Tom Woods’ 26 Things Voters Are Saying (If They Don’t Vote For Ron Paul)

Tom Woods

Tom Woods

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books. A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. From his blog:

I am trying to understand the thinking behind the great many Americans who have decided to vote for a mainstream politician in 2012.

Now before you read the below and send me an angry email telling me I should be nice, that I should try to persuade them through love, etc., let me note that I have generally done that. My video appeal to Iowa radio host Steve Deace was a friendly, reasoned discussion of Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. My videos about Rick Santorum have been straightforward examinations of the facts. (See my video on Santorum’s view that we need inflation in order to prosper, and my video on why Catholics should instead vote for Ron Paul.)

But once in a while you just can’t take it anymore, and you have to let loose.

So, whether they realize it or not, here are 26 things non-Paul supporters appear to be saying.

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.

(7) The federal government is much too involved in education, where it has no constitutional role. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported expanding the Department of Education and favored the No Child Left Behind Act.

(8) Even though practically everyone was caught by surprise in the 2008 financial crisis, which we are still reeling from, it’s a good idea not to vote for the one man in politics who predicted exactly what was bound to unfold, all the way back in 2001.

(9) I am not impressed by a candidate who inspires people, especially young ones, to read the great economists and political philosophers.

(10) I am concerned about taxes. Therefore, I will not vote for the one candidate who has never supported a tax increase…

Read more at TomWoods.com.

, , , ,

  • Nunzio X

    Here’s my #27:

    By definition, anyone who wants to be President is probably insane, and therefore unworthy of my vote…even if they weren’t also puppets of the plutocrats in a “system” so hopelessly broken that it will have to crash and burn like an alcoholic who hits rock bottom, before a more meaningful / workable system has a chance to emerge from the wreckage. So fuck all of ‘em.

    • JaceD

      A comment I can wholeheartedly agree with! Regardless of who the president is, the same policies are going to be made, the same ends will be met. Perhaps Blue will walk left to his destination while Red will go right to meet at the same place. Lost faith after GWB? That’s okay, you can have restored faith in the political system (First black president, or first female president? Oh imagen the change!). Now you’re back at square one with a new “hero” Ron Paul. Who cares about his policies? It’s not like what he says is going to do any good if he were elected as president.

      “Thanks for the votes America- Oh and all those great things I said I’d do? LOL! Get fucked!”

    • JaceD

      I also want to mention that goes for my country too… And everywhere else in the world (obviously)

  • Frank

    I’m not voting for Ron Paul because, while the government has its flaws, I trust it a hell of a lot more than I do the “invisible hand of the market.” Been there, done that. It was called the 19th century, and it was characterized by child labor, robber barons, and a complete absence of protection for workers. All these Libertarians and Republicans complain about “Big Government,” but they’re more than happy to hand the country over to “Big Money” on a silver platter.

    • Frogboy

      Do you honestly think that’s what would happen if Ron Paul became president?  Lord help us.

      • sonicbphuct

         i honestly think that would happen, yes. Its the difference between polite fascism and shut-the-fuck-up-fascism.

        • Frogboy

          You’re right. What we have now is polite fascism. But libertarian ideals are seriously the polar opposite of fascism. Whoever told you that is mis-informing you. Instead of your “going backwards 100 years” fantasy, try picturing life as we know it today … except with much more peace, prosperity, freedom and tolerance. Look around you. Are we really headed in the right direction? See what other people around the world (the ones that all used to live us) are saying about us now.

          • sonicbphuct

             ok – i’m picturing it – Life as we know it with more peace, prosperity, etc… you know what’s missing from the picture? Corporations – that is, groups of individuals able to act in concert as one.

            Its funny – all the libertarian “Property Rights” people forget that Property belongs to someone to be used as they deem fit. Wanna burn your crops and starve out people? Fine. Wanna be an asshole to renters? Fine. Even more, what defines the lines of property – can a human be property? Can a dog, a car, a child, a whole country and its citizens? And who arbitrarily sets the lines – a government?

            No, libertarian ideals are the ideals of the the Rich who will not be constrained by the poor (you can substitute the haves and the have nots). Libertarianism is the shit side of Anarchy, in as much as Atomic Bombs are the shit side of science.

            Only one question needs to be answered to totally destroy the Libertarian plank: How are property rights protected?

            it’s funny because the RP supporters are always going on about how reasonable it is to put up a sign that says “no coloreds” because everyone will boycott them anyhow; but what about the one “colored” that walks in to the joint with the sign – how, EXACTLY, are those property rights protected, and which property takes precedence: the Business establishment, or the Corporeal Body of the “Colored” person?

            No, in the end Property Rights are the vestigial organs of Kings. Usage Rights are the future. And Ayn Rand Ron Paul ain’t on that Train.

          • MoralDrift

            im usually supportive of paul in general…because the other candidates are all corporate shills…

            But I really liked this comment

          • Jin The Ninja

             it is quite a great comment.

          • BeigeAsshole

             Then, how come not every or any billionaire is backing Ron Paul if his ideology is so tailor-made for the rich? One reason might be that libertarianism also means no special privileges for the rich nor any corporate welfare.

            If Ron Paul’s solutions will work in practice is an empirical question. But I think he has made an extremely convincing case that Big Government is the cause of the crisis that the world is facing today. The overspending, the printing of money, debt etc.

          • sonicbphuct

             Um, i’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but the dems and repubs are tailor made for the rich as well – Paul is a victim of the Market … in politics. Your billionaires are buying a futures commodity. Some are feeding the fire of that commodity, like the Koch brothers that provide liberally to the Libertarian Plank. The rest of the billionaires know that folks need to know how to read to manage outsourcing contracts and add two and two to make sure they’re not being robbed (they, being the billionaires) – they’re giving liberally to the Dem planks and Pub planks, depending on the level of Education they require to continue their plunder of the world as we knew it.

            However, drivel about who pays for who and why that’s a good reason to support someone does not answer my question: How will property rights be defended in Ron Paul’s Property Owner Utopia? Do the cops haul off the Black woman for trespass onto the bus that is using Public Roads?

          • BeigeAsshole

            I don’t know what Ron Paul’s Property Owner Utopia is, seems like something you made up. I don’t believe in any sort of utopias, and I’m quite confident in saying that Ron Paul doesn’t either.

            Politically, he is a constitutionalist. He wants the federal government to do only what is authorized by the constitution, and that means reducing spending and giving rights back to the states. What would be the problem with this?

            Of course, Ron Paul has strong personal beliefs about maximizing liberty. He has said himself that attaining this wouldn’t automatically make the world perfect, but the point is that it would lead to a much better situation than what we have today. (And then he usually gives a lot of arguments to defend that position.)

            Given the alternatives, I would be thrilled give a Ron Paul’s ideas a try.

          • Illhumanati

            Being a business owner I can tell you we still have the right to refuse service to anyone we want. I just can’t base it openly on racism. Your corner store likely has a sign that says only a certain number of children are allowed in the store at a time. No shoes no shirt no service. No law is going to relieve a person of their racism. It will only hide it from sight. Now you probably shop at and unknowingly support people who hold many ideas you disagree with. You give them profits. You can no longer make an informed decision about who or what you are supporting with your dollars. In a free society if you dislike bigots you could simply shop elsewhere.

            As for your other argument about farmers wanting to torch their land. How would a single idiot destroying their own work, property, and investment effect the rest of us? Also you forget SELF INTEREST. Why would a person who invested time and money into something destroy it? 99.99% of us would not. The few that would probably would regardless of the law.

          • Frogboy

            Freedom isn’t always all cosy and warm but don’t forget that government certainly isn’t the one taking initiatives regarding civil rights. “Colored” people weren’t handed their rights by the government and would have never gotten them if the people [of all races] didn’t fight for them. Gays are going through a similar ordeal right now and you know what? It’s people fighting for it and the government resisting as usual. Don’t try to feed me some garbage that it’s the government that’s making sure that these injustices don’t occur. I don’t care if someone puts “Whites Only” on their establishment because that place is going to be out of business in a week. They might as well just put up a going out of business sign. I’ll be the first in line to openly ridicule anyone who graves that establishment.

            And I have no idea what the frak you’re talking about with the rest of this. Comparing 1000 year old Feudalism with our Constitution, which was based on libertarian principles, is truly disinformation.

    • Anti-Amereichan

      You didn’t live in the 19th century. You’ve never studied the 19th century. You know nothing about it other than what was siphoned through the feeding tube while you sat with head lolling back, eyes glazed over in hazy stupefaction. Now it’s being regurgitated upon my computer screen.

      1. Before modern times, life was indescribably tough throughout the agricultural age. People were constantly burdened with the threat of starvation. It is through the genesis of Capitalism that the affluence we enjoy today is possible. In consequence, today’s poor are eating pizza like it grows on trees.

      2. The environment of 19th century America was one of the most prosperous times in the history of human civilization. In a little more than one hundred years, in a historically unprecedented series of events, we grew from a fledgling nation to world economic leaders. The American way became a way of savings, independence, and innovation. In fact, the prosperity of all other first world nations was directly related to trade relations with us.

      3. Child labor was a GOOD THING. Without the income it provided, some poorer families would have starved. By the time it was outlawed, it was already practically nonexistent because the great economic booms of the 19th Century had made it unnecessary.

      4. The tales of dastardly “robber barons” are mythological. The legendary “price cutting” that forms the foundation of this historical revisionism never existed. In fact, these so called “robber barons” improved the lives of millions of citizens by providing cheaper alternatives to vital products and breaking up the market manipulation of more avaricious companies who in turn are responsible for the spread of this prime example of misinformation (surprising?, isn’t it). And yes, they profited from it. Those scoundrels!

      5. Federal regulations have done nothing to promote the safety of workers. All progress can be attributed to the advancement of technology over time, especially in the field of safety systems non-existent during the pre-industrial age. The good businessman insures the safety of his workforce, for the efficiency of his business depends upon it. Before the advent of OSHA, workplace safety incidents steadily decreased, but after it was founded, injuries and fatalities increased. This is because Federal regulations required companies to spend money on inefficient changes, pooling money from the budget for useful advances. In the end, it is the responsibility of the worker to choose a suitable and safe place to work. As for minimum wage laws… They only undermine the workers by shrinking the labor pool and lowering the chances of employment for inexperienced workers.

      6. The country was already handed over to “Big Money” in 1913 with the illegal adoption of the Federal Reserve Act. Since then, “Big Money”=”Big Government”. Don’t you see? The control of government causes the control of money. Not the other way around.

      The More You Know!

      • Nuggett

        Revolving door.  The federal government, for me, is like a group sumo wrestling competition amongst large corporations.  The corporation sends in some of their best, biggest wrestlers to win the big show.  There is stealing, bribing, insider trading, etc….kinda like everywhere else just on a more grandiose level with more at stake.  After a few battles, they have some drinks and discuss the things with which they all can agree on…will ferrel was funny in that movie, I love the beatles, Frederick the great of prussia was a great leader, etc….of course some aren’t as amicable because of what they believe threatens them morally or their “way of life.”  

      • Tuna Ghost

        If this is satire, it’s pretty damn good

        • Mr Willow

          Unfortunately, it isn’t. 

          I’ve been having a rather long, involved, and irritating conversation with him over the past couple of days  (http://disinfo.com/2012/02/anti-u-n-agenda-21-activists-gain-influence-across-u-s/#comment-429645012 )

          He’s totally serious.

          • Tuna Ghost

            My favorite line is “I haven’t mistaken anything.”  Obviously the italics are mine, but that’s how I read it originally.  

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            wow… read much of that, and you have some intense patience.

            Props to you.

      • Mr Willow

        You didn’t live in the 19th century.

        And I suppose you did?

        You’ve never studied the 19th century. 

        That’s a pretty big assumption.

        You know nothing about it other than what was siphoned through the feeding tube while you sat with head lolling back, eyes glazed over in hazy stupefaction. 

        Right, and let me guess. . . all of the ‘right and proper’ information happens to be in your possession? 

        That’s convenient. 

      • Tuna Ghost

        The environment of 19th century America was one of the most prosperous times in the history of human civilization. In a little more than one hundred years, in a historically unprecedented series of events, we grew from a fledgling nation to world economic leaders.

        yeah, but America did it on the backs of slaves, while at the same time they would sometimes give an indigenous tribe a full half-hour head start before ripping up the treaties and sending in the cavalry.  I mean for christ’s sake we’re trying to have a civilization here, guy.  

        The good businessman insures the safety of his workforce, for the efficiency of his business depends upon it.   

        This is such a naive view of how companies are actually run that it would be adorable if it weren’t such a dangerous idea for silly people to take seriously.

         

    • Ulysses1

      please don’t forget about ‘big military’- which accounts for something like 40% of every dollar spent by your government. 40% more in the budget would account for a lot of debt!

  • Liquidself

    Does this article mean disinformation has officially become a Ron Paul supporter?

    • paulbot2012

      Have you ever read disinfo before? It’s always been a Ron Paul supporter.

      • Liquidself

         I have been reading it regularly for a couple of years actually.  I never had that impression before.  Articles focusing on Ron Paul always seemed to elicit a lot of contentious debate, and the articles I ve seen so far have never been clearly pro or con.

      • Liquidself

         But here s the kicker.  I don t like Ron Paul.  and I am very tired of all of his man baby apologists.  He s not a libertarian – and at this point it s clear that he never will be.  He isn’t spawning a revolution either.  The revolution is occuring,  and liars like RP are not a part of it.   He apes the proper view for the wrong reasons.  He s a con artist.  He ll never be anything more than that.  All I can see on the RP supporter side are people who should be going to the extreme democrat side. but have no balls to change their position.  He s not going to be president.  Neither is Romney.  and here s the real kicker,  I don t  like Mr. Obama at all.

  • erikgrad

    Adding one for you:

    (27) I am not a fan of his newsletters from the 1990s; either he was aware of the racist content, or totally incompetent as a leader to review them himself.

    • Emc_0002

       I guess within 76 years people cant make a single mistake.

      We all know he didnt write them, not only is it not his writing style but it doesnt go with anything else he has ever said in politics, interviews, books, etc. So lets get past 20 and 30 year old newsletters and focus on something with substance, he already apologized for not screening all the newsletter content decades ago.

      • Marcboss6

         we all know he didnt write them? so you were there? I wasnt. I dont know any such thing.

      • erikgrad

        They can make a single mistake, just not one that tremendous, and still be President of the United States.  It does ‘go with’ things he has said in the past, particularly regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  One sample of this: 
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

        He is a sleeper racist, and as such has been hailed by white Nationalists around the globe.  He cannot and will not be President.

        • ThinkBeforeYouType

          Are you a complete idiot? Apparently so, since it would appear that you did not even bother to read the very article which you linked to:

          “Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today’s race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.”The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities,” he said. “They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there’s a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don’t ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems.”

          • erikgrad

            I am completely aware what I linked to…he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The Civil Rights act did not determine in what proportion minorities go to jail for drug offenses. Allowing re-segregation will not change it either. It is an excuse he uses to appeal to the masses, while still meeting the desires of his white Nationalist base (that goes back much further than his popularity in recent years).

          • Emc_0002

            It is just as immoral to force people to serve those they dont want to serve on their OWN property, as it is to not serve people based on race/religion or whatever else.

          • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Oh so now any rumor the pentagon or media conjurs is just by default true and part of your bs argumentation I see.  This is circular reasoning and based on unsubstantiated rumor at that.  Your posts are one giant red herring stream designed to smear and avoid what Dr. Paul is actually about by laying down endless emotional trip wires.  

          • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            @ ThinkBeforeYouType.  Many of the shills on here indulge in this technique expecting that their cumulative smear will overcome Dr. Paul’s actual perspective.  It only works on the intellectually lazy.   They do this with just about every post on disinfo.com that supports Dr. Paul one iota.  It doesn’t matter that he is the obvious target of “disinforation” by mainstream media, that he is being defrauded of vote counts in every caucus, that his platform signals the beginning of the American Revolution (doesn’t have to be violent)  They most likely are one of the bots paid by the pentagon to produce endless trolling posts saying nothing and attempting to sway people through creating false “majorities” online to kick in the herd mentality that is fostered by the same government Dr. Paul is opposed too.  Or they are just cynical and want to tear down anything that require a minute shift from their outright slavery.

            (http://www.gnosticmedia.com/larken-rose-interview-pt-2-government-the-fallacy-of-ad-verecundiam-pt-1-136/)  Larkin Rose’s strident Prose tells the tale best.Thank you for posting.

      • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        @91954a03490fea36a133a47e146d627c:disqus  You are far to reasonable for this board I’m afraid.  For those dedicated to attacking and slandering no matter what, evidence is not that important.  Just lining up for their illogical 2 minute hate is all they are here for apparently.  They don’t even have the courtesy to argue policy, they resort to media gossip and are exactly this people this post is describing.  

        • Tuna Ghost

          They don’t even have the courtesy to argue policy,…

          Oh that is complete bullshit and you know it, you disingenuous potato.  His batshit retarded policies are constantly being recognized as such on Disinfo, most notably repealing the Civil Rights Act, getting rid of the EPA, and generally allowing corporations to do as they please because, shit, we can trust them to do the right thing, can’t we?  

          This can be shown as false by looking at virtually any article on Ron Paul.

      • Tuna Ghost

        We all know he didnt write them, not only is it not his writing style but it doesnt go with anything else he has ever said in politics, interviews, books, etc.

        Except for that Salon interview in which he said certain TSA agents didn’t “look American” to him, on the grounds that they could “hardly speak English”.  

        But you’re right.  It could have been his one mistake, and everybody gets one, right?  Lets look at his politics.  He apparently thinks the right to not allow certain people (certainly not minorities, I mean, that’s just crazy) is more important that the very real, very obvious reality of what will happen if the Civil Rights Act was repealed.  

    • Zeek

       Yeah, he’s racist.  He wants to release every minority who was put in prison for drugs.  He’s a bigot.  He wants to bring our troops home (who mostly consist of minorities and poor whites). 

       

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JR6QMHI5D3L6Z4JJBSAKO4KJBE brock

        That’s because the massive plutocracy that will be unleashed by his economic policies will need a tremendous number of new wage slaves.

        But seriously, Paul has so many shortcomings I really wish people would lay off the racist bit. Paul is not a racist! He might be vaguely white supremacist, but that’s not really the same thing.

        I’ve almost resigned myself to liking Paul again because I don’t think he has any real intentions of being President. I think he’s just doing the same thing he’s been doing for the last several decades: being a mouthpiece for the Libertarian party and trying to dovetail them into the Republican party. He actually seemed a little flustered when he did so well in the first primary–like ‘shit, I may have a horse in this race.’

        I’m a big fan of social libertarianism so I love seeing him out there with all of those stick-up-the-ass republicans espousing crazy-to-them social libertarian ideas. However, I think his version of economic libertarianism would put us on the fast track to a 2nd and ultimately 3rd world nation.

        • Jin The Ninja

          “Paul is not a racist! He might be vaguely white supremacist, but that’s not really the same thing.”

          note before i get jumped by the pro-paul camp, this is BROCK’s comment i am citing.

          no, while white supremacy may at cursory glance appear as ethnocentric and not racist, any cogent analysis (or even an understanding of the definition) would clarify the position. Active derision and violence (white nationalism) is in fact racist, and is the poster child for the definition.

          I am NOT suggesting rp is racist, BUT i am saying YOU are suggesting he IS.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JR6QMHI5D3L6Z4JJBSAKO4KJBE brock

             I think believing in white supremacy and promoting white supremacy are two different things but I can’t really think of a word that differentiates between the two. I think in Paul’s case it may just be a generational thing. I grew up in the south so I’ve had a lot of exposure to people’s Paul’s age and most of them grew up in an openly racist climate where it was just assumed white people were superior.

            So when I say ‘might be vaguely white supremacist’ that’s what I mean. That he MIGHT have some of that lingering sentiment. I don’t mean he might have attended a few white supremacist rallies or anything like that.

            So I suppose it boils down to how you’re going to define racism. In a very strict interpretation we’re probably all racist to some degree.

          • Jin The Ninja

            “white people were superior”

            this is the historical and academic definiton of racism in America. it really isn’t seperate from racism. like i said before, ethnocentricity/ethnic nationalism is different than racism, racism is the cultural, social and legal stuctures that serve to oppress a minority based on race or ethnic affiliation. White nationalists believe ‘america for white people’ or some other nonsense, which refers to violently kicking out or killing ethnic people.

            no, not everyone is racist, many are predjudiced certainly.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JR6QMHI5D3L6Z4JJBSAKO4KJBE brock

            OK, I’ll concede that ‘vaguely white supremacist’ equates with vaguely racist. But I’m only even making that judgment based on my experiences with people of his generation in the south. I have no doubt that he’s had to deal with racist supporters, but nothing I’ve seen on the subject is particularly convincing in painting him as actually being a white supremacist or a racist. It’s inevitable that he’s had dealings with them given he’s a politician in Texas.

            My main point is that he’s got plenty of other faults that he’ll proudly admit to so picking one that’s untenable is a red herring.

      • Mr Willow

        He wants to release every minority who was put in prison for drugs.

        And then wants to allow businesses to openly discriminate against them.

        • Emc_0002

           It’s much better when we force those same business owners to PRETEND they’re not racist.

          A business owner should have the right to choose who he serves and who enters his property. Only public land and government buildings should have these types of laws, because we all pay for them. Do you pay for the private business owners property? No. So why should the government, or any of us try to force our beliefs on him?

          In some cases a racist business owner might prohibit minorities from entering his property.. but in others a black business owner might prohibit those same racists from entering his property. Everyone wants to try and pick out the worst possible outcome from this instead of focusing on FREEDOM and PROPERTY RIGHTS. When business owners don’t serve certain groups, they lose money, especially in todays society when word of bad business practices spread easily through the media and word of mouth.

          • Mr Willow

            Yeah, yeah. . . property rights, and blah, blah, blah. 

            “Freedom and liberty for those who can afford it!” 

            So re-segregation is the answer? I seem to remember people demanding segregation ended. It had a name. Now if I could just remember. . . oh, yeah: the Civil Rights movement. 

            ‘The Government’ didn’t pass the eponymous legislation of its own accord. It wasn’t a bunch of congressmen sitting at a table and plotting how to take away someöne’s ‘right to discriminate’. It was the will of the people that at first asked bigots politely to change, protested when they refused, got arrested, sprayed with fire-hoses, and beaten bloody, then asked the government to uphold their freedom from discrimination. 

            In advocating ‘property rights’ you welcome a return to an era that just about everyone agrees was oppressive to those who didn’t own property.

            It is only allowing ‘FREEDOM’ for the haves to exercise tyranny over the have-nots. 

            “Don’t tread on me by restricting my ability to tread upon others!”

          • Tuna Ghost

            THANK YOU.  

          • Jay G

            “Don’t tread on me by restricting my ability to tread upon others!”  Exactly Ron Paul’s point.   If you don’t believe you or the people around you can handle true personal freedom and liberty then I would understand you being afraid businesses and people would discriminate.  That’s okay, if an apple store were to openly discriminate a minority, even if it were legal, do you see it turning out very well for the company?  That’s his point; liberty is us coming to a higher standard ourselves instead of it being dictated to us as a law.

          • Drew

            Except.  It.  Wasn’t.  Dictated.  To.  Us.  The people dictated it to the government.  It was called the “Civil Rights Movement.”  A movement of the people demanding change.  That’s how it works (or is supposed to):  the will of the people determining the rule of law.

            Furthermore, in your example of a discriminatory apple store, yes it can turn out well for them, if there are enough well-to-do people left over that agree with the store’s policy, which there are.  If the rich white male likes that there’s a place he can go to for apples without having to rub shoulders with those icky blacks/Mexicans/gays/women/whatever, then you can bet he’ll support the hell out of a place like that.  That’s how segregation was able to stay in place for almost a century after slavery ended.  And there are definitely still a number of people NOW who would support such practices.

          • Mr Willow

            Yeah, you’re missing the part about others being subjected to mental and emotional trauma, which they would be absolutely powerless to retaliate against short of physically harming owners of discriminatory establishments and burning those establishments to the ground—which then turns into some senseless  uproar concerning ‘the rights of the property owner’ to willfully treat a group of people as if they were some degenerate race, not worthy of the classification of ‘human’. 

            It is a lose-lose for one group of people (those being discriminated against, if you needed that pointed out), because they’re supposed to just sit back and be the punching bag—verbal and physical (I wonder if lynchings will make a comeback?)—of bigots and racists because of how they were born without any recourse in the matter. 

            In such an environment one of two things are going to happen: either those being discriminated against are going to petition the ruling body—composed of publicly elected ‘representatives’—established to uphold justice and equality, or they are going to violently dismantle the power structure. 

            The fact of the matter is that America was founded (hypocritically, I might add) under the auspices of ensuring equality amongst all people (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” that whole thing). In favouring the rights of property owners over the rights of others, you create a fundamental and systematic inequality, where the owners dictate their will to the masses (because there’s only so much ‘property’ to go around). 

            We already had a system like that, it was called feudalism. 

          • -nightman-

            you and everyone else here are missing the point. paul is an idealist; it obvious that a libertarian philosophy will foster a movement of virtue in america, because it forces people to act within the law. the law is what protects. the law is abstract and lofty in its concept for all those who are worried about ‘hurt feelings’ and all of that nonsense. his veiws are susinct with the concept of self improvement and “american exceptionalism”. even the poorest person in america, given he/she lived in a libertarian society where knowledge and transparency are the keystone in its foundation, could not be taken advantage of; that is the real issue, isnt it; the poor being exploited?

          • Mr Willow

            Virtue based upon what? Mindless self-interest and more consumerism. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but that is how we’ve become so amoral, wasteful, and apathetic to begin with. 

            The ‘Libertarian’ mindset is that we are inherently selfish, and to act selfishly is the highest virtue of all. It neglects, however, the effects of wanton egotism. We shouldn’t care that people are dying from lack of medical care, shouldn’t care that people are forced into employment because of the industrial, consumerist lifestyle that was brought about precisely by mass-production and the advent of factories—factories that neglected the basic well-being of their workers, which is what caused the formulation of Socialism to begin with—shouldn’t care that if left to their own devices all the various companies would have left this nation one barren plain completely devoid of any resource whatsoever that would make us able to live here at all. The lumber companies wanted to cut down every forest, to the last tree, mining companies wanted to blast the Grand Canyon into rubble in search of gold. The air was filthy in the cities, because of smokestacks, the water was undrinkable, because there was an utter disregard for the well-being of society as a whole. What about all the quaint, though equally useless, ‘medical’ devices that accomplished absolutely nothing (light therapy machines, elixers, etc.)? 

            And what law? Based upon who’s interpretation? With the aims of protecting whom? And (as sonicbphunct pointed out above) enforceable by whom? Who’s going to protect people’s property? Well, Propertarian (a more apt title) ideology says ‘not the government’, so the owners of that property, I suppose. so we just have everyone own a gun (except those people who can’t afford one), and turn America back to the Old West. Those that violates the ‘rights’ of others is simply shot by the person ‘violated’. Shucks, howdy, doesn’t that sound like fun?

            And the matter, as pointed out, goes beyond ‘hurt feelings’. In a Propertarian world, those that own property—meaning tracts of land and places of business, not a residence—have inherently more rights than those that do not, so instead of ‘the law’ treating everyone fairly and equally, it is dictated by the owners of property. That means if you don’t own property, you are at a lower stratum of society than those that do. As I said, we already had a system like that—it was called feudalism, where private individuals, holding private tracts of land and owned private businesses, assumed the role of government (private government)—and it was rejected wholesale through revolutions and establishments of varying forms of republics (public government). And in anticipation of your inevitable mention of Stalin or Mao, may I point out what they practiced was just another form of private government, where ‘the government’ owned all the businesses, the dictator embodied the government, therefore the dictator owned the businesses. 

            And ‘American exceptionalism’ if you need to be reminded, is what gave us the imperialism of the past hundred years. (“We are the beacon of light in a world of darkness, lets go illuminate the ignorant farmers in [pick a country]“) 

            What knowledge? Provided by what entity? And how does one acquire this knowledge? There wouldn’t be any public libraries, nor public schools. So people would have to pay for knowledge, making knowledge a privilege to those with money, and who decides how much money? Well, all the people who have deemed it a virtue to be selfish, which means they set the price of knowledge high, because it is in their self-interest to gain as much money as possible. And because it is the same interest of all the factory owners, and farm owners—the ‘job creators/providers’—they have set all their wages ridiculously low, because the less they have to pay to workers, the more they get to keep for themselves, which means the majority of the populace—those working for the owners of property—won’t be able to afford the knowledge necessary to ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps’, so they are still poor, working in a factory, or on a farm, or in a mine. 

            No thank you. 

          • Eric Roberts

            Yeah…because Jim Crow never really happened, right?

          • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Eric, I think EMC has explained Dr. Paul’s position concisely below but I would be happy to offer you this example of what Dr. Paul actually believes versus the strawman arguments that are used to unfairly attack and disparage him.  
            Below he presents that he supported removal of Jim Crow but explains further how the nature of government is to overstep it’s bounds and will use any excuse to do so, no matter how well intentioned they make it sound.  Please read below and respond.Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it “undermine[d] the concept of liberty” and “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.””If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms,” Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then.”The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution “recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Paul was the only member who voted “no.””Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today’s race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.”The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities,” he said. “They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there’s a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don’t ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

          • Drew

            ” Do you pay for the private business owners property? No.”

            Actually, considering that so many “private businesses” in my area, and most places in the country, rely on or readily consume some form of government subsidy, I do pay for most private business owners’ property through my taxes.  Grocery stores (food stamps/Medicare/Medicaid/WIC), pharmacies, farms, gas stations (and the entire oil industry), tech start-ups, art galleries, and even sports stadiums (easiest way to get government funding?  say you’re going to build a sports stadium, even though they cost cities more than they bring in).  That’s not even counting how all the other businesses that don’t directly benefit from them are benefitted having more money to spend on those businesses.

            You might not like it, but if those businesses want to lap up all that government money (and believe me, they do), then I think they forfeit whatever dubious “right” they have to deny other people their rights for whatever arbitrary reason.

          • Drew

             *cough* “are benefitted from people having more money…”

        • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          He doesn’t believe the Federal Government needs to intercede.  If someone wants to be put out of business because of their own choices than we should allow people to make their own mistakes.  Why do you continue to ignore this obvious fact and testament by Dr. Paul?  Do you really think Pizza Hut is going to bring out the “White Only” cheese pizza and expect to keep customers?  See this is why it’s obvious that many of the folks constantly attacking Dr. Paul do not care to address his real positions whatsoever and instead fill any pro paul post with nothing but vitriol, ad hominem and straw man attacks. 

          • Eric Roberts

            Do you not read history books? They did exactly that throughout the south and the only thing that stopped it was government intercession via the Civil Rights Act on 1964.  Quit making up excuses for his racism and fascism…

          • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Eric, I think EMC has explained Dr. Paul’s position concisely below but I would be happy to offer you this example of what Dr. Paul actually believes versus the strawman arguments that are used to unfairly attack and disparage him.  

            Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it “undermine[d] the concept of liberty” and “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.””If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms,” Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then.”The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution “recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Paul was the only member who voted “no.””Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today’s race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.”The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities,” he said. “They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there’s a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don’t ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

          • Mr Willow

            See this is why it’s obvious that many of the folks constantly attacking Dr. Paul do not care to address his real positions whatsoever and instead fill any pro paul post with nothing but vitriol, ad hominem and straw man attacks.

            Are you fucking serious!? Don’t you dare try to pull that shit on me. 

            I have put forward very legitimate, policy-based criticism of Dr. Paul on more than one occasion*. Specifically, that his domestic economic policy essentially makes the government absolutely impotent in its enforcement of any rights whatsoever that don’t apply to corporation owners, which would serve to give Corporate America complete and total control of every sector of business relations and its effect on the public—which means the complete privitisation of environmental affairs (and given private enterprise’s constant destruction of nature for the past century doesn’t instill a whole lot of confidence in their ability to effectively preserve it at any capacity, the complete privitisation of education, and I don’t know if you watched the video concerning how that’s worked out in Chilé (http://disinfo.com/2012/02/student-protests-for-a-new-society-in-chile/ ), but all indications point toward it being an utter disaster, which means a complete privitisation of the police department and fire department (want to be protected in the case of home invasion, mugging, or fire, well, you have to pay for it now), which means the abolition of every worker and minority right that have been fought for since before the founding of the United States (child labour? making a comeback. want to work in a safe environment? safety equipment and product testing hurts profits, so too bad. I wonder if women will still be able to vote?).

            To reference Frank’s post above, we’ve been there, and it resulted in an opulent oligarchy that subjected the remainder of society to all forms of oppression, misery, and death, which caused the public to petition their government for grievances, which resulted in the instatement of the various regulations you are now arguing to remove. 

            Do you really think Pizza Hut is going to bring out the “White Only” cheese pizza and expect to keep customers? 

            I’ve used this argument before: Because I find their labour policies atrocious, I have never bought an Apple product. Ever. Last I heard, they were still in business. 

            Once businesses grow to the size of Wal-Mart, it doesn’t matter what they do, because they’ve strangled competition out of existence, so customers have nowhere else to shop. Perhaps after Civil Rights laws are repealed they’ll open ‘white only’ and ‘black only’ stores.

            Your goddamn ‘free-market’ isn’t based upon competition. That is a complete and utter lie. It is based upon the constant reduction of competition and the ultimate formations of monopolies, which are inevitably broken up either through revolt of the peasants or the legislation of government. 

            Competition is a sin — John D. Rockefeller 

            *see here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/dana-bash-snowballed/#comment-411328428

            here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/dana-bash-snowballed/#comment-411452504

            here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/deepak-chopra-i-like-ron-paul/#comment-414783405

            here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/ron-paul-and-the-liberty-of-bullies/#comment-420858695

            here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/ron-paul-and-the-liberty-of-bullies/#comment-421778398

            here: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks-here-are-20-reasons-why/#comment-421985925

            and here: http://disinfo.com/2011/12/msnbc-finally-has-a-good-ad-about-the-gi-bill-video/#comment-388184919

            [couldn’t help notice, finding those, that more than one was a reply to you]

            And before you begin your farce concerning ‘true’ capitalism and ‘false’ capitalism, I have already gone through that too: http://disinfo.com/2012/01/crony-capitalism-and-the-history-of-bailouts/#comment-420185049

            I have had quite about enough of this cult of personality that masquerades as thoughtful discourse and revolutionary ideals, that materialises as the parroted talking points of ‘freedom and liberty’ (which only means freedom and liberty for those who can afford it), ‘end the FED’ (which I have said I agree with), and some variation of ‘kill the police state/end the drug war’ (which I also support), and that asserts any criticism is either an indication of approval or support of our current socio-economic and political situation—based upon nothing but a desire to guilt said critic into Paul support—or is somehow some conspiracy to undermine liberty, or destroy freedom, or whatever else. 

            Such reactions to criticism should indicate that he is being admired with (quasi-)religious adoration, not on any cerebral level.

          • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “cult of personality that masquerades as thoughtful discourse and revolutionary ideals…”   “Such reactions to criticism should indicate that he is being admired with (quasi-) religious adoration, not on any cerebral level.” 

            I will read through your points and respond in time as obviously you have cited 10 different articles which I will have to comb through to ensure your thinking is in fact valid and sourced.
            Until then why do you feel the need to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with your perspectives on the matter must in fact be engaging in “quasi-religious adoration”?  
            Your presumption is that Dr. Paul would allow total desecration and dominance from corporations by removing the last vestiges of control in the name of opening up free market competition.  
            Have you not noticed that this is already taking place?  You do realize that corporations are considered people now and have no cap on the amount of money they can contribute to sway our political processes?  Did you know that Ron Paul opposes this?  This one fact runs contrary to your assumptions and frankly destructive prognostications (circular reasoning and confusing cause and effect is what I am a getting from you here).  I will investigate further.  In the interim please try to avoid your nervous tick of lambasting any and all of a particular group (composition fallacy) simply because they see the world differently. (if you can)
            Compositon Fallacy.
            Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.= Logic Fail.

          • Mr Willow

            The only reason he opposes corporate personhood is because that involves the federal government having its hand in anything. 

            Corporate America has been lobbying for the past couple decades to have regulations removed, including the restrictions placed on them from donating an obscene amount of money to political candidates, which is why ‘corporate personhood’ was necessary to claim an overt (and legal) control over the political process. 

            But it won’t matter if they are legally considered ‘persons’ if all the regulations restricting them from destroying the environment, subjecting workers to demoralising labour conditions, and monopolising ‘the market’ are removed. To remove them was their entire purpose for bribing congressmen. 

            As to the notion of Paul supporters are the subjects of a cult of personality, I have been around religious fundamentalists enough (middle and high school, unfortunately) to recognise it. All thought comes down to defense of the Idea, regardless of any surrounding facts, and the defense is generally centered around a few valid arguments, but mainly appeals to emotions such as guilt and fear. 

            *i.e.*
            “Jesus preached love and compassion. It doesn’t matter that God the Father’s doctrine calls for the stoning of gays (among other things). How can you not be a Christian? What, you don’t want to burn in hell do you? (or, “By being against Jesus, who preached love and compassion, you are for Satan!”)

            “Ron Paul preaches freedom and liberty (end of the police state in the form of NDAA and the PATRIOT Act, end of the drug war, etc. etc.). It doesn’t matter that his domestic policy will return business practices to the 19th century (without government interference). How can you not be a Ron Paul supporter? You don’t want to live in a state of tyranny, do you? (or, “By not supporting Ron Paul, who preaches freedom and liberty, you are supporting the ‘status quo’.)

            In the former case, I am not ‘for Satan’, because I don’t believe in Satan, and in the latter, I am not ‘for the status quo’ because I am disillusion not only with our economic system, but also our political system, and think we can effectively move past a Republic into a more directly democratic and equal form of governance. (as I have described before)

          • Tuna Ghost

            pearls before swine, Mr Willow.  I have this fear that Camron will be revealed to be a young man who is cognitively impaired, and we’ll all feel just terrible about ourselves.

          • Mr Willow

            That would be awful. . . 

            Still, at this point I don’t even think it’s worth debating my point with him when I have to retread old ground every. single. time. 

          • Tuna Ghost

            Why do you continue to ignore this obvious fact and testament by Dr. Paul?

            Oh, we’re well aware of it, friend.  We focus on the violation of the right to not be discriminated against because one is a minority, because, you know, that’s more important than the pissant desire to be able to…not let certain people into one’s business.

          • Jay G

            If you think the Government has to regulate our behavior because we cannot then you are in the wrong country my friend.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            I’d like to believe that, but the history of this country speaks otherwise.  

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Thanks.  This was very funny.

    ” . . . a fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute . . . “?  The same Ludwig von Mises whose failed theories underly Britain’s austerity-induced economic contraction?

    Paul has some good things to say about protecting civil liberties and avoiding uncecessary and messy foreign entaglements.  So I well understand that there are reasons someone might vote for him.

    But his comical misreading of economic history is not one of them.  Can’t Paul get any more credible spokespeople than this?  It’s becoming kind of embarrassing.  Surely Paul can do better than this.

    • InTheDoldrums

      As soon as I read Von Mises institute, I just thought “Well fuck this guy.”

    • http://twitter.com/DanielReasor Daniel Reasor

      Paul’s economics are essentially a cross-Atlantic von Mises transplant.  You’re supposed to see the word “Institute” in the title and mistake it for some sort of place of higher learning or clinical research, instead of just another screwball think tank putting on airs.

      • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Like Ga. Tech?

        • Calypso_1

          Wow – if I had any doubts about the pathology before, they are gone now.  Please stop getting hit in the head – it only gets worse.

          • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            The hurt dog yelps.  Let me clarify.  

             Ga. Tech where bright minds become fully indoctrinated to the aims of their future masters.  The War Pigs feeding trough.   

          • Calypso_1

            associative looseness

          • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            You started it, I clarified my position.  Your point oh anonymous douche?

  • MarkK

    Crap, opinionated post.  File cylindrically…

  • Andrew

     Does this apply to everyone who isn’t a Republican and thus can’t vote for his nomination?

    • Liam_McGonagle

      Some states are open primary or caucus, so those folks don’t have to be registered members.

      But regardless, if Paul was looking for another counter-productive strategy to torpedo whatever latent goodwill might have been out there, I say “Mission accomplished.”

  • Revelo

    It’s ubiquitous on article comments sections, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen an post that’s entire purpose is to present 26 different and contradictory straw man arguments.

    • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Break it down for us Revelo.  Prove anything you’ve just muttered.

      • Revelo

        Straw Man Fallacy: 

        Straw Man Fallacy: A fallacy committed when an arguer (a) summarizes his opponent’s argument but the summary is an exaggerated, ridiculous, or oversimplified representation of the opponent s argument that makes the opposing argument appear illogical or weak; (b) the arguer refutes the weakened, summarized argument; and (c) the arguer concludes that the opponent s actual argument has been refuted.”Examples:
        1-26

        • http://wearechangeatlanta.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          I would argue that they are not actually “exaggerated”, or “ridiculous”.  You’re welcome to your perspective but I disagree.  I find the points outlined to be a fair representation of what Dr. Paul offers as compared to the other candidates.  If you disagree please choose a particular issue and argue your position.  It’s not enough to say for example,  “They all are, take my word for it”.  Also what contradictions of any do you note?  Provide one example, a generalized label does not convince me of your reasoning.

          • Revelo

            That’s called “moving the goalposts.”

  • Riky Jazzercise

    The reason’s I’d never vote for Ron Paul (admittedly he has a few good ideas)

    1. He’s anti women’t rights.

    2. He wants to cut all social programs

    3. He’s racist, and yes it was confirmed that he reviewed the content and signed off on all those    newsletters.

    4. He’s so crazily obsessed with Ayn Rand that he named his kid after her. 

    5. Why in God’s name would there even have to be a 5?  

    • Andrew

       Why in God’s name didn’t you put letting the market take care of the environment at #1?

      • Calypso_1

        We could start talking about Green Libertarianism….but then we might have to get into  why Paul is not the Libertarian Party nominee for President.  Or why the self-appointed Paulite spokespeople feel that hammering campaign planks and personality-cult adoration is addressing actual issues.

        • Jin The Ninja

          green libertarianism IS interesting.

    • Jay G

      Try doing a little research on what you are commenting about or at least combing through the posts of this article and you should find enough information so you don’t sound like an opinionated FOX pundit with nothing useful to say.

  • Frank

    Ron Paul is the new Ralph Nader. Not in terms of policy or ideology, but in his role as the “fuck you” candidate that dissatisfied voters flock to, not because they necessarily agree with his policies, but because they’re frustrated with the mainstream choices.

    In Paul’s case, a handful of good ideas (reining in our rampant militarism, ending the failed War on Drugs, etc.) trick people into swallowing a whole bunch of bad ideas (getting rid of minimum wage and child labor laws, ending environmental protection, dismantling the government, going back to the gold standard, etc.). Even some liberals and progressives have been brought over to his cause, which is a textbook example of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” These people are like a sick man who refuses treatment because he doesn’t like his doctor. 

    Liberty and justice for those that can afford it.
    Big Business über alles.

    • Andrew

      Except Nader didn’t run as a Democrat.

      • sonicbphuct

         which is why the last time i voted, it was for Nader – in 2000 and 2004. But that just gets me started on the silliness of voting.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Not in terms of policy or ideology, but in his role as the “fuck you” candidate that dissatisfied voters flock to…

      With even more pronounced results, I bet.  Ron Paul isn’t going to get the GOP nomination, but I’ll bet he runs anyway on another ticket.  That’s going to take a huge chunk out of the Republican votes.  It’ll take some from the Democrats as well, but I’ll wager not nearly as much.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/5OQFBZ26C3VQ5ONGZGDBDY4BUU Mark A

    Woods is right in that it is crazy to vote for a mainstream politician at this point. Do you really think they are good for anything? I admire Ron Paul, who brings up good points about drugs and war, but his libertarianism repels me. I’m voting for Rocky Anderson or the Green Party.

  • Redacted

    I’m not sure what this “vote” thing is.

  • Laws456

    I’d like to see him win just because…All of them, including Paul are uber capitalists. The system wins again.

  • Laws456

    Everyone should vote for Paul. Lol

  • MoralDrift

    Great debate guys and gals! Pro vs. Anti Ron Paul threads are always good on this site. Lots of good points on both sides I will say…

    However, no matter what we think about Ron Paul….He isnt getting elected…some corporate asshat is and the country is going to shit. Romney or Obama…hmmmm which flavor of tyranny tastes better…..

    That we are even debating this….while the rest of the country has already moved on..and the contest between the lesser of two evils will soon commence…reveals the simple fact that we are all totally fucked

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.leversee Kevin Leversee

    Ron Paul in 2012! may America wake up and save itself

21