulders with racists and conspiracy nuts, you’re in the wrong place.

    • Saner than thou January 26, 2012 at 9:38 am #

      Conspiracy “nuts”?  I’m sorry, you’re a nut if you think the international bankers and shadow zionist globalists that run the show from behind the scenes AREN’T conspiring.  You need to wake up sir.

      • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 9:49 am #

        It’s scary how well the brainwashing works.. The most prominent conspiracy theory is the one that says conspiracies don’t exist, AKA the mainstream view.

        • MoralDrift January 26, 2012 at 10:41 am #

          Dont you think that real life is complicated? Why dont you grow up? Its complicated and adults have to deal with complicated issues that people like me just can’t understand!

          just because it looks like people are colluding behind closed doors, from industry to government to academia to secret societies that’s only because these people are grown up rational adults! They went to school and they pay their bills and they dont ask questions that dont pertain to their jobs.

          Why do you think they have big mansions and wives with large fake tits huh? Because they make the tough decisions.

          So stop trying to figure it all out ok? Enjoy some TV, drink alcohol, or go shopping. Better yet do all 3, and if that doesn’t work go see a man in a lab coat for some nice good drugs, the LEGAL kind that we are supposed to take. God knows everything legal and from your doctor is good, just like what we hear on TV

          • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 11:40 am #

            ;-) 

        • Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 11:25 am #

          It’s funny how you folks who babble on about brainwashing all sound . . . exactly . . . the same.

          • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 11:27 am #

            Ever think it’s because it’s fucking TRUE!

            Or do you drink too much of the cool-aid to understand this?

          • Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

            No, I think it’s because you all get your information from the same handful of twisted demagogues.

          • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

            Ditto.. Lol 

            I use critical thinking skills, and I look up my own information thank you. The only demagogues are the ones you’ve been listening to. It’s so refreshing to know how very wrong you are. :)   

          • Chaorder Gradient January 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re…………

          • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

            Lol, I know you are but what am I?

            I know you are but what am I? 

            I know you are but what am I? 

            I know you are but what am I?

            I know you are but what am I?

            Point taken.  

          • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

            Lol, I know you are but what am I?

            I know you are but what am I? 

            I know you are but what am I? 

            I know you are but what am I?

            I know you are but what am I?

            Point taken.  

          • Chaorder Gradient January 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re brainwashed!

            No, You’re…………

          • Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

            No, I think it’s because you all get your information from the same handful of twisted demagogues.

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 9:46 am #

      So now instead of poting endless smears about “truthers” you have jumped over to the post nonsense epithets about “Paul” supporters.   You just keep licking your masters hand now.

      • Daniel Reasor January 26, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

        Your self serving double standard with regard to what constitutes a thoughtful response and what constitutes smears and epithets is one of the things I find most amusing about Paul supporters.

      • Daniel Reasor January 26, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

        Your self serving double standard with regard to what constitutes a thoughtful response and what constitutes smears and epithets is one of the things I find most amusing about Paul supporters.

        • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

          I didn’t apply my epithet to a generalized group, I applied it to you because of the evidence of your concerted effort to maintain status q.  Tell me now Daniel, or is it Drinky Mcgee what motivates such a rampant pattern of behavior?

          • Daniel Reasor January 26, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

            That’s an awful lot of false certainty to pack into just two sentences.

            First, I’m not Drinky McGee.  I appear here as “Reasor” or “Daniel
            Reasor,” depending on whether I use Google or Twitter to log in to
            Disqus.  It’s possible for more than one user at a website devoted to
            suspicion to see through a snake oil salesman like Paul.

            Second, my own contributions to this conversation as it’s dragged out over the past several days have hardly been “a rampant pattern of behavior,” and certainly few in number when compared to the volume of posts you’ve offered in defense of Paul’s fatally flawed campaign to remove any federal government checks on state and corporate abuses of power.  Your devotion to a guy who wants to take civil rights, workers’ rights, and environmental protections back to the halcyon days of the 19th century causes me to question your sincerity with regard to opposing the “status quo.”

            I post infrequently for a couple of reasons.  The primary one is that I have other shit to do with my day.  The second is that Paul’s cult is strictly that, and arguing at length against devoting your passion and time to a candidate who lies to you about his past and the past of this country, leaves unsaid the consequences his policies would bring about, leaving you to do verbal gymnastics in opposition to Civil Rights legislation among other instances when the people have been able to extract worthwhile uses out of the Federal government, is as futile a waste of your time as it is mine. 

            I’ve wasted as much time as I’m going to arguing with a guy who reads an article by a Jewish columnist for Al Jazeera and dismisses it as “black propaganda,” whatever that is supposed to mean.

      • Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

        What I’m doing is insulting irrational people, and I find the groups you mention tend to fall under that umbrella.

        • Dr Posch January 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

          You are insulting people. Who you fin irrational or rational is a matter of opinion. This all breaks down to you just being an ignorant dick.  

      • Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

        What I’m doing is insulting irrational people, and I find the groups you mention tend to fall under that umbrella.

    • emc_0 January 26, 2012 at 11:43 am #

      Sorry I don’t know any racists or conspiracy nuts.

      Every candidate, politician, and famous person has negative supporters.
      RP having some negative supporters does not change his consistent message of personal liberty.

      • Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

        Not every candidate speaks at John Birch Society functions, as Ron Paul has. The racists and gibbering conspiroids don’t coalesce around him by accident. Outside of Pat Buchanan, he’s the most well-known personality who will sidle up to them.

      • Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

        Not every candidate speaks at John Birch Society functions, as Ron Paul has. The racists and gibbering conspiroids don’t coalesce around him by accident. Outside of Pat Buchanan, he’s the most well-known personality who will sidle up to them.

  2. Drinky McGee January 26, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    I committed the you’re/your sin. I will now go flagellate.

    • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

      If I ever see you write “Romanes eunt domus,” consider yourself dead to rights.

  3. Matt Smith January 26, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    @Drinky McGee, you’ve obviously never heard of Sturgeon’s Law. 

  4. MrSta January 26, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    I just knew there was a Ron Paul article being posted. My Ron Paul senses were tingling.

    • Andrew January 26, 2012 at 11:21 am #

      Pro or con, a Ron Paul article is always being posted.  That’s because he’s the Messiah, just like Obama was a few years ago.  But for real this time.

      • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

        Oversimplification.  No one is saying he is the messiah except you.  Obama on the other hand did go very far to enable such a myth.  Ron Paul simply asks that we actually follow the Constitution and respect the rule of law.  I don’t expect Ron Paul to solve all of the problems of the world overnight.  Rather I expect him to keep his word and maintain his integrity to it as he has done for over 30 years now.

        In comparison to the thieves, murderers and liars that line the halls of our senate and congress he does appear messianic by comparison though….

        • Andrew January 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

          So how long do you estimate it will take Paul to solve all of the problems of the world?

          • Chaorder Gradient January 26, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

            12 years?

          • Chaorder Gradient January 26, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

            12 years?

          • Michael Harder January 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

            Depends on us.. When or If Ron Paul ever makes it to the presidency he will have the chance to voice fact and reason. Once fact and reason are spread instead of propaganda, we might see a societal change. This is what’s most exciting to me. Ron Paul can actually spread a message and talk about facts instead of just propaganda. Once the people here some real facts they will be able to make more informed decisions, thus more intelligible voting will ensue. I will not speculate on the length of time this will take to happen. No one knows. 

          • Michael Harder January 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

            Depends on us.. When or If Ron Paul ever makes it to the presidency he will have the chance to voice fact and reason. Once fact and reason are spread instead of propaganda, we might see a societal change. This is what’s most exciting to me. Ron Paul can actually spread a message and talk about facts instead of just propaganda. Once the people here some real facts they will be able to make more informed decisions, thus more intelligible voting will ensue. I will not speculate on the length of time this will take to happen. No one knows. 

        • Andrew January 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

          So how long do you estimate it will take Paul to solve all of the problems of the world?

      • Liam_McGonagle January 26, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

        “That’s because he’s the Messiah, just like Obama was a few years ago.  But for real this time.”

        That sounds like a great tag line for a movie trailer.

        • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

          “That’s because he’s the Messiah, just like Obama was a few years ago.  But for real this time.

          “This Winter, when the Solstice starts, the End begins!

          “END TIMES, premiering December 21, 2012.

          “Jesus is back. And He is pissed off!”

          • Tuna Ghost February 11, 2012 at 3:32 am #

            “This film is rated ‘R’ for ‘Retarded’”

        • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

          “That’s because he’s the Messiah, just like Obama was a few years ago.  But for real this time.

          “This Winter, when the Solstice starts, the End begins!

          “END TIMES, premiering December 21, 2012.

          “Jesus is back. And He is pissed off!”

      • Liam_McGonagle January 26, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

        “That’s because he’s the Messiah, just like Obama was a few years ago.  But for real this time.”

        That sounds like a great tag line for a movie trailer.

  5. ZombieSlapper January 26, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    Yeah, Ronnie’s a far right libertarian Jesus freak nut job. His fanboys are more annoying than Trekkies, Beliebers & Juggalos put together.

  6. Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    Let’s be clear.  This is a hit piece and the use of completely discredited oversimplified appeals to emotion over reason constitutes propaganda.  I don’t expect you to believe me in a knee jerk, reptillian minded fight or flight response though, I want you to think and do your homework.  Those incapable of doing so will reveal themselves shortly.

    1. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
    Actually the argument Dr. Paul makes is based on maintaining liberty and has nothing to do with the Smear tactic of implied racism.
    “The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.”  -Ron Paul

    ie, you don’t need the federal gov’t. to police every aspect of life nor to micromanage all of us because of a few people who want to be outwardly racist.  You dont’ have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Should be obvious, but since your purpose is black propaganda masquerading as journalism I must reiterate this point.  By the way, “Black” propaganda is a term, just preemptively put that out there for those who would insist this is an indication of racism…

    http://www.dailypaul.com/79777/happy-mlk-day-dr-paul-speaks-against-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964?page=2

    2.  He’s also against the Americans With Disabilities Act.
    “To understand why Rand Paul said he opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act, you have to understand that these views go back to a strict Constitutional interpretation. The United States Constitution grants certain specific powers to the national government, and the tenth amendment grants all other powers to the individual states. Rand Paul opposed the ADA because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate that aspect of life.” 

    So you see it’s more so in holding the federal government to Constitutional law again.

    As Dr. Paul says in the video, (did you even watch the video?)  
    “if people do things that you consider immoral and a bad behavior they should suffer the consequences and you have every reason and obligation to boycott these people….”  ”this idea that you can’t improve society without a federal mandate, I think that you can, we can improve ourselves, we can come up with common sense, the worst part is the rejection of property rights…”

    http://behindthecurtain.us/2010/05/20/why-rand-paul-opposes-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/

    More posts coming.

    Let’s all have a THINK today how about it.

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 9:51 am #

      3. He is against public health care. In these United States of America, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.
      But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiumsthey pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/Again you have in your haste to smear, and inability to practice journalism, avoided any counter points or in depth consideration.  For those at home it’s very easy to debunk this tripe.  Just have to be willing to use a search engine, and most importantly to view both perspectives and way them logically.  Read the links above to get a more versed perspective on what Dr. Paul actually thinks and presents rather than what the smear machine would have you think.

      • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 9:54 am #

        4. He wants to dissolve the public education system.“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.” -Ron Paulhttp://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/If you think our current “educational” system is worth keeping perhaps you have been too brain damaged by this brute form of prussian indoctrination and would do well to study the history of it’s inception and the underlying motive to make you a mindless cog performing endless repetitive tasks for your corporate masters.Ron Paul remembers the real American Dream.  Liberty and Self Reliance! We don’t need the government to handle our business (Remember Katrina anyone??)

        • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 9:58 am #

          5. He thinks global warming is a hoaxHe is not alone, over 30,000 independent scientists (ie not on the IPCC gravy train) agree.

          “I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/If you want to go point for point, I would be happy to show you why science supports we needn’t be willing to usher in the wet dream of Blood and Gore (Al Gore and David Blood of Goldman & Sachs) which would do nothing to protect the environment and would do nothing but make them even richer at the expense of free humanity.  Don’t take my word for it, message me and I can give you homework (thinking men and women only please, sound byte neophytes find the door)

          • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 10:02 am #

            6. He doesn’t believe in evolution. ( You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel here. )
            With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics. “Do you believe in evolution or don’t you believe in evolution? Yes or no? And then we’ll decide whether you should be President or not.”
            You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.
            The idea that if you don’t [?] believe in evolution means that you don’t believe in a creator is total nonsense. So I think this once again is overly played and we spend too much time on it. And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical.
            -Ron Paul
            http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/

          • TitanVenturs January 26, 2012 at 10:50 am #

            good job on all this!

          • emc_0 January 26, 2012 at 11:29 am #

            Yes, thanks Camron. It takes a lot of work to sort through all the BS.

          • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

            Thanks guys.  :)

          • Peetr January 26, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

            You should publish that in it’s entirety on Disinfo (or everywhere) as a reply piece… good job!

          • Peetr January 26, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

            You should publish that in it’s entirety on Disinfo (or everywhere) as a reply piece… good job!

          • AurelTristen January 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

            Well, I generally agree with your response, and my biggest concern here is that the actual article is riddled with fallacies, starting with the title and carrying onward.

            With that said, I think its important to have opposing viewpoints here, and I think its important for people to agree with the points they agree with, and not with the ones they don’t.  Anyone who agrees with ALL points, or disagrees with ALL points, isn’t judging them each for their individual merit, and is instead making a judgment call based on their chosen position.

            The fact is that I agree with more of Ron Paul’s points than I disagree with.  Being the only candidate who wishes to end the fed, he is the only candidate interested in un-f*cking the country, and anyone who can’t see this must think that the Fed is Federal. >_<

            DON'T agree with anything unless you do your own research!  Idea organisms are deadly.

          • Jamie Lee January 26, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

            Even if you do your own research. It would behoove us all to remember that no matter what we think is “going on,” we’re probably wrong in any number of ways. Belief has more to do with emotional commitment than factual basis. That being the case–and I know asking for this on the internet is tantamount to full-blown insanity–we could look at discussion less as an attack and rather as a mutual process of honing one another’s position. There is no final conclusion or destination or absolute truth. 

            All that said, Ron Paul is a douche. (Just kidding.) 

          • AurelTristen January 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

            Well, I generally agree with your response, and my biggest concern here is that the actual article is riddled with fallacies, starting with the title and carrying onward.

            With that said, I think its important to have opposing viewpoints here, and I think its important for people to agree with the points they agree with, and not with the ones they don’t.  Anyone who agrees with ALL points, or disagrees with ALL points, isn’t judging them each for their individual merit, and is instead making a judgment call based on their chosen position.

            The fact is that I agree with more of Ron Paul’s points than I disagree with.  Being the only candidate who wishes to end the fed, he is the only candidate interested in un-f*cking the country, and anyone who can’t see this must think that the Fed is Federal. >_<

            DON'T agree with anything unless you do your own research!  Idea organisms are deadly.

          • kdog January 26, 2012 at 11:52 am #

            Slow clap builds to standing ovation…

          • Guest January 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

            What about him being anti women’s rights and anti immigration?  That’s all on his website…I read his positions and I don’t think this is really a “fluff” piece…might be extrapolating a bit, but still…ever consider he’s hiding behind his “that’s unconstitutional!” mantra in an effort to push his own agenda?  I think it’s equally likely and perhaps moreso than him just being this gigantic constitutional crusader.  He IS STILL A POLITICIAN.

          • Guest January 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

            What about him being anti women’s rights and anti immigration?  That’s all on his website…I read his positions and I don’t think this is really a “fluff” piece…might be extrapolating a bit, but still…ever consider he’s hiding behind his “that’s unconstitutional!” mantra in an effort to push his own agenda?  I think it’s equally likely and perhaps moreso than him just being this gigantic constitutional crusader.  He IS STILL A POLITICIAN.

          • Jason33 January 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

            All I can say in response is, look at his record. The man is so very consistent and that’s very hard to do when your a politician. 

          • Andrew January 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

            Consistency can be foolish.  There are some things Paul is right about and some things he’s wrong about.  My biggest concern is that he might be incapable of changing his mind on anything, even when there’s reason to do so, because he might value property and markets more than objective facts.

          • ozlanthos April 30, 2012 at 7:47 am #

             My like was an accident. Ron Paul has consistently predicted every federal mess-up YEARS minimum in advance of their failure’s fruition (see what he had to say about The Patriot Act before it was signed into law!, hear what he had to say about 9/11, why it happened, and what his predictions were for the outcome of both Iraq and Afghanistan…before we went in! hear his predictions about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (almost a decade in advance). During ALL of the Congress sessions he spoke these predictions, he was almost always the only voice calling out for reason, and Constitutional alternatives… That tells me all I need to know about his mind, and whether or not it is worthy of my trust and my vote!

            -Oz

          • Jinotegano January 27, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

            Ya know when I was a kid, there were verified stories of countries putting spies in another country(sleepers) to live there, work there, worship there live among the people be one of the people and be called upon when needed.  (Same trick is used by DEA to catch the suppliers.)  Didn’t we just arrest a US Army officer in Texas for shooting a bunch of soldiers(a sleeper)in the name of slam?
            You think the corporations (who want rid of discrimination laws, social security and taxes) are not aware of this concept and ready willing and able to use this tactic should it become necessary. Isn’t a lot of what Paul is now preaching exactly what they want ALSO. When Obama wins in 2012(and you can bet your sweet ass he will) the people will be ready for Paul and welcome him with open arms in 2016….. Then you can follow the nuclear attack instructions…. bend over, tuck your head firmly between your legs….and kiss your ass good-bye…Duh!

          • ozlanthos April 30, 2012 at 7:59 am #

             No wonder people think Republicans are stupid! WHO IS GOING TO ATTACK US? Iran? China? Russia? Oh BTW, NEWS FLASH, the DEA and CIA import drugs! Got to justify having offices and agents in 50 different countries somehow!

            A sleeper-agent? Are you really that bent on voting for bleached-obama, (think about it, where did the frame-work for OBAMACARE, come from?.,,I’ll give you a hint, he was governor!) that you would go that far to find a reason not to vote for Ron Paul? If so, you must really hate freedom and liberty! Whatever, hope you have a kid to throw at Iran, because if Obama or Mitt get in, we will go there, and there will be a draft!

            -Oz

          • Jason33 January 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

            All I can say in response is, look at his record. The man is so very consistent and that’s very hard to do when your a politician. 

          • Steve Fernandes January 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

            Politician, yes but he has also predicting and warned (on deaf ears) for the past 25+ years all that is happening now in America and consequently the World.  Never changed his message, just consistency and stubbornness all the while being called Cooky Uncle Ron!

          • ozlanthos April 30, 2012 at 7:38 am #

             Seeing as you are a gutless turd for not even giving an email associated name (so that you can see this response) I can hardly be inspired to bother responding, but as a devout Ron Paul supporter I will (and because in this day and age your assumption seems 99% correct). However, Ron Paul’s adherence to the Constitution also comes with STATE’S RIGHTS, and STATE SOVEREIGNTY. In addition, while I do not know Ron Paul personally, I know his person. I know it from having watched the man on C-SPAN for almost 20 years! I know he is a politician, but unlike 99% of those in this country with that as an occupation, Ron Paul doesn’t craft his message for a crowd, doesn’t pander to PAC’s or special interests, and doesn’t promote, or promise policies he does not believe in! 

            -Oz

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

            Sure sure,  and “god” created the heavens and earth in seven days – I will scrap this with you biblical latent nonsense about private property and ownership (but that is another debacle). 

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

            Sure sure,  and “god” created the heavens and earth in seven days – I will scrap this with you biblical latent nonsense about private property and ownership (but that is another debacle). 

          • axisofinfinity January 29, 2012 at 11:30 pm #

            want give a counter argument to the other 14 points. some of them seem kind of crazy

          • Zycerin February 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

             Wow, you do have patience! I completely applaud you for trying to set things straight on the issues of Ron Paul. I was getting quite weary on the whole disinfo site for a while over this…

            And judging by the “likes” you and Michael Harder received I am certainly not alone.

            Do you think you could post a story including this video?
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyRVa4lzRo&list=LLK4p3F3IZ-W3opG1dGORkVA&index=1&feature=plpp_videoThere is an awful lot of minority support for Ron Paul, those on here saying different are either ignorant or flat out lying and this has to be addressed. I live in the south and have personally encountered lots of black people that are not in favor of Obama any more and are supporting Paul. This slander has to stop, especially from people who regularly post on a site set out to set the records straight I mean this is turning out to be quite ironic at best…

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

            You arguments in regard to global warming are patently ridiculous,  I can take the time to address you if necessary.  Unfortunately you have a poor grasp of scientific analysis,  if necessary I can elaborate,  but I doubt if you could follow my argument – I need more mental cognizance which you seem to lack if I elaborate…

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

            You arguments in regard to global warming are patently ridiculous,  I can take the time to address you if necessary.  Unfortunately you have a poor grasp of scientific analysis,  if necessary I can elaborate,  but I doubt if you could follow my argument – I need more mental cognizance which you seem to lack if I elaborate…

          • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

            Well since I’ve not yet made an argument to you you must be precognitive/omniscient and of course it would be silly to debate such a god of information.
            All jokes aside, sure I would gladly debate you on the farce that is the AGW hoax.

            Let’s check your “cognizance” of the basics of AGW theory.

            What amount of Co2 is deemed destructive to global climate “norms” or temperature averages?  What studies were utilized to determine this in your mind?  What were there methodologies in your own words.

            I will wait…

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

            Read for yourself –

            http://www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-impacts

          • Artur Von Der Leith January 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

            You post a link to the EDF. The EDF run by Fred Krupp. And you expect someone to take you seriously? I can’t believe you can be fooled by these anti-human environmentalist. 

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

            Well,  I figure that if people are quoting guys like Ron Paul,  I can use Krupp…LOL

          • Drago January 26, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

            Mr. Scientist, can you please do an analysis of Venusian temperatures, factoring the dense atmosphere and proximity to the sun? You will find no evidence of any “greenhouse effect” even though Venus has 96% CO2. Climate changes with various factors such as the sun, cosmic winds, and human influence (deforestation, etc), but CO2 levels are largely an insignificant factor.

          • dickingsinstitute January 26, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

            We don’t need to study venus, whose atmospheric pressure alone would crush most humans, let alone temperature and toxic fumes– we’ve studied the earth and clearly see massive ecological damage stemming from uncontrolled industrialization. The climate change, damaged ozone, and greenhouse effects are entirely real, man-caused effects agreed upon by well over 90% of the scientific community.

          • CosmicAmazing January 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

            Warning: Incoming conspiracy theory

            I believe since the days of Tesla we have had the ability to use unlimited electrical energy taken from the quantum vacuum. The scientific community is in agreement on it’s existence but somehow cannot manage to extract it, come on..  This has been suppressed thus far and we are paying the consequence. There are groups and people responsible for this, mainly the military-industrial complex. Normal folks are not the reason the world has become so polluted.

          • ozlanthos April 30, 2012 at 8:05 am #

             That is all true, and I don’t think the effect is permanent (if that in fact is the cause). I think what you are talking about is a culmination of blow-back from thousands of over-populated micro-climates. Even if we stop production today it would take months, if not a year or two to clear out. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that if there is massive “climate change” on this planet, I think it’s cause is more likely related to the 2053 nuclear detonations that have occurred on this planet’s surface, than what comes out of the tail-pipe of my vehicle.

            -Oz

          • Sick Puppy January 26, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

            Last time I checked, don’t trees and plant life breathe CO2? Or is that some crazy conspiracy they taught us in second grade. 

          • Godozo January 27, 2012 at 12:06 am #

            The issue is NOT whether CO2 is a poisonous gas or not. The issue is that humans are generally pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants we’ve let grow around us (check out the local suburb to understand that point) can get rid of. That stuff builds up; get enough of it and we start getting methane plumes (a more powerful greenhouse gas, and deadly to boot) from the oceans and frozen tundras.

            Now…there may be a stabilizing point (as I’ve heard argued from some who view CO2 as limited in its ability to warm the atmosphere), or there may be a trigger that causes a sudden cooling that brings on an ice age and a sudden stop to Global Warming (my pet theory, and the reason why I fear the Greenland Iceberg blocking the Gulf Stream). But more likely is that things will warm up to a point where Humans are unable to survive – either at our present size or shrunken down to survive warmer temperatures (an interesting outcome from some studies – the warmer things get, the smaller animals get).

          • Guest January 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

            Pretentious much?

          • Brian Metz January 26, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

            that seems to be the rubberstamp response to anyone who holds a different view on the “global warming/climate change/global cooling” (see a pattern?) debate… I would elaborate but I’m so much smarter than the likes of you… heh heh…

          • Steve Fernandes January 26, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

            fernandes_steve21@hotmail:disqus .com, would love to read some of this homework you have.  Your posts are very informative (especially for someone like me who thought he was keeping pretty on top and informed).  Cheers
            Steve Fernandes

        • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

          Again,  public education is a demand of the people,  it was not conceived in the back room of some government bureaucracy – it is not perfect by a long shot,  but a demanded benefit by the people.  The reason why it is universalized is because of the natural economic inconsistencies produced by a class system (see Civil Rights Act above),  if it were left to the means of people through communities in the current environ we would have no education  in some areas and tiny enclaves of an educated elite which would trample the class disenfranchised people!  What is said to avoid this disparity is woefully lacking even under a Department Of Education,  and if fraught with many other ills (which I can elaborate if necessary). 

          Some of the concerns are valid which you make (“…massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs…”) but one can hardly get to the task of education if it is not a national concern. It is indeed a corporate mill (in form and function),  but one cannot wave it away with the non-constitutional wand and than leave it to private concerns (see my above paragraph). 

          • Anonymous January 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

            Who demanded it? What people? I demand you fuck off thief.

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

            Too bad you are unaware of the demand of education,  here is a source for you (to make it simple) –

            http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html

          • anarcho January 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

            Oh,  and in case you don’t read it or others do not,  the demand arose from the states – you know,  the “precious” debacles you Paulites keep talking about. So I recommend you read the link.

          • Jamie Cox January 26, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

            It was put into place by the educational elite, and you have been indoctrinated to believe in it’s necessity. People were more literate in America before public school was made mandatory than the school system has even been able to touch for a long time.

          • Jamie Lee January 26, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

            Show your sources. 

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

            Absolutely,  there was a tiny gentry that were well educated,  some were even doing entrance into university by thesis written in Latin.  However,  that does not address education for the people as a whole. 

        • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

          Again,  public education is a demand of the people,  it was not conceived in the back room of some government bureaucracy – it is not perfect by a long shot,  but a demanded benefit by the people.  The reason why it is universalized is because of the natural economic inconsistencies produced by a class system (see Civil Rights Act above),  if it were left to the means of people through communities in the current environ we would have no education  in some areas and tiny enclaves of an educated elite which would trample the class disenfranchised people!  What is said to avoid this disparity is woefully lacking even under a Department Of Education,  and if fraught with many other ills (which I can elaborate if necessary). 

          Some of the concerns are valid which you make (“…massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs…”) but one can hardly get to the task of education if it is not a national concern. It is indeed a corporate mill (in form and function),  but one cannot wave it away with the non-constitutional wand and than leave it to private concerns (see my above paragraph). 

      • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

        Once again I revert to the will of the people,  that they receive health care benefits to the man,  and that they do not bankrupt the people in the process by a system which is set to profit margin,  rather than the care of humanity.  The current system we have puts the healthcare in the hands of everyone but the individual seeking care,  it puts it in the hands of a merciless market – which is backed by medical complex of doctors who live like kings,  insurance companies which rob people blind,  the support of the equipments to the industry,  the pharmaceutical alliance,  the affiliated which practice an approach to the government with almost unlimited capital (this is the function of government anyhow,  to serve a moneyed elite,  in whatever form).  A market in collusion and a government formed to serve their elite interest will not serve the people,  ever,  and the introduction of competition will just serve to the truism of my friends enemy is my enemy (the people) and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  You market is pure fantasy and will empower and aggravate private tyrannies,  not make them cower in a free market.

        Second,  there is  no free market competition,  there never has been any,  and with the current system there will never be any – you will have to change the nature of the government in order to receive such activity,  and the only way this will occur is by dismantling the current system.  I also find it interesting that Mr. Paul appeals to a tax code which he says he will dismantle for medical expense relief – if it does not exist how can it be addressed?  Which proves point in fact the Mr. Paul has no intention of stopping the income tax which he has said must be undone.

        Third,  this is once again a desire of the people,  which at least in word (and really nothing else substantively) says it serves the people.  Yet,  the very changes which Mr. Paul puts forward takes the movement of the government – activity of government is needed to cease a function as well as act functionally. So it is an oxymoron to say that the government should be out of the business of anything when it acts by either doing nothing or positively doing something. I can further elaborate if necessary.  All in all it is the will of the people to be relieved from the burden of an oppressive healthcare system,  if it is the will of the people it cannot be passed off to markets that do not exist (free markets) or any conceived of self-regulation.

        • Anonymous January 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

          “will of the people”. there is no such thing.

          • Mr Willow January 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

            That’s right, we have corporate advertisers to dictate our will to us. . .

          • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

            Thanks for telling me that,  that vox populi is a myth,  now go tell everyone

        • Anonymous January 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

          “will of the people”. there is no such thing.

    • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

      OK,  I am getting tired of the definitive bloviating,  so I am going to answer most of your arguments (if not all) by some clarification.  You need to differentiate between an empty parroting of some Constitutional point,  and what is desired by the people.  You are taking the hard earned democratic demands of the people and conflating them with some infraction of the Constitution.  There are two issues at the heart of your arguments which are fallacious,  first is the bifurcation which naturally occurs because of the nature of the document – it is meant to isolate the people from any process,  because it was conceived as giving privileges to what was called the men of “responsibility and means (by the founding fathers!),”  it is an elite document.  The verbiage of the Constitution does not address the people,  that is why the people demanded the Bill Of Rights be appended to the document.

      Second,  I will go through the historical background showing that almost every one of the points which Mr. Paul makes is sealed by the letter of the law (as it was meant to be by moneyed white elitists),  and has little to do with the will of the people – that is the distinction.  Lets take the first points you make – civil rights was the hard earned result of individuals marginalized and persecuted as a minority,  primarily the black population.  In case you miss the point,  it was sealed by the blood of the people and rightfully demanded – it was commissioned by the people.  So it cannot be dismissed by the out of hand charge of non-constitutional,  because the proposed spirit of the country is written in the equality of all men. I am afraid the same goes for the disabilities act,  it arose from the demand of the people – so one can hardly dismiss it out of hand by the non-constitutional charge.  I trust you get my thrust,  and for emphasis I will go through each of your points,  regardless of what you might deem imperfections of what the people who demanded as opposed to what they received (in other words this does not deny the imperfections,  it just addresses the nexus of why the Act(s) were published).   If necessary, I can elaborate.

      • Douglas C Raymond January 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

        This is a good point, as are Camron’s. This should be the argument, however, not the ideas in the above blog article. The Little Red Umbrella is using a lot of fnords and talking points to mask the true nature of the debate, and displays an ignorance to the actual issue. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING Ron Paul says or stands for comes down to a Doctoral strict interpretation of our Constitution and that our country was built on states’ rights. All that changed after the Civil War, and the Civil War was about states rights not civil rights as most people have been led to believe in popular media. So the argument here is a return to states’ rights and a sort of anarchistic collective of individual, sovereign nations (states) protected by a single government when under threat, as our forefathers intended, or the idea that our Constitution and our old model of this nation is outdated. Either way, what we have now is broken and corrupt.

        • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

          “States Rights”  is code for reestablishment of the Confederacy,  there are states rights groups that claim they are not subject to certain laws because they are “white dejure state citizens” (I suggest you study this further).  Wrapped in the concept of States Rights was a certain lifestyle,  sitting on the plantation and watching the slaves do all the work – so it futile to try to demand a state right which protected a privileged way of life that stole the lives of other human beings at its heart -  you split some idealistic existence from the real matter (just like settler states are reprobate which destroy indigenous populations,  and dominant nations which enslave people stealing natural and human resources,  etc.). The difference between the North and the South is that the South wanted to enslave black people,  and the North wanted to enslave both black and white people and everything in between.

          Secondly,  nothing has been corrupted,  the government is functioning as it was intended from the beginning – as a franchise of the elite,  it was founded as a polyarchy (rule by men of means).

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBdk5n68gdM

          People have strange ideas about the founding fathers,  partially because they were good orators and skilled in propaganda.  If you think the founding fathers wanted what you claim then why –

          Did the founders have such an appetite for expansionism? 

           ”They proclaimed their intent to extend the new nation westward to the
          Mississippi River and beyond. They vowed to shake the Floridas loose
          from Spain’s feeble grasp. They agreed that Canada must be seized and
          annexed. As early as 1761, Benjamin Franklin targeted Cuba and Mexico
          for aggression, and he later joined Samuel Adams in agitating for
          grabbing the entire West Indies. Jefferson went so far as to assert that
          the United States had the right to prohibit other countries from
          cruising in Gulf Stream waters in both the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic
          Ocean on the spurious grounds that this warm-water current was really
          just an extension of the Mississippi River.

          The Founding Fathers fit their actions to their aspirations. George
          Washington was instrumental in precipitating the French and Indian War
          in the name of King George II and on behalf of land-speculating gentry
          in Virginia. The gentry, Washington among them, had ambitions to sell
          land and form settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains. But Native
          Americans and their French allies already occupied the land. After the
          French spurned a demand that they withdraw from the Upper Ohio Valley,
          the twenty-two-year-old Washington led a detachment of 160 Virginia
          colonial militiamen into the disputed territory. Although no state of
          war existed, Washington’s men fell at night upon an encampment of
          thirty-one Frenchmen, who the French said were on a diplomatic mission,
          and killed ten of them, including their leader. This act of aggression
          triggered what American school books call the French and Indian War, but
          many historians refer to as the Seven Years War (1754–1761) and others
          as the Great War for the Empire, reflecting the fact that the conflict
          in North America was only part of an all-out war for world domination
          between Britain and France and their respective allies that was waged on
          three oceans and three continents.” and so on (link posted because of ease of reading)

          Empire – As American As Apple Pie

          http://monthlyreview.org/2005/05/01/empire-american-as-apple-pie

          This is hardly the view that you speak of (“So the argument here is a return to states’ rights and a sort of anarchistic collective of individual, sovereign nations”(states) protected by a single government when under threat, as our forefathers intended, or the idea that our Constitution and our old model of this nation is outdated.”),  looks more like empire to me.  The Constitution itself sealed commerce and foreign treaties,  hardly something that bespeaks a “loose federation.”  The spoke of standing armies in the Constitution,  and these were used against the people – not some foreign enemy (read your history). I hope this clarifies what I am saying,  and if not,  I can elaborate (please listen and read the links before you respond).

      • Milkmiku January 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

        >Blaming rich white people
        When will this stop. It is a certain Semitic group of desert cultist that control most of the worlds wealth.

        • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

          This is another strange argument which misses the point entirely.  It ignores the history of this country,  it assumes noble attributes of its “founders” minus obvious facts.  Watch out for those Semitic groups…lol  Who knows,  I might be one of the Semitic cultists :)

      • Milkmiku January 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

        >Blaming rich white people
        When will this stop. It is a certain Semitic group of desert cultist that control most of the worlds wealth.

      • Steve Fernandes January 26, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

        Democratic Demands? What Democracy?  Have you not noticed our democratic system is fatally flawed and has been hijacked?  How about everyone starts to look past what a few white folk wrote on some paper 300 years ago (that magically was so perfect,it is meant to govern humanity for eternity) and start to maybe focus on evolution.  Let’s start to analyze, debate, implement the next democracy, true democracy!  The technology exists and yet we as humans choose not to accompany our technological advancements with our own social advancements!  True Democracy = Everyone, EVERYONE has a voice, a right to submit, propose and vote on EVERYTHING! Let’s change!

        P.S.  Lets also ignore the book (and other books) that was written 2000 years ago that is fed into our brains from birth and  we accept blindly and faithfully to also govern us and control our “soul”.  People LIE, compulsively and habitually.  Play a game of broken telephone with 10 people and see what happens.  Now play that game and start to increase the number of players exponentially year over year for 2000 years!  Let’s wake up people and evolve!!!

        • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

          If you would take a stroll down memory lane,  lets just choose one subject – the work place,  you would see what I call democratic impact.  I do not mean to be crass,  but you would not have an 8 hour day,  weekends off,  a relatively safe environment,  health care,  etc.  without people – the demos – getting their heads split open by corporate hired thugs as they protested and fought for their rights.  That was democracy in action,  which so moved the corporate environment to the spot it is at today – which is now exponentially receding,  they were called unions.  You know,  the groups that Mr. Paul says he is against in the sense of “clout”  –

          http://www.dailypaul.com/159430/ron-paul-on-unions-and-collective-bargaining

          Oh,  don’t force the corporations – they listen to nothing but force!! So in the past this was done,  but apparently Mr. Paul does not wish to employ them in the sense of “clout,”  you people who support Paul need a history lesson big time.  However Steve,  I can appreciate your point currently applied.

    • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

      OK,  I am getting tired of the definitive bloviating,  so I am going to answer most of your arguments (if not all) by some clarification.  You need to differentiate between an empty parroting of some Constitutional point,  and what is desired by the people.  You are taking the hard earned democratic demands of the people and conflating them with some infraction of the Constitution.  There are two issues at the heart of your arguments which are fallacious,  first is the bifurcation which naturally occurs because of the nature of the document – it is meant to isolate the people from any process,  because it was conceived as giving privileges to what was called the men of “responsibility and means (by the founding fathers!),”  it is an elite document.  The verbiage of the Constitution does not address the people,  that is why the people demanded the Bill Of Rights be appended to the document.

      Second,  I will go through the historical background showing that almost every one of the points which Mr. Paul makes is sealed by the letter of the law (as it was meant to be by moneyed white elitists),  and has little to do with the will of the people – that is the distinction.  Lets take the first points you make – civil rights was the hard earned result of individuals marginalized and persecuted as a minority,  primarily the black population.  In case you miss the point,  it was sealed by the blood of the people and rightfully demanded – it was commissioned by the people.  So it cannot be dismissed by the out of hand charge of non-constitutional,  because the proposed spirit of the country is written in the equality of all men. I am afraid the same goes for the disabilities act,  it arose from the demand of the people – so one can hardly dismiss it out of hand by the non-constitutional charge.  I trust you get my thrust,  and for emphasis I will go through each of your points,  regardless of what you might deem imperfections of what the people who demanded as opposed to what they received (in other words this does not deny the imperfections,  it just addresses the nexus of why the Act(s) were published).   If necessary, I can elaborate.

  7. Mike January 26, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    So I found this:  ”Sometimes there is so much stupidity in an article that the gargantuan task of refuting every stupid thing that is said is too great. This is one of those times.” 
    Which explains how I feel about the article. 

    Camron is the better man here. I wish I had his patience. 

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

      Thanks Mike.   Thankfully because there are so many good sites out there refuting this nonsense it made my task manageable over breakfast.  Thank you to DailyPaul.com RonPaul.com, Wikipedia and a few others I can’t recall right off.  Glad to see people are standing up in this Country.  

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

      Thanks Mike.   Thankfully because there are so many good sites out there refuting this nonsense it made my task manageable over breakfast.  Thank you to DailyPaul.com RonPaul.com, Wikipedia and a few others I can’t recall right off.  Glad to see people are standing up in this Country.  

  8. Hadrian999 January 26, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    oh this should be good

  9. Vladimir Z January 26, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    A short note to Ron Paul fanatics:
    True, he might seem somewhat refreshing and even reasonable compared to the disgusting sick bunch of Republican presidential wannabes, or that corporate lapdog Obama. And yet, your efforts to rationalize his really frightening views on so many important topics are pathetic, to put it mildly. President Ron Paul would just prolong the slow disaster that is USA. If you want to take a look at your future, you could read carefully Soft Apocalypse by Will Macintosh. Even seen from Europe, where we have our own toxic pile of problems, the crumbling of your empire, combined with your ignorance and stupidity, is a chilling horror movie…

    • MoralDrift January 26, 2012 at 10:48 am #

      I like Ron Paul, but make no mistake…he wont, cant, has no chance of winning. In fact, the only reason I believe he is even allowed to debate is so that at least one American voice can be seen on TV denouncing the drums of war against Iran……

      I completely agree….the fall of America is becoming more horrifying by the day…considering that it is unlikely to go out with a whimper and more like a large atomic bang

    • steve January 26, 2012 at 11:18 am #

      Too true.

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

      You don’t actually make any points here, you just presume you do.  You’ve confused apriori and aposteriori in your fallacious assessment of Ron Pauls’ platform.   If you care to debate a point feel free to do so , but grand sweeping indictments of entire peoples intelligence, while not actually presenting any evidence or reason, does not suffice to convince anyone you know what you are talking about at all. 

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

      You don’t actually make any points here, you just presume you do.  You’ve confused apriori and aposteriori in your fallacious assessment of Ron Pauls’ platform.   If you care to debate a point feel free to do so , but grand sweeping indictments of entire peoples intelligence, while not actually presenting any evidence or reason, does not suffice to convince anyone you know what you are talking about at all. 

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

      You don’t actually make any points here, you just presume you do.  You’ve confused apriori and aposteriori in your fallacious assessment of Ron Pauls’ platform.   If you care to debate a point feel free to do so , but grand sweeping indictments of entire peoples intelligence, while not actually presenting any evidence or reason, does not suffice to convince anyone you know what you are talking about at all. 

      • Chaorder Gradient January 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

        But if you say it over and over, it must be true right?

        Edit: haha, I just noticed the double post.

      • Chaorder Gradient January 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

        But if you say it over and over, it must be true right?

        Edit: haha, I just noticed the double post.

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

      You don’t actually make any points here, you just presume you do.  You’ve confused apriori and aposteriori in your fallacious assessment of Ron Pauls’ platform.   If you care to debate a point feel free to do so , but grand sweeping indictments of entire peoples intelligence, while not actually presenting any evidence or reason, does not suffice to convince anyone you know what you are talking about at all. 

  10. emc_0 January 26, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Let’s not bother to RESEARCH any of this or anything… let’s just take it at face value and accept other peoples assumptions as the author did.

  11. Michael Harder January 26, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    Let’s get one thing straight. There ARE big fucking conspiracies going on! Our government is grabbing power and expanding the police state to the point where it starts to look ridiculous. They are preparing for something and we are just going about our daily lives thinking good ole’ Uncle Sam has our back. Ron Paul understands there are conspiracies that take place. Even at the highest levels of government and by institutions/agencies that are perceived to be doing a good thing but have an underlining evil motive. Philanthropy plays a huge roll in this. Wealthy individuals will help set up non-profit organizations, government run programs, institutions and agencies which seem to be a good thing and then use them to covertly push their agendas. This is why Ron Paul wants to eliminate a ton of the bureaucracies, institutions, agencies and government run programs which most people see as a good thing. It’s because he understands the evil agenda of these rich philanthropist scumbags. As America starts to wake up from their brainwashed trance, the people start to realize the institutions and government run programs that were suppose to help them are being used to subvert our way of life and our constitution. Because of this more and more people are liking Ron Paul. 
    He may “fucking suck” to some — as it appears he wants to eliminate helpful programs — but it’s all because he wants to root out the scum and give the power back to the people. 

    Breaking it down: Ron Paul knows his shit. The rest of the media and politicians are fooling you, lying all the time and pushing their master’s agenda.

    Now let go back to this ridiculous police state. We were warned about it’s expansion! 

    – A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. – January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower – 

    Eisenhower knew that in the future the military-industrial complex would try to expand and take away all our liberties we fought so hard for. THIS IS NOW! The recent bills and legislation that’s been passed are so detrimental to our values and rights as a free society that it should be a huge red flag — a warning sign! Ron Paul sees this and he understands the propaganda and secrecy that surrounds it. This is why he says and does things the way he does. He’s not going to just outright say; “the government is corrupt from the inside and there is a huge conspiracy to remove the bill of rights and the constitution so that a massive military-industrial complex can be released upon society” because it would hurt his campaign.

    So I hope some of you are smart enough to understand the reason why Ron says what he says and does what he does. He can’t just stand there and tell you the whole truth because the media would attack him much worse than they already do. 

    Let’s also hope Eisenhower was wrong, but I don’t think so.       

    WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

    • PlantFan January 26, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

      Your argument is void; my eyes were closed.  *argument victory nod*

    • Brian Metz January 26, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

      AMEN my man!  it blows me away that America could have turned into the place where Ron Paul adherents or lovers of the Constitution would be akin to terrorists or “nut jobs” – it’s kind of disturbing…

    • anarcho January 26, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

      “Our government is grabbing power and expanding the police state to the point where it starts to look ridiculous.”

      You know,  I wonder when you people are going to wake up and understand that the government is not an independent appendage that runs off on its own and acts.  The government acts for who it serves,  and that is a moneyed elite – many times housed in corporations,  THE GOVERNMENT IS A FRANCHISE OF THE ELITE.  Get it right,  the State is not the three parts of government function you were taught in school (executive,  legislative and judicial – it does not matter if it has fake checks and balances),  it is the power behind which wields the force.  You know,  the people who Ron Paul says you cannot  force to do anything,  that IS the engine of the machine.  You cannot detach the government from who it serves,  and it does not serve you,  it never has,  it serves a moneyed elite – you know,  the people that Ron Paul wants to protect.  Ron Paul is leading you down a primrose lane,  and all I can say to you is WAKE UP!  The government is merely the messenger of who it serves.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1T8xgHdMEM

      • anarcho January 27, 2012 at 12:12 am #

        Listen carefully to the words of this general,  you have probably heard it before –

        “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
        during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man
        for Big Business,
        for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a
        gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico
        safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

        Major General Smedley Butler

        Did you read him say – “I went in there for the government?”  NO,  Big Business – Wall Street,  for capitalism,  banks and corporations.  You better get it straight,  because what we have now is fascism,  defined,  the melding of the government with corporations.  The only thing you will do is usher in fascism the like never seen if you want a so-called “free market”  in the current environment.  You think it is bad now,  wait till Ron Paul gets in – you probably have no idea what you are trying to usher in. 

        One other point, I don’t know if you saw this or not, but a good portion of general Butler’s activity for “business” was done BEFORE the federal reserve even existed. In other words, states have always functioned in this fashion, the US is no different than any other. What I am talking about is older than what some Ron Paul enthusiasts are thinking about here, this has ALWAYS been the function of state governments, they have always been a franchise of the elite – whether one talks about the kingdoms of old, feudalism, and pre-20th century capitalism to this day has always acted like this, it is nothing new. Which means onr thing, capitalism has to be dismantaled – not merely a government, the form of eltism goes much deeper than a government created to serve the few. It is not changing, it is spreading, globalism, and your darling of capitalism is the engine. Which brings me to another point, you do not even know who the enemy is – there is some mental disconnect. You think you can take capitalism and put it in a dress and place makeup on it, purify and refine it, something that has never existed because that is not its nature – there has never been free markets with perfect liberty, and you cannot just shoot off a gun and say GO! Because that is not what has developed to this point, what you will signal is the destruction of everything except the multi-national monopolies, they will crush everyone because there was no “perfect liberty” to this point, so you do not have a race among equals. I mean all of this is elementary, I feel foolish even trying to explain something so elementary. You are going to have to undo the damage to this point, and I am afraid you are so bent on pointing a finger and saying “socialism – communism” because you have swallowed whole the propaganda, that it will never be started. You are going to have to use both real and coercive force to accomplish anything – and Mr. Paul’s chant of “no force” against corporations will not even start the job. The only alternative one has is what I have stated repeatedly, revolution. If you do not like it and will not employ on it, than you will die on your knees.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hdt87rhgSc

        Much of this video speaks about plunder of the weak and poor countries by the dominant capitalist nations, but guess what is happening – now they are after you.

        • anarcho January 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

          For the less informed who want to know what is going on here on this post,  I recommend –

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

        • C Foyle55 January 27, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

          Is there an alternative?  #Pres.Obama is backed by Wall Street.  If #Paul gets in he will throw a wrench into the system by eliminating the Fed. Res. and Dept. of Ed. among others.  Stop the wars…bring our service men & women home.  The media keeps a low profile on #Paul…don’t you think there’s a reason for that?  Unfortunately the voting box is rigged but if they flooded it with votes for #Ron Paul, what could they do?

          • anarcho January 27, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

            Paul is not going to throw a wrench with any accuracy,  because he has the wrong target.  He is going after a government,  and portions of a government which the people have demanded democratically (education,  civil rights,  unions, healthy food,  disabled people,  the poor / any welfare,  environmental protections,  etc.) – “its not Constitutional.”  For the corporations he has satin gloves,  yet this is the real engine,  the moneyed elite etc. which have crippled the economy to this point. Paul will throw the wrench,  and he will hit some good areas,  but the people will be hit square between the eyes while the elite walk away unscathed – because “we do not want to use force” on the corporations.

          • ozlanthos April 30, 2012 at 7:22 am #

             Why is it that you cannot seem to understand that just because there isn’t a massive federal bureaucracy handling something that (<!–
            @page { margin: 0.79in }
            P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
            -if there is a demand from their constituents) the STATES WILL HANDLE IT? When you put the fed in charge, it is ONE set of rules (with minor variations to make lobbyists happy) for the COUNTRY! That means that if the fed screws up WE ALL SUFFER THE FALL-OUT! At least if a state is failing it's constituents, they can look to what other states are doing to handle the same situation, and consider how they can improve the way they are dealing with it.

            I live in Oregon, who do you think has more restrictive Environmental Protection regulations, my state DEQ, or the EPA? I GUARANTEE that the DEQ wouldn't have an acceptable level of BPA (a plastic additive that is also a synthetic Estrogen-analogue that has been show to cause bitch-tits and testicular cancer in men, colon cancer in men and women, and premature menses and sexually mature development in pre-teen girls) if the EPA hadn't already been bribed to allow it in ALL plastic food containers, drink bottles, and sealant for metal cans!

            How about this nation's drug policies? How much more money would California and other states be pulling down in taxes if the DEA would quit interfering in their intra-state commerce? I mean really, I could go on and on about how (while they may have been drafted and signed into law with good intentions) federal mandates, policies and departments have held back the proper development of our economy, What you must get is that Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to take out the departments and administrative positions he can legally do away with, and petition Congress to help him get rid of others! In the absence of a federal department, the states will find ways to deal with their internal issues….if there is need for regulation, their constituents will demand it!

            -Oz

        • black January 29, 2012 at 6:49 am #

          Wow you really dont understand that the govt is the hench man for big buisness i mean whats your solution? you have none just you just let it go on. I argue that Ron Paul may be fixed on big govt but thats where you have to start because big govt is owned and operated by big buisness. What would you do just shut down wall street and call it a victory. They are smarter than that, as long as they still control govt they would be back in buisness. 80% of campaign contributions are unions and bankers, Paul understands this and would do all he could to stop it. You need to open your mind to a bigger picture.

          • anarcho January 30, 2012 at 1:14 am #

            I know this is confusing to you,  but you have to understand a couple of things.  First,  I understand that the government is the henchman of big business,  otherwise I would have never repeatedly said – “government is merely a franchise of the elite,”   I have said this almost endlessly,  perhaps you missed it – read what I wrote again.

            Second,  it is the perpetual song of people thinking they can change what is occurring by putting in another candidate in government office,  not what I am proposing that has failed – because what I am proposing is nothing like what those who support Paul are posing.  “Stick Ron Paul in,  and everything will be peachy after that happens,”  NO – it won’t be peachy,  because the people in office do not control the power of the State.  The government is put there to make you think you have a choice that matters,  you don’t – you have owners,  they own you and they own ever lever of power in the government apparatus.

            Third,  putting someone in office who will try to stem the tide has happened before,  do you know what happened to them?  They were killed,  that is because an office in the government,  even the presidency does not bequeath to you any power. 

            We have to understand that we are dealing with a dual system,  there are actually TWO political systems in America.  First, you have the visible government, that which consists of elections, public offices, and it’s three branches.  You could call this the facade, or the face of the State, and this is what we are taught in public school.

            Why do I make this distinction between State and government? We have to understand that taking an office in government does not guarantee access to State power. What is State power? It is the military, police, security forces, intelligence services, the courts, and the whole set of laws that rig the system for the moneyed and propertied class – an elected leader cannot necessarily have access to this.

            Because those who are stumping for Paul do not understand this distinction they have the sights set on the wrong target (the government as opposed to the State),  they will get nowhere fast like myriads of others in the last couple of hundred years who tried to put people in office with almost zero results.  I wrote briefly about this in 2007 – WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW MAKES US USELESS

            http://notinhisname.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-02_cy-2007_m-02_d-10_y-2007_o-0.html

            The Material is a little dated,  the truth remains the same.  I have changed a bit since 2007,  but the thrust remains the same.  The only hope we have is revolution.

          • ozlanthos April 30, 2012 at 6:50 am #

            Not to suggest that a revolution wouldn’t help things, (in many ways it may) but a lot of people have to die, and you never know if you are killing people for big business, or to keep them from killing you for big business. At least now we have a framework of what could again become the most revolutionary nation on Earth. What people like you have to understand is that you are people like me. As such, the laws that are created in the ashes of your revolution (in order to be “just”) will effect you the same way that they effect me. Can you tell me how that would be different than re-establishing our original democratic republic? Because if you want to start yammering about “social justice” I have no desire to talk to you. If the revolutions of today concern themselves with prejudices and injustices of the past, they shall certainly fail….and for the same reasons.

            We won’t have the kind of revolution you are expecting though. Before long the debt-fed Dinosaurs currently leaching on the fed will begin to die off (dinosaurs like Goldman Sachs need very large prey in order to maintain their weight, and between their market dominance, and the regulatory mine-field Obama only seems to want to add acreage to, it’s terribly difficult to get big enough for them to eat). As they starve to death (can’t keep bailing them out with money we don’t have forever), they will spawn a flurry of smaller scavengers, but even they will die off. Before too long (with the next decade or so) there will be an “asteroid-collision” class event, and the age of the dinosaur will end. It will most likely happen too quickly for the market to respond, and will send massive shock-waves throughout the financial world. Either way, prejudices with no merit will be cast aside as “cost-prohibitive” and we will return to some sort of equilibrium…as everything eventually does.

            -Oz

  12. Randel January 26, 2012 at 11:39 am #


    Before admirers of Representative Paul go crazy, I didn’t write this post (or the headline) and I don’t endorse it (neither does disinformation), but I am interested in your well argued debate as to whether or not the little red umbrella author is right about any (or all?) of his points:”

    So you posted this to watch us all bitch back and forth and speculate as to whether or not Ron Paul is right in his views. Nice Majestic, Nice.

    • emc_0 January 26, 2012 at 11:46 am #

      Disinformation.

      The truth just isn’t as exciting.

  13. blue January 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    Look Ron Paul is not the answer, but he is the first dose of radiation this country needs to stop the cancer that’s killing it!

    • Red January 26, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

      Short comment, but so very true.. 

    • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

      You idiot! Radiation is BAD for the human body: it causes cancer and destroys the immune system! Why would you wanna expose an entire nation to radiation?!

      • Douglas C Raymond January 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

        What, exactly, do you think chemotherapy is?

        • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

          Chemotherapy: the killing of all human cells just because of a rowdy batch of unruly cells that overstepped their organic bounds.

          • Kilerr1 January 26, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

            implemented with radioactive material……

        • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

          Chemotherapy: the killing of all human cells just because of a rowdy batch of unruly cells that overstepped their organic bounds.

      • Douglas C Raymond January 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

        What, exactly, do you think chemotherapy is?

  14. DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    I would like to think that I have been the most fair to Ron Paul in my comments about him, because I like what I like, and I fucking hate what I hate, and that’s all there is to it. But all qualifiers aside, I don’t understand why Americans have become so enamored of monolithic administrations in this day and age, because it is a far cry and even an insult to the government that is established in the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul would be a great addition to the higher levels of government, BUT I wouldn’t give him any more power than Treasury Secretary since he has such a hard-on for monetary policy. I don’t want Ron Paul to sit in the Executive Chair because that position has become so goddamned dictatorial that it’s downright autocratic these days, and that seems to be why people are so stunned by the possibilities of a Ron Paul presidency. Sure it would be helpful in SOME aspects, but not ALL of them. Americans need to refocus their political action toward the LEGISLATURE because THAT is the one arm of the government that directly represents its constituents and is directly accountable to them. No matter what the president wants to do, guess what? Congress gets to tell the president what to do. So don’t think for a second that if Ron Paul gets the presidency that he is all of a sudden the “Decider,” because if Congress opposes him like it has been opposing Obama, y’all Paultards are gonna be sorely disappointed.

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

      Ending the Fed
      Ending the Wars
      Repeal the Patriot Act and NDAA
      I’d love to see any congress or senate work against such measures.
      America is waking up.  You get the biggest microphone in the world as president and I’m sure Dr. Pauls reasoning will resonate far and wide with this privilege.
      It’s nice to see you wavering in your stance, but still the negative prognostications amount to joe six pack foretelling NFL futures.  Pointless and sadly vicarious.

      • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

        “Wavering in my stance?” No, I’m steadfastly not voting for any candidate to occupy the Oval Office ever again, especially not Paul, since he decided to throw his lot in with the modern GOP, which, once upon a time, supported Ron Paul’s current ideas of LIbertarianism, but they do it no longer, because for the past three or four decades, the Republicans have condoned the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve; the endless War on Terror and Drug Prohibition; the PATRIOT Act as well as the National Defense Authorization Act with its unConstitutional detainment provisions, so to see them make such a radical change in 2012–especially when the mainstream media has pinned their focus on Newt much in the way they did with Obama in 2008–is entirely unrealistic. I have been the most fair in my evaluations of Paul, whereas most others absolutely discount him–but I can’t help but agree with the naysayers that a Ron Paul administration won’t be able to change things to the way that his supporters want, because we’ve all seen populism before, and the neopopulism of Ron Paul ain’t gonna fix things any better than neoliberalism or neoconservatism will.

      • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

        “Wavering in my stance?” No, I’m steadfastly not voting for any candidate to occupy the Oval Office ever again, especially not Paul, since he decided to throw his lot in with the modern GOP, which, once upon a time, supported Ron Paul’s current ideas of LIbertarianism, but they do it no longer, because for the past three or four decades, the Republicans have condoned the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve; the endless War on Terror and Drug Prohibition; the PATRIOT Act as well as the National Defense Authorization Act with its unConstitutional detainment provisions, so to see them make such a radical change in 2012–especially when the mainstream media has pinned their focus on Newt much in the way they did with Obama in 2008–is entirely unrealistic. I have been the most fair in my evaluations of Paul, whereas most others absolutely discount him–but I can’t help but agree with the naysayers that a Ron Paul administration won’t be able to change things to the way that his supporters want, because we’ve all seen populism before, and the neopopulism of Ron Paul ain’t gonna fix things any better than neoliberalism or neoconservatism will.

    • Camron Wiltshire January 26, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

      Ending the Fed
      Ending the Wars
      Repeal the Patriot Act and NDAA
      I’d love to see any congress or senate work against such measures.
      America is waking up.  You get the biggest microphone in the world as president and I’m sure Dr. Pauls reasoning will resonate far and wide with this privilege.
      It’s nice to see you wavering in your stance, but still the negative prognostications amount to joe six pack foretelling NFL futures.  Pointless and sadly vicarious.

  15. Frank W January 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    I’m not an American, thank golly, but if I was, I’d vote for Vermin Supreme. I’m quite confident you will vote vermin for President. Thank you.

    • DeepCough January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

      Oh, man, Paul is so damn lucky VS is not in this race.

  16. Liam_McGonagle January 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    I liked and shared this because it is a fair and timely topic.

    But I do wonder if we may be in danger of exhausting the topic of Ron Paul a little bit here.  Don’t people apply any minimum standards in evaluating arguments any more?  There are only 24 hours in a day, and frankly I regard it as an abuse of my time to be asked to keep re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re- considering a guy whose political philosophy doesn’t exhibit the rigor I’d expect of an 8 year-old.

    Political philosophies have to have be both morally and strategically robust.  There’s no adequate cross-categorical substitution available.  A beautiful philosophy that totally ignores the most basic practical realities is still worthless.  An otherwise awesome Pad Thai becomes a diarrhea stir fry the instant you add so much as 1/1,000th part turd to it, so you can stop trying to sell me on it.  I don’t give a flying f*ck how fresh the shrimp are if it’s seasoned with Milorganite.

    Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if there is not a case to be made that Ron Paul is actually a plot by the establishment to discredit otherwise worthwhile positions on peace and civil liberties.

    • emc_0 January 26, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

      Indeed. Peace and liberty can only be achieved through big government.
      Racism can only be stopped through legislation.
      Poverty can only be stopped through forced wealth redistribution.

      What would your platform as a political candidate be on those issues, if not a decreased role of government?

      • Liam_McGonagle January 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

        It’s about achieving balance.

        Simplistic solutions have appeal because they SEEM easy to implement.  All of them have an element of truth to them, but they ALL conveniently paper over inconvient realities that won’t go away just because we don’t have the guts to wrestle with them.

        Yes, we HAVE tried the ultra-liberterian idea before.  It’s called the Middle Ages, and it’s not generally considered a high point in Human Civilization.  That’s just basic fact–private rather than public government.

        Power abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of democratically controlled institutions power will inevitably be abrogated by an unaccountable tyranny.  This always happens.  It’s human nature.

        Paul having a hard time getting heard through the Romney/Gingrich money bombs?  Take that to the 100,000th power in order to imagine what the world would be like in Paul’s vision of radical de-regulaion. 

        Clearly, the scenario of the “lions shall lyeth with the lambe” and all that cr*p in a Golden Age of blissful self-restraint is not quite upon us yet.

        I have never said that the current institutions aren’t being manipulated to futher the 1%’s ends.  Anybody saying otherwise is nothing short of a liar.

        But an engaged and educated public CAN make a difference.  That’s our big challenge:  get people engaged with the moral and technical complexity of these problems and take to the streets.  Let’s stop pretending there’s a sweet spot on the “automated politics” dial where we can just set it and forget it.

        I have a vote over my Congressman, Senator and President. I DON’T have special AAA Class voting shares of Koch Industries or Goldman Sachs. I’m not handing my last right of appeal over to David Koch or Lloyd Blankfein. I would hope that you recognize that they have vastly more resources than anyone reading this, and essentially nullify all of our choices in any conceivable “vote with your dollars” scenario.

        If you really don’t like my solutions, you really ought to take seriously why I might have a few problems with yours.  I HAVE NEVER EVER said you and Paul don’t have valid and important points.  To say otherwise is nothing short of a d*mned lie.  What I said is that Paul has serious flaws that mitigate against his virtues. Surely you’re not trying to claim that he’s infallible?

        You’re no better than any other commenter here.  Remember that.

    • VoxMagi January 27, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

      Hell…most of libertarianism IS exactly that anymore. Their leading think tanks are groups like the Cato Institute…flogging the familiar old neo-con pipe dream of total deregulation and tiny powerless govt. If theres a bigger (and more rigged) shell and pea game than modern libertarianism…we haven’t yet seen it.

  17. Liam_McGonagle January 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    I liked and shared this because it is a fair and timely topic.

    But I do wonder if we may be in danger of exhausting the topic of Ron Paul a little bit here.  Don’t people apply any minimum standards in evaluating arguments any more?  There are only 24 hours in a day, and frankly I regard it as an abuse of my time to be asked to keep re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re- considering a guy whose political philosophy doesn’t exhibit the rigor I’d expect of an 8 year-old.

    Political philosophies have to have be both morally and strategically robust.  There’s no adequate cross-categorical substitution available.  A beautiful philosophy that totally ignores the most basic practical realities is still worthless.  An otherwise awesome Pad Thai becomes a diarrhea stir fry the instant you add so much as 1/1,000th part turd to it, so you can stop trying to sell me on it.  I don’t give a flying f*ck how fresh the shrimp are if it’s seasoned with Milorganite.

    Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if there is not a case to be made that Ron Paul is actually a plot by the establishment to discredit otherwise worthwhile positions on peace and civil liberties.

  18. Happypedro January 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Ron Paul is more than a little bit racist.  In addition to the things that have already been written in this post, here’s Paul giving a speech standing in front of Confederate flag:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002200341“He has made no secret the fact that he thought that the South was right in the Civil War. Here he is giving a speech in front of a giant Confederate Flag about why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right. He is a neo-Confederate, and proud member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization. In the video he claims that the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners to avoid the war, rather than the South renouncing slavery. Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861. Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 in on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn’t have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.”

    People who support Ron Paul tend to rationalize things, make excuses, rather than recognize what is obvious.  The points made in this Disinfo piece on him are right on target.

    Now, it’s understandable that people want to have someone who speaks outside of the typical propagandizes BS.  He says some things that, on the surface, sound appealing.  But dig deeper and a bunch of vile stuff comes out.  Better to support someone who is not only a different thinker, but one who is honest and has healthy views.

    • Dcoy3546 January 26, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

      Once the Civil War becomes something we fought over slaver, then your points would make him a racist. Go educate yourself. Slavery was abolished after the start of the war. It was a moral justification for the North to attack the South. Just look at the dates or the fact that Lincoln wasn’t exactly anti-slavery.

      • Daniel Reasor January 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

        Rather than ask you to take my word for it, I’ll invite you to read the southern states’ Articles of Secession online for yourself. 

        http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

        Look at the dates, indeed.  The Confederate states seceded in the months between Lincoln’s electoral victory and his inauguration, because he had campaigned on the lukewarm promise that western territories added to the nation in the future wouldn’t practice human slavery.  The North didn’t initiate aggressions at Fort Sumter.  The Civil War was a war of Confederate aggression in the defense of tyranny, good won and evil lost, and tough titty.

        I agree with your point that willfully dissembling about the Civil War complicates any modern discussion of racism in America.  It would be helpful, then, if you would stop.

      • Happypedro January 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

        The point is that Paul focuses on certain aspects while standing in front of a Confederate flag.  Paul could be emphasizing other aspects, and speaking in a different venue.  It is not a question of whether or not I need to inform myself as to what Paul is saying or not; the point is what he is emphasizing and in what context.  There are no monolithic answers.  To say “Lincoln wasn’t exactly anti-slavery” is reductive.  Lincoln’s views changed over time.  At first, simply to not allow an expansion of slavery, later to be against it.  So we can’t paint Lincoln with a simplified brush, nor can we paint the civil war with a simplified brush.  The Civil War happened for a variety of reasons, not just one or two.  Some of those reasons had to do with slavery, others had to do with power struggles between North and South, etc, etc.  To say the Civil War was only fought over slavery is as oversimplified as saying it wasn’t fought over slavery at all.  It was a combination of things, a complex situation, as is most things in life.  

      • Happypedro January 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

        The point is that Paul focuses on certain aspects while standing in front of a Confederate flag.  Paul could be emphasizing other aspects, and speaking in a different venue.  It is not a question of whether or not I need to inform myself as to what Paul is saying or not; the point is what he is emphasizing and in what context.  There are no monolithic answers.  To say “Lincoln wasn’t exactly anti-slavery” is reductive.  Lincoln’s views changed over time.  At first, simply to not allow an expansion of slavery, later to be against it.  So we can’t paint Lincoln with a simplified brush, nor can we paint the civil war with a simplified brush.  The Civil War happened for a variety of reasons, not just one or two.  Some of those reasons had to do with slavery, others had to do with power struggles between North and South, etc, etc.  To say the Civil War was only fought over slavery is as oversimplified as saying it wasn’t fought over slavery at all.  It was a combination of things, a complex situation, as is most things in life.  

    • Douglas C Raymond January 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

      Oh my god. Okay, here’s the thing. The Civil War was not about Civil Rights or race. White people in the North hated Blacks just as much. Civil Rights Movement was what changed things. The Civil War was about states’ rights. It was about the individual sovereignty of states and not being controlled by a Federal Government. The North did not want to abolish slavery because it was morally wrong, but because the South was benefiting from free labor and becoming richer than the North. Just look now, how they’ve convinced Southern states to enact harsh immigration law and we’ve lost all of the cheap labor that was going to get us through the BS economic crises unscathed. Without morality but economics as the heart of the issue, slaves were a product. So, the proper action to take would be the North to buy the “product” rather than outlawing it just to screw the South. Morally, slavery was wrong, but considering those slaves were sold to us by African princes who had too many of them, this was never really a race issue but a class issue, as it always has been. Getting us to divide each other into subgroups (and that includes religion) is how the rich keep us from lopping their heads off. To conclude, once again, everything Paul says is about states’ rights and the Constitution. If you disagree with the policies it should be about whether or not you think our country’s original model is outdated or would work in today’s climate, not about the emotionally cloudy, non-political issues like race, religion, etc. Ron Paul has made it clear that any of his personal views have nothing to do with his politics which he keeps objective and strictly about the interpretation of Constitutional Law.

      • Happypedro January 27, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

        To say “The Civil War was not about Civil Rights or race” is false.  
        If you had said, “SOME of the reasons the Civil War happened had little to nothing to do with Civil Rights or race” you would have been more accurate.  

        There were a variety of reasons the Civil War started, some of which were among the ones you have articulated (economics, power struggles, etc), but a huge presence among all of those were Civil Rights issues and issues of race.  To make a statement such as “The Civil War was not about Civil Rights or race” is to severely skew if not erase the whole struggle of African-Americans and abolitionists, as well as whole host of other people.

        You would do well to read two books:  1.  ”The African American Experience: Black History and Culture Through Speeches, Letters, Editorials, Poems, Songs, and Stories”  by Kai Wright
        2.  ”Race and Ethnicity in Society: The Changing Landscape” by Elizabeth Higginbotham and Margaret L. Andersen
        The first book will give you plenty of direct historical documents that show your statement to be incorrect.  The second book provides a great amount of detail on race in America.

    • Douglas C Raymond January 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

      Oh my god. Okay, here’s the thing. The Civil War was not about Civil Rights or race. White people in the North hated Blacks just as much. Civil Rights Movement was what changed things. The Civil War was about states’ rights. It was about the individual sovereignty of states and not being controlled by a Federal Government. The North did not want to abolish slavery because it was morally wrong, but because the South was benefiting from free labor and becoming richer than the North. Just look now, how they’ve convinced Southern states to enact harsh immigration law and we’ve lost all of the cheap labor that was going to get us through the BS economic crises unscathed. Without morality but economics as the heart of the issue, slaves were a product. So, the proper action to take would be the North to buy the “product” rather than outlawing it just to screw the South. Morally, slavery was wrong, but considering those slaves were sold to us by African princes who had too many of them, this was never really a race issue but a class issue, as it always has been. Getting us to divide each other into subgroups (and that includes religion) is how the rich keep us from lopping their heads off. To conclude, once again, everything Paul says is about states’ rights and the Constitution. If you disagree with the policies it should be about whether or not you think our country’s original model is outdated or would work in today’s climate, not about the emotionally cloudy, non-political issues like race, religion, etc. Ron Paul has made it clear that any of his personal views have nothing to do with his politics which he keeps objective and strictly about the interpretation of Constitutional Law.

  19. Happypedro January 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Ron Paul is more than a little bit racist.  In addition to the things that have already been written in this post, here’s Paul giving a speech standing in front of Confederate flag:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002200341“He has made no secret the fact that he thought that the South was right in the Civil War. Here he is giving a speech in front of a giant Confederate Flag about why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right. He is a neo-Confederate, and proud member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization. In the video he claims that the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners to avoid the war, rather than the South renouncing slavery. Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861. Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 in on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn’t have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.”

    People who support Ron Paul tend to rationalize things, make excuses, rather than recognize what is obvious.  The points made in this Disinfo piece on him are right on target.

    Now, it’s understandable that people want to have someone who speaks outside of the typical propagandizes BS.  He says some things that, on the surface, sound appealing.  But dig deeper and a bunch of vile stuff comes out.  Better to support someone who is not only a different thinker, but one who is honest and has healthy views.

  20. cakeypig January 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    I agree – he fucking sucks. He’s like something from Medieval times. And I can add a number 21 – he would give corporations so much power that federal government would seem like a soft option.

    • Mr Willow January 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

      And I can add a number 21 – he would give corporations so much power that federal government would seem like a soft option.

      THIS!!!!! 

      Thank you very much for being one of the only other perceptive individuals to recognise this. 

      • Gregory Bean January 26, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

        Except for the fact that the libertarian position leads one to conclude that corporations are an evil created by the State and that corporate personhood needs to be abolished…

        But yeah, the humble doctor is the guy who’s going to give control to corporations…not the guy who gets paid by Goldman Sachs (Obama, Romney) or the guy who gets $10MM from a Casino owner and his foreign citizen bride. No, no…

        • Mr Willow January 27, 2012 at 12:30 am #

          Except for the fact that the libertarian position leads one to conclude that corporations are an evil created by the State and that corporate personhood needs to be abolished… 

          That may be, but the ‘libertarian’ position also revolves around the respect of property rights, meaning that the ‘rights’ (or ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’) of property owners take priority over non-property owners. That means that he would joyfully sign SOPA and PIPA into law, effectively killing the internet because the majority of what you see on the internet is owned in one way or another by a corporation. That also means, especially because he thinks regulations of any sort are an infringement upon ‘property rights’ that wages will drop, workplace safety will drop, workers rights will drop, simply because none of the workers own property (that means the means of production, meaning the factory or business in which they work, in relation to business), workplace safety will drop; all because that is always what is cut when corporations aren’t making what they think is ‘enough money’. (they will never have enough money to satisfy their drive for profit)

          That also means, again because of property rights, a natural gas company could purchase a tract of land with a river that sustains a town two or three miles away running through it and then gleefully contaminate their water supply with chemicals, or an industry could purchase land next to a school or hospital and proceed to dump toxic waste right next to it. And there would be nothing that the school or town (or whomever else that would potentially be affected adversely by any sort of similar scenario) to do, because the company owns the property, and they can do whatever they want with it. It doesn’t matter if the people are dying. 

          Deregulating privately held means of production is giving them more power. Corporate history shows clearly that more corporate power leads to death and misery. It won’t matter if they’re legally considered ‘persons’ if the organisation is free to rape and pillage at its leisure. For how this is incredibly bad, and how much worse it could be in the future, see my response here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/ron-paul-and-the-liberty-of-bullies/#comment-420858695

    • Mr Willow January 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

      And I can add a number 21 – he would give corporations so much power that federal government would seem like a soft option.

      THIS!!!!! 

      Thank you very much for being one of the only other perceptive individuals to recognise this. 

    • emc_0 January 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

      “he would give corporations so much power that federal government would seem like a soft option.”

      What are you basing this on?
      Free-market does not mean anyone can do whatever the hell they like without repercussions.

    • Brian Metz January 26, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

      there is no basis for a statement like that – he would certainly be against corruption and the wall street BS – don’t be so ascared of freedom - 

    • Alien Cyborg Fetus February 12, 2012 at 12:28 am #

      So corporations don’t already control government with lobbies? How much did the M.I.C make in the last decade? Oil companies? Wall street?

      militaryindustrialcomplex.com   

  21. cakeypig January 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    I agree – he fucking sucks. He’s like something from Medieval times. And I can add a number 21 – he would give corporations so much power that federal government would seem like a soft option.

  22. Happypedro January 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    Paul is not even a Libertarian in the way it was originally conceived; he’s got a very particular (and tyrannical / corporate) strain going on that we mostly only see in the USA:

    http://youtu.be/wriQGI5NGOM

  23. Happypedro January 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    Paul is not even a Libertarian in the way it was originally conceived; he’s got a very particular (and tyrannical / corporate) strain going on that we mostly only see in the USA:

    http://youtu.be/wriQGI5NGOM

  24. Mitch_trec January 26, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    FUCK YOU DISINFO!

    • north January 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

      Classy and well put argument. lulz

    • north January 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

      Classy and well put argument. lulz

  25. Daniel Terestenyi January 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    This article is disinformation.  There is a difference between getting rid of the the department of education, and to dissolve the public education system.  It really irritates me when someone writes inaccuracies to further prove their point, regardless of the facts.

    • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

      See how many people run with it though.. It’s like they want this country to fall into an Orwellian black hole. 

      • Seanuberalles January 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

        Orwell was a socialist. If you think he’d like Ron Paul, the black hole is in your brain

        • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

          Yes, I know that. You didn’t understand anything I said. 

          • seanooski January 26, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

            I love Orwell and Ron Paul. So what if they wouldn’t see eye to eye on everything? I bet they would agree on some things. The bigger point though, is that Jake wasn’t saying anything remotely close to an assertion that Orwell would like Ron Paul. The meaning of his sentence bi-passed your brain and went straight to your knee.

    • Jake D January 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

      See how many people run with it though.. It’s like they want this country to fall into an Orwellian black hole. 

  26. Daniel Terestenyi January 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    This article is disinformation.  There is a difference between getting rid of the the department of education, and to dissolve the public education system.  It really irritates me when someone writes inaccuracies to further prove their point, regardless of the facts.

  27. Abraham Hooker January 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    This is the type of distortion that I expect to see on CNN and MSNBC, not what I expected from the disinfo crowd which has many more resources at their disposal, why not use them?  Google each one of these issues, including Paul’s responses.  This reminds me of when Rachel Maddow had some news that had “just broken”, more newsletters have “been discovered”.  Turns out those we from the same handful of newsletters that they had been reporting on the month before.  Then she said, I guess we can just expect these sort of newsletters to keep coming out considering he had over a decade of racist newsletters, etc.  Distortion, distortion, distortion.  Try a little independent research.

  28. Abraham Hooker January 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    This is the type of distortion that I expect to see on CNN and MSNBC, not what I expected from the disinfo crowd which has many more resources at their disposal, why not use them?  Google each one of these issues, including Paul’s responses.  This reminds me of when Rachel Maddow had some news that had “just broken”, more newsletters have “been discovered”.  Turns out those we from the same handful of newsletters that they had been reporting on the month before.  Then she said, I guess we can just expect these sort of newsletters to keep coming out considering he had over a decade of racist newsletters, etc.  Distortion, distortion, distortion.  Try a little independent research.

  29. Dark_Activist January 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Is this cointel pro now? I have to disagree with the red umbrella because quite frankly Camron made alot of clarifications that I was going to address espectially on the Department of Education and  so my compliments to him. But it seems to me that the red umbrella link was more into Bashing Paul’s credibility based on his anti establishment/ libertarian views.  I’m african american and if you were to call Ron Paul Rascist then you must think that Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are civil rights activists with no bigotry whatsoever… that or you havnt seen this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFBsCZlcGpw

    or this one

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqFvAyoaEoY&feature=related

  30. Dark_Activist January 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Is this cointel pro now? I have to disagree with the red umbrella because quite frankly Camron made alot of clarifications that I was going to address espectially on the Department of Education and  so my compliments to him. But it seems to me that the red umbrella link was more into Bashing Paul’s credibility based on his anti establishment/ libertarian views.  I’m african american and if you were to call Ron Paul Rascist then you must think that Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are civil rights activists with no bigotry whatsoever… that or you havnt seen this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFBsCZlcGpw

    or this one

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqFvAyoaEoY&feature=related

  31. Sara January 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    The idea of personal liberty is a noble one, and one that we should all aspire to. My question is how do we address people whose discrimination against a person because of their race, gender, ability, religion, ethnicity, or orientation, infringes on another person’s liberties?

    • Sam January 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

      You let society (free market) make the decisions. If I own a business and I say I don’t want any brown people there. Then the people (hopefully) would get angered and boycott my business, thus allowing my business to fail. The problem lies with manipulation. If you are really good at manipulation and propaganda then you may be able to convince part of society that your views are not bad, even if they are. Like what’s happening now.

      I don’t — and I’m sure Dr Paul feels the same way — support the idea that the government can tell me who and who not to discriminate against. Because what if the government decided it does not like you discriminating against it for a good reason. They can just abuse that power and Dr Paul knows this. 

      It’s not the good things about government sponsored acts and programs Ron wants to do away with, it’s the bad things they could be used for. 

         

      • Andrew January 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

        Society is not the market, and markets should not make all decisions.  Economic freedom is a value, but not the highest or only value, and it is not a means to all ends, but more an end in itself.

        • MrSta January 26, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

          Yes, yes, and yes.

    • Sam January 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

      You let society (free market) make the decisions. If I own a business and I say I don’t want any brown people there. Then the people (hopefully) would get angered and boycott my business, thus allowing my business to fail. The problem lies with manipulation. If you are really good at manipulation and propaganda then you may be able to convince part of society that your views are not bad, even if they are. Like what’s happening now.

      I don’t — and I’m sure Dr Paul feels the same way — support the idea that the government can tell me who and who not to discriminate against. Because what if the government decided it does not like you discriminating against it for a good reason. They can just abuse that power and Dr Paul knows this. 

      It’s not the good things about government sponsored acts and programs Ron wants to do away with, it’s the bad things they could be used for. 

         

  32. Sara January 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    The idea of personal liberty is a noble one, and one that we should all aspire to. My question is how do we address people whose discrimination against a person because of their race, gender, ability, religion, ethnicity, or orientation, infringes on another person’s liberties?

  33. Martinez Report January 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    Either he’s full of shit and he knows it, or he’s misinformed.

  34. Jaime Yarbrough January 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    The last I heard by someone I don’t know – the lesser of two evils is still evil. There has been much said about the Citizens United gizmo and Dylan Ratigan et. al. are spot on trying to get big money from wherever it comes from out of our political system. Not to rile too many, put me in the agnostic column because of the divisive nature of organized religion I support, as a vet, ‘many’ of the aims of the Tea Party that got me started on Ron Pual. Few in this country (and you must know I’m speaking of the self acknowledged “99%’ers ) will deni the “system” is broken, corrupted and in desperate need of “reform” 

    Simply because of the complexity of ‘the myriad of problems’ – putting all on the ‘scapegoat’ shoulders of ONE MAN is ludicrous. The Problem lies with “the Congress” AND THE CULTURE of our society as it has evolved PERIOD !  The opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. Love is not a religion nor does it have anything to do with intelligent design. Due your due diligence about influence from folks like Edward Bernays and buy more Cheeto’s 

  35. Jaime Yarbrough January 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    The last I heard by someone I don’t know – the lesser of two evils is still evil. There has been much said about the Citizens United gizmo and Dylan Ratigan et. al. are spot on trying to get big money from wherever it comes from out of our political system. Not to rile too many, put me in the agnostic column because of the divisive nature of organized religion I support, as a vet, ‘many’ of the aims of the Tea Party that got me started on Ron Pual. Few in this country (and you must know I’m speaking of the self acknowledged “99%’ers ) will deni the “system” is broken, corrupted and in desperate need of “reform” 

    Simply because of the complexity of ‘the myriad of problems’ – putting all on the ‘scapegoat’ shoulders of ONE MAN is ludicrous. The Problem lies with “the Congress” AND THE CULTURE of our society as it has evolved PERIOD !  The opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. Love is not a religion nor does it have anything to do with intelligent design. Due your due diligence about influence from folks like Edward Bernays and buy more Cheeto’s 

  36. Jayman23 January 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Yes unleash the rage!

  37. Larchoye January 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    FYI: Obama did NOT implement public health care…

    Civil Rights and The Disabilities Act aren’t even things than anyone is going to consider repealing.  Stop freaking out about minuscule shit like this- and focus on the MAJOR SHIT, (ya know, all the things Obama promised to do- but decided to be George Bush III instead).

    The entire education system is an absolute irreparable disaster (as is EVERYTHING that Washington D.C. is responsible for).  The ENTIRE system of education in this country needs to be re-vamped from scratch, ESPECIALLY the higher education / standardized testing scam.

    Our entire system of “health care” ALSO needs to be COMPLETELY re-vamped from scratch.  What you “liberals” champion as “universal health care” or “comprehensive reform” couldn’t be farther from the truth.  The health care act is nothing more than Phase 2 of the “Medicare Part-D, prescription drug coverage” plan that Bush enacted.  In fact, BOTH bills amount to NOTHING MORE than “FREE MONEY FOR BIG PHARMA/SURE”.  Do *NOT* confuse big pharma with Medicine or Providing Health Care-  Big Pharma is in the business of selling drugs- NOT CURING OR PREVENTING *ANY* DISEASE.  (note the number of diseases they have cured to date: ZERO)

    All the federal government does with our tax money is ensure that they put it directly in the hands of their wealthy and powerful cohorts- and ensure that they are able to do as they damn well please.

    The democrats and republicans are the same party.  All of the issues which you identify with the “liberal” viewpoint on are deliberately manufactured to instantly polarize the voting population- and ensure that well over 99% of the vote goes to the oligopoly.  Every single issue (like abortion, gay marriage, torture, the ground zero mosque, taxing the rich, “regulation”, teaching evolution in schools, prayer in school, etc.) is a SMOKE SCREEN designed to distract you from the REAL AGENDA in Washington.  Pretending that gay marriage is a fair trade-off for a 100% sellout of our government to special interests, or that the guy who talks about jesus the most is a fair trade-off for government sanctioned mortal sin is precisely the kind of bullshit they WANT you to focus all of your attention on-

    …So you lose sight of their master plan…

    “Follow the Money”- It will always lead you back to the same place

  38. chinagreenelvis January 26, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    Hey, Disinfo, welcome to two months ago, when I saw this article debunked.

  39. padraig hundt January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    i’m as far away from being a republican as its possible to be, but if the Little Red Umbrella thinks the FDA or The UN has your best interests in mind there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, compared to Perry, Gingrich and even Obama (after signing away yet more constitutional rights and breaking just about every promise he made) Paul would be the best of a bad bunch, your society is going down the pan anyway America, wipe the slate clean and start again, its what they have in mind for you anyway

  40. Greg Beck January 26, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Ugh. This and the last article like it you posted are written by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Getting rid of the department of Education wouldn’t get rid of public schools, just federal bureaucracy. 
    Likewise, the Civil Rights Act takes away people’s right to control their private property based on race, but getting rid of the act wouldn’t create more racism, it would just make the real problem more noticeable. Something that might actually help solve the problem.  
    Every argument I’ve seen against Ron Paul has been like this. So I won’t tear each one apart individually, but I would like to hear AN INTELLIGENT argument against his policies?

  41. Lead Me Logic January 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    Hahahaha I love it when people take everything out of context…  Typical for all the sheep who blindly follow things without any sort of analysis…  Let’s get this straight, Paul wants to eliminate programs and policies in which the pendulum has more than swayed the opposite direction.  The Civil Rights Act is nothing more than minorities and women getting jobs they don’t deserve over individuals who are far more qualified…  That being said, Aristotle stated, “The worst form of inequality is making unequal things equal”.  I’m all about human rights and equality but Paul knows these programs have gotten out of hand and like Michael said are being used to promote a hidden agenda most know very little about.  We are at an extremely controversial point in history.  Ron Paul stands for what our four fathers stood for.  If there’s one thing I’ve learned with any kind of acquirement or analysis of information it’s that you need to listen to the people who’s predictions of came to reality.  Stop listening to bullshit media and politicians.  The elitists and lobbyists have taken over and there’s nothing anyone can do EXCEPT maybe Paul…  That being said, even he stands a very small chance of getting anything done.  The key is to stop thinking like everyone else.  Marcus Aurelius said “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane”.   This universally accepted mindset has got to go.  Every man who’s fought for human rights throughout history has at one time been viewed as insane, crazy, or as you said “fucking sucks”.  History is so ironic,  the masses and world powers do everything in their power to discredit a person, then once something has been established we look at them like they’re Jesus or a comic book super hero.  Wake the fuck up people….  Keynesian economics fails,  socialism FAILS, and if you weren’t aware BIG Gov Fails…  The more involved the government gets, the more possibilities arise for corruption.  If you study economics, history, and philosophy you’ll understand why Ron Paul makes a ridiculous amount of sense and why he is discredited by the establishment.  He is our last hope…  The globalization of the world has begun.  Our rights have degraded beyond measure all because of the over-exhaggerated term “terrorism”…  I believe we are inevitably on a path in which our society will crumble as Rome did or we will hopefully restructure and cleanse our republic/corporatocracy…  Dammit i’m ranting again…  haha 

    • Tuna Ghost February 11, 2012 at 3:39 am #

      The Civil Rights Act is nothing more than minorities and women getting jobs they don’t deserve over individuals who are far more qualified…

      Holy god but that is the most ignorant thing that’s been said on Disinfo in a while

  42. Devan January 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Ron Paul is a great candidate for white, male nerds who never heard a conspiracy theory they didn’t like. He is great for people that want to feel like special snowflakes because they chose a guy with ideas so myopic, unrealistic, and ignorant, that he sounds like a crotchety gold rush prospector running for mayor.

    The greatest logical fallacy that Paul fans either can’t comprehend out of some kind of made up intellectual superiority (or simply ignore) is that the world will not be a perfect Libertarian bubble which begins the precise moment they vote their golden god into office. There is an entire history that has led up to now. Ignoring race and gender issues doesn’t make them go away. Saying “Oh, I’m colorblind to race, we should all just be people, the free market will decide what equality is, blah blah blah” is in fact racist. It is racist because it is essentially the current status quo (well-established, straight, white men) saying “everyone just abandon everything about you that doesn’t fit into the pre-existing white, straight, male-dominated culture, and we’ll then say you’re doing a great job at being ‘colorblind’ and then maybe we’ll be able to completely wash our hands of the numerous ways in which you’ve lost your identity and are only valuable on terms we set for you.”

  43. Calypso_1 January 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    Ron Paul, Save Us From Your Followers.

  44. zach January 26, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    Let’s be clear, you are a puppet that is controlled by the same puppet master as bush and obama………

    • Andrew January 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

      I.e., God.

  45. chubby January 26, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    ahh another round of the indulging myth of self governance…..”the lesser of the evils” has run its course, twas always a ploy for anyone born into this society, trying to choose between preconceived “choices” that are still tiny parts of the whole that is wholly destructive….

  46. Lakota January 26, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    1st – i think your article title is a lil immature. Sort of unfair too.  Mitt, Rick, Newt. They’re horrible people.

    2nd – Civil Rights.  -  He’s endorsed by Austin NAACP President, Nelson Under. He’s not a racist. anti-segregation. If some idiot wants to not allow blacks or whites or greens or whomever to enter their establishment, let them do so. It makes me think of what happened once the owner of Timberland said he didn’t want ” those” kinds of people buying his boots. Brands like Averix (sp?) North face  & jansport  skyrocketed because the fool shot himself in the foot.  If a school, restaurant, or venue etc wants to lose money by singling out a demographic, they should be allowed to make their own mistakes. This coming from a woman who’s father created the civil rights division in the US Coast guard that might seem contrary. But think about it. how offended would any person be seeing a No blacks No whites No Mexicans No Asians No whatever’s sign? They’d lose $$. Something I’m sure in these times even if they could, they’d not be stupid enough to. I think it was needed for the times, but hopefully, it won’t be needed. That i imagine would be REAL progress.

  47. Pisspal January 26, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    Wow…Disinformation doesn’t know what it’s talking about.  I once thought they put some effort into these articles but after reading this, nevermind.  Goodbye disinformation!

    • Al Briggs January 27, 2012 at 12:50 am #

      Someone can’t read.

      “I don’t endorse it (neither does disinformation).”

      • Andrew January 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

        Someone doesn’t like having their beliefs challenged, caveat or no caveat.

  48. mopsyd January 26, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    I’m not even a Paultard, but this is a blatant biased smear attempt. Do your homework.

  49. Irishpacifist76 January 27, 2012 at 1:29 am #

    Thanks to majestic for posting this. Whoever that little disinfonaut is that shills for Ron Paul, it’s high time somebody started contesting his/her fawning posts. I also appreciated the post exposing his ties to White Power; I used to work not far away from that Tara Thai where he’d meet with his White Nationalist buddies. My Black co-workers would tell me “The Ku Klux is in Arlington” but I never believed them. In retrospect, lots of those guys probably shopped at our store and menaced the non-White employees.

  50. zedted January 27, 2012 at 1:49 am #

    the little red umbrella is not actually an umbrella, it’s a little used tampon.

  51. Gergith January 27, 2012 at 4:15 am #

    More often then not, he is just against federal intervention and believes that most of these laws should be made at a state level.

  52. D.D.B. January 27, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    Obviously this article was put on here to provoke strong reactions…
    I do agree with most responses BUT…

    Have you ever heard the term “Preaching to the converted”?

  53. Raleigh Barrett January 27, 2012 at 8:53 am #

    For those of you care or have the time, I wrote a point by point refutation of this “article:” https://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=10150628346265505

  54. JSH January 27, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    Ron Paul is for (almost) total freedom for the individual. In order to get that, government has to be much smaller. And some sacrifices and compromises have to be made where we currently take things for granted. It’s that simple. Undoing the decades of complexity is the hard part.

    • rtb61 January 27, 2012 at 10:00 am #

      Do you realise that complexity arose as a result of trying to shut out the liars, cheats and thieves.
      Lets eliminate licences to practice medicine, anyone who wants should be allowed to practice medicine, this would allow for greater competition in the provision of services and much cheaper prices.
      Bad doctors, along with their patients would be eliminated from the system, as they move from state to state, making it self correcting, besides there are already too many people in the United States. Note you would have to do this as there would not be a US department to ratify what are appropriate qualifications for a doctor.
      Besides why shouldn’t Loving County, Texas population 82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_County,_Texas be able to ratify what are proper qualifications for a Neurosurgeon, what could go wrong with that.
      What makes Ron Paul good is he is one of the few on the right who wants to reduce military spending and not increase it.

  55. Richard January 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    Let’s be really clear, why majestic fucking sucks and is an idiot to boot.  Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is not bought and owned by the corporatocracy.  Every other Presidential candidate is, including the incumbent.  That’s really all anyone needs to know and vote for.  All this quibbling about will Dr. Paul do this or that is sheer nonsense.  Either you vote for the ONLY candidate who will restore the government back to the American people, or you maintain the status quo.  It is really that simple, and how so many Americans are too stupid to realize this is way beyond my comprehension.  ***RON PAUL in 2012!***

    • Andrew January 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

      Now stamp your feet.

  56. Disillusioned January 27, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Ah, I think I’m just going to have to go ahead and thank you, Cameron. You saved me one hell of a lot of typing. You eloquently and accurately pointed out the rationale behind Mr. Paul’s comments on those subjects. I just can’t even try to top that. And you even shut down that fool, Anarcho. Hot damn! I should hire you. 

    Ron Paul sure isn’t perfect, but then, I have yet to see someone who is. Anyone who can’t recognize that he is a far better choice than the other donkeys on the stage is probably beyond hope. Not that I think we actually get a choice in presidential elections anymore, but that’s neither here nor there. 

  57. Guest January 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    PS – For all those with revolution on their minds…the first wave of you eager-beaver, modern warfare playing revolutionaries are all going to end up dead or imprisoned. It’s a dirty job, and someone will probably have to do it, but I genuinely hope a whole lot of you see what I see, and wait it out a little. We are being pushed toward revolution here. They want us to revolt. I’m not one of the peaceniks who thinks violence doesn’t have a place in the world. It damn sure does, but we must remember that most revolutions don’t work out too well for the People. The movement is almost always subverted. So once again, let the truly wise among us not sacrifice ourselves too eagerly. The first wave is doomed. The first wave is doomed. THE FIRST WAVE IS DOOMED. Patience and perseverance will serve us better than revolutionary fervor. 

  58. madison34 February 2, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    Is he my father? (Or everyone’s father born before 1940?)

  59. ron paul 2012 February 20, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    THE EDUCATION SYSTEM MAKES PEOPLE DUMB! IT DOESNT TEACH CRITICAL THINKING. FUCK THE CURRENT EDUCATION SYSTEM. IT IS THE REASON WHY SO MANY PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE WORLD.

    • Jin The Ninja February 20, 2012 at 5:27 am #

      in fairness to ‘people’ and the education system, if they had potent critical thought (or it was ‘taught’ which you can’t really teach- you can demonstrate it and discuss it) they really wouldn’t be voting for ron paul except perhaps out of desperation or remonstration of the current system…

  60. John Smith June 28, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    Ron Paul, like all other republicans, wants to make America safe for rich people, period. 

Leave a Reply