 |
StrategyTalk.org
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 4024
Location: East Coast USA
|
 Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: The Ron Paul Revolution |
 |
|
Ron Paul won the first two Republican debates, according to many polls. He is leading the Presidential Pack on YouTube and other social networking sites. His positions on the issues are gaining traction among ordinary voters, but are anathema to the big government corporatist Republican fat cat crowd, which has made some clumsy attempts to ban him from upcoming debates. The mass media has studiously ignored him.
If the trajectory continues, Ron Paul will be the 2008 election cycle's Howard Dean- a true grass roots candidate that the establishment can't afford to have win. As Dean was cut down by "the scream" that was endlessly played on network news for two weeks until his candidacy was broken, the long knives are being sharpened for Ron Paul. He was set up for a staged attack by Rudy Giuliani in the South Carolina debate, when Giuliani's microphone was mysteriously kept alive when it was Paul's turn to speak. But Paul is fighting back..
Lake Jackson's Paul stirs GOP presidential race
| Quote: |
On Thursday Paul held a news conference with the former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, who retired in 2004 and wrote a book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. The book suggests that U.S. policies in the Middle East have contributed to retaliation by the terrorists.
Paul challenged Giuliani to read the Scheuer book. |
IMO, Ron Paul won the exchange with Giuliani in the minds of the average observer, hands down. No reasonable person thinks that we were attacked because they hate our freedom.
| Quote: | He told a reporter from Kuwait, who had suggested that part of the U.S. problem in the Middle East was its "blind support" of Israel, that he had a "good point." Paul added that "I could talk about our blind support of Saudi Arabia."
He went on to say that members of Congress have been "intimidated by the influence of AIPAC." He was referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the top pro-Israel lobbying groups in the capital. |
He will be chastised in the press for this as well, but it will only make him more popular with the common voter.
How Will They Destroy Ron Paul?
| Quote: | We all know the drill by now. Whenever a politician with character and principles throws his hat in the ring the media descends on him like feral hounds on a pork chop. It’ll be no different with Paul. The only difference is that we should all be aware of what’s really going on.
Did you see the Republican debates?
Paul won hands-down. He stood out in a crowd of colorless toadies and became an overnight sensation on the internet. In fact, an ABC survey showed that Paul won the first debate with an 85% majority; while C-SPAN showed him at 70%. Maybe the stats are just a fluke of internet voting, but it’s sure made the boys in the boardrooms nervous.
Right now, the right wing think tanks are probably buzzing like a hornets nest. They have their work cut out for them. The sleeves are rolled up, the ash trays are full, and America’s best propagandists are working out the details for a full-blown assault on Ron Paul. They want to take him down now, before he can cause any more trouble. |
Ron Paul will be on Maher tonight. I'll be on his website making a donation.
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adam_Smith
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 864
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
From one of the quoted articles:
| Quote: | America’s best propagandists are working out the details for a full-blown assault on Ron Paul. They want to take him down now, before he can cause any more trouble.
My guess is that they will use a similar strategy to what they used on John Kerry, that is---keep it simple---attack on 3 fronts and repeat the charges from every soapbox in America. In Kerry’s case, the mantra was as follows:
1. Kerry "flip-flops"
2 He’s a Massachusetts liberal.
3 He faked his war injuries to look like a hero. |
Actually there is a number four: Ron Paul is an intellectual. Eugene Robinson makes this point today in the WaPo with respect to Al Gore: | Quote: | An Egghead for the Oval Office
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 1, 2007; Page A15
Al Gore has been in town launching his new book, "The Assault on Reason," and you could have predicted the buzz: Is he about to jump into the race? What you probably wouldn't have predicted is the counter-buzz that Gore, poor fellow, is just too ostentatiously smart to be elected president.
In the book, you see, Gore betrays familiarity with history, economics, even science. He uses big words, often several in the same sentence. And in public appearances he doesn't even try to disguise his erudition. These supposedly are glaring shortcomings that should keep Gore on the sidelines, rereading Gibbon and exchanging ideas about the structure of the cosmos with Stephen Hawking. |
It is true that anti-intellectualism can be a potent force in American politics, although I think it largely latent unless energized by the kind of propagandists mentioned in the other article. In the abstract, braininess is not unattractive. The public needs to be told that the candidate has been smart enough to go against conventional thinking and to have seriously advocated some specific, radical, and therefore scary, policy ideas. Even if the candidate is no longer considering any such notions, some of the public will have become nervous over his/her ability to do so. We shall see what the opposition research comes up with in Paul's case.
_________________
"But I'm stuck like a dope with a thing called hope" -- Nelly Forbush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 4024
Location: East Coast USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 4024
Location: East Coast USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. Paul on the Wars
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwilkins
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4858
Location: West Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Smith wrote: | | It is true that anti-intellectualism can be a potent force in American politics, although I think it largely latent unless energized by the kind of propagandists mentioned in the other article. |
The claim that Kerry faked his war injuries was just a setup--a little red meat on a hook. Once Kerry took the bait and jumped into the debate, and the media started slamming Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they changed their tactic and began running John Kerry's Senate testimony that U.S. soldiers were cutting off people's heads, etc. This, of course, just wasn't true. However, once they had setup Kerry and raised their own profile, people were paying attention. With the pictures of John Kerry, and John Kerry's own voice saying these things, it didn't require any anti-intellectualism at all. It was a pretty devastating attack, but he had it coming.
JLK,
I'm interested to hear more on your governing philosophy. Ron Paul is a libertarian and a constitutionalist. I find it interesting when people start making the federal reserve argument, because it's not far from the income tax argument, or the social security argument. There is no constitutional authority for a graduated income tax either. The constitution requires uniformity or apportionment for taxes. A layer of indirection that taxes sources at a graduated rate rather than individuals while making the individual liable for the tax on the source wasn't a big part of the founding debate, and it's exceedingly unlikely that the founding fathers would have gone for it. The 16th Amendment overrules the Supreme Court's Pollock decision, and eliminates the need for apportionment on income taxes, but it doesn't mention a repeal on uniformity--such as uniform gasoline or cigarette excises. So the 16th Amendment doesn't enable a graduated rate as such. Social Security and Medicare, as the largest federal programs, do not have their own Title under the United States Code. But title 26 has a lot of interesting passages.
26 USC 3121(e) states:
| Quote: | (e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States. |
As you know, if you are not a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of Puerto Rico, the United States government claims to be sovereign over you. Yet, they incorporate this type of person into their tax code--even though they conferred citizenship upon Puerto Ricans some time ago.
Like arguing in favor of George Bush and the war in Iraq, arguing against the legality of income taxes is always more interesting than arguing for them. The "Sovereign Citizen" crowd arose out of the Vietnam War era, when people protesting the war wanted to defund it by not paying their taxes. There are some rather famous types like Irwin Schiff who made the constitutional argument and failed miserably, and others like Mitch Modeleski who made the non-resident alien argument. His theory is posited in The Federal Zone. I wouldn't bother with most of it, but there is a legal brief that's an interesting read for points and authorities, and for learning about the rules of construction (Adam Smith, it will probably give you a headache, but if you read it, you will understand much better where I am coming from when arguing international law.). Having argued this stuff before, it is also why I have argued international law and treaties, and argue that the war in Iraq, strictly speaking, is legal (that's not the same as saying it is morally right or wrong).
The ones I found most interesting dealt with the rules of construction surrounding regulations that implement statutes, and the rules surrounding publishing in the federal register. Mostly title 5 stuff. Statutes dependent upon regulations
Also, the parking ticket's de facto presumption of guilt, or a speeding ticket's trial without a jury are interesting topics. But the humdingers have to do with express prohibitions in the constitution. Namely,
| Quote: | | No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. |
When's the last time a state government paid its debts in gold or silver coins?
The founding fathers contemplated uniform excises like the gas tax or the cigarette tax and capitations, which were essentially collected as poll taxes. If you wanted to vote, you had to pay. So poor people generally didn't vote at all. It was quite a different form of government from what we have today.
When I hear the appeal to antiquity, I wonder just how far people really want to go (allusions to female suffrage or negro slavery aside). Sometimes, it's just a canard for frustration with current policy and an appeal to nostalgia. But getting rid of the federal reserve ultimately means getting rid of the IRS and social security and medicare. It doesn't seem politically like a very likely outcome. People actually think Social Security is a good thing, and that it is inherently part of the constitution as per the term "welfare" in the preamble.
Also, word to the wise: Opposing the war politically is one thing. Refusing to pay your income taxes to defund it is another. Some people have actually won on some of these legal arguments, but like violations of international law by Saddam Hussein or European politicos re the oil for food program, you will never hear about them in the media. Many more have lost their shirts fighting the IRS, and the IRS and the media publicize that stuff. They often catch criminals using tax codes when the evidence under the penal code can't be found. If you use any of that tax protester stuff and screw up even a little, they will throw the book at you and ruin your life. Seek the advice of a tax attorney. Many of them know this stuff inside and out, and make a tidy little fortune for themselves with it. The IRS isn't going to give up trillions in revenue without a fight.
If you want to argue against the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, etc. so that you can defund the U.S. military, do you fully realize what you are up against? Much of this stuff was done with the blessings of the political left.
The Congress has the authority to lay AND COLLECT taxes, not the Executive Department. Just as with the ability to regulate the value of currency, which was delegated to the Federal reserve.
I'm interested to hear what you have to say about this stuff. Is it just frustration with the war in Iraq and George Bush? Or do you really want to unwind the modern welfare state?
_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matrixx8
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 1190
Location: Amsterdam
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam_Smith wrote: | | It is true that anti-intellectualism can be a potent force in American politics, although I think it largely latent unless energized by the kind of propagandists mentioned in the other article. In the abstract, braininess is not unattractive. The public needs to be told that the candidate has been smart enough to go against conventional thinking and to have seriously advocated some specific, radical, and therefore scary, policy ideas. Even if the candidate is no longer considering any such notions, some of the public will have become nervous over his/her ability to do so. We shall see what the opposition research comes up with in Paul's case. |
Anti-intellectualism is nothing new in America. Even in the pre-Darwin age, fundamentalist religion had reason to fear independent thinkers: "The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan you bee." -- John Cotton (1642):
_________________
| Quote: | "The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."
-Voltaire
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 4024
Location: East Coast USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never looked into the arguments that the income tax is illegal, the amendment was never ratified, etc. The income tax is a fact of life; if you don't pay your taxes or file your returns you go to jail.
Ron Paul wants to do away with the income tax and has likened some tax protestors to conscientious objectors and the anti-slavery activists of the antebellum period, but he has been quite explicit that if you don't pay taxes you are likely to be severely punished. He pays his taxes.
| Quote: | | When I hear the appeal to antiquity, I wonder just how far people really want to go (allusions to female suffrage or negro slavery aside). Sometimes, it's just a canard for frustration with current policy and an appeal to nostalgia. |
Paul is going to have to adjust some of his more extreme libertarian positions if and when he rises into the ranks of viable candidates to have a chance to win. People like the idea of freedom and limited government, but they also don't want to get rid of things like the EPA. He is already showing signs of moderating, for example noting in some of the interviews that I linked that he wouldn't "target" programs such as UNICEF and that people who rely on the government (read: Social Security) wouldn't be cut off.
| Quote: |
I'm interested to hear what you have to say about this stuff. Is it just frustration with the war in Iraq and George Bush? Or do you really want to unwind the modern welfare state? |
The power of the state needs to be rolled back in general. Not to 1900 levels, but at least to where it was in the 1970s. Electing Ron Paul (assuming that he can avoid assassination by defense contractors or certain foreign interests that he would be certain to cut off) could be a step in the right direction. I'll admit that it could also be a disaster, depending on how he would implement changes, but between the economic and energy situations we are probably heading for a disaster soon anyway. I'll take the disaster without a police state to go along with it if given the choice.
Paul's main appeal is that he is the only candidate out there on the Republican side who isn't perceived by intelligent observers as a barely disguised puppet of special interests spewing disingenuous pro-war, anti-Muslim propaganda. He appeals to Goldwater Republicans. He appeals to antiwar Republicans. He appeals to young people, who don't want to die in the Middle East and appreciate his honesty. There is an analogy to Jimmy Carter that gives Ron Paul a fighting chance to make it a race.... he is perceived as a fundamentally decent, principled person running in the wake of a corrupt, immoral, extremely unpopular administration. Voters are yearning for a decent person to lead the country.
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwilkins
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4858
Location: West Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JLK wrote: | | Paul is going to have to adjust some of his more extreme libertarian positions if and when he rises into the ranks of viable candidates to have a chance to win. People like the idea of freedom and limited government, but they also don't want to get rid of things like the EPA. He is already showing signs of moderating, for example noting in some of the interviews that I linked that he wouldn't "target" programs such as UNICEF and that people who rely on the government (read: Social Security) wouldn't be cut off. |
That's kind of the conundrum. Everybody fancies their own form of tyranny. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't want to get rid of Social Security. They are hand-in-glove. The powers that be play on this, but they don't want an income tax to provide social services. They want it to have their military machine and to build cashflow channels via the tax code. That's how it goes. You can't get a little bit pregnant.
_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheryl
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3932
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ron Paul likes to present himself as something of a libertarian, and it's true that some of his voting history aligns with Libertarian Party principles.
I've had a friend visiting me the past few days who was once (but isn't currently) heavily involved in the Libertarian Party. She also lives in Texas and was wondering how a libertarian could get elected in South Texas. So we did some googling.
Although his campaign websites (why are there several?) and his congressional website are very careful not to include such information, Paul made some rather outrageous statements back in the thick of the rightwing "war on Christmas" hoo-haw in 2003.
| Quote: | | The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. |
If you look around, it also appears that Paul is in favor of forced preganancy. His position on immigration appears to be more aligned with the nativists than the libertarians.
None of these stands are posted on his campaign and congressional websites, but they certainly explain a lot about a "libertarian" candidate's electoral success in south Texas. Other parts of Paul's voting record can be explained as those areas in which the libertarian and conservative inclinations overlap. And it may be that some of this is second-hand and not indicative of Paul's true stands. But I can't find those stands, one way or another, on his official websites.
So Mr. Paul is more a conservative than a libertarian. And, to the extent he pretends to be a libertarian and is in fact a conservative, he is dishonest as well.
_________________
...And when we laugh, we're indestructible.
Joy Harjo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marc anizan
Joined: 26 Apr 2002
Posts: 2584
Location: The Canadian Far East
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So Mr. Paul is more a conservative than a libertarian. And, to the extent he pretends to be a libertarian and is in fact a conservative, he is dishonest as well. (my emphasis) |
A shocking revelation. Shakes me to the core, it does.  Whoever heard of a politician saying one thing afore he gets elected, then singing a different tune once he gets in office? My, my, my!
As the saying goes, there ought'a be a law. Truth of the matter is, there ain't!
Honest disclosure in mind, I've had a character (Dusty Rhodes) say this about that:
| Quote: | | 'I wish it was different, but hell, man, we live in a real world. You can’t make a difference if you don’t get elected in the first place. And then you have to keep getting elected, and that’s not always easy. It’s a crude way of putting it, but you have to make a lot of deals and kiss one hell of a lot of butt.' He stopped, looked for the world like a man who was wondering if he should go on, as if he had said enough already. .... 'Do you know what I told my wife about being President of the United States?' He didn’t wait for me to answer. 'I told her, forget about principles, that by the time a guy gets himself ready to run for President, he’s been fucked over so many times and made so many frigging deals that he doesn’t even remember whatever the hell he once believed in. And that don’t change none after he gets elected. And that’s what I think.' |
Sacred Cows, Righteous Beefs 2002-2006 p. 243
Sorry to be so damned cynical, but I don't put a lot of stock in what a guy/gal says when they're running for office. I kind'a sort'a look for someone who's not afraid to come out with the unvarnished truth from time to time...someone who doesn't appear to be one hundred percent programmed to come out with whatever happens to sound good.
On these grounds I like Ron Paul.
On these same grounds I dislike most (if not all) of the rest. 
_________________
Cui bono?
Thus Spake JimBob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 4024
Location: East Coast USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He calls himself a "constitutionalist," not a libertarian per se.
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marc anizan
Joined: 26 Apr 2002
Posts: 2584
Location: The Canadian Far East
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I said, | Quote: | | I kind'a sort'a look for someone who's not afraid to come out with the unvarnished truth from time to time...someone who doesn't appear to be one hundred percent programmed to come out with whatever happens to sound good. |
Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation.
But I hasten to clarify, | Quote: | | Unvarnished truth doesn't mean going over the top. |
_________________
Cui bono?
Thus Spake JimBob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheryl
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3932
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marc, have you considered that Ron Paul may be tailoring his remarks to people like you, so that they are no more sincere than anyone else's?
I know, wheels within wheels....
_________________
...And when we laugh, we're indestructible.
Joy Harjo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marc anizan
Joined: 26 Apr 2002
Posts: 2584
Location: The Canadian Far East
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cheryl wrote, | Quote: | Marc, have you considered that Ron Paul may be tailoring his remarks to people like you ... ?
|
Sure Cheryl, that is a possibility. Anything's possible, as you well know. But for sure he ain't gonna win no election if that's what he's a doing 'cause the sad truth is there just ain't many like me* left kicking around this side of the daisies.
Meanwhile, "reactions from Pakistan continue to roll in regarding the remarks of US Democratic presidential hopeful Obama that he would order unilateral military action in northern Pakistan if there were actionable intelligence on al-Qaeda and the Pakistani government refused to act on it." Another tidbit of that more than "unvarnished truth" like Tancredo was doing; leastwise to my way of thinking. Anyway, Cole goes on to provide a little detail on some of the other shenanigans the candidates are going on about. Funny as all hell until it hits you that these folk are putting a whole lot of people's lives at risk (and imho making a mockery of the democratic process in the bargain).
______________________________________
* I'm acting on the assumption that when you say "people like me" you're inferring that that's a good thing. (Damn, hope I'm right!)
_________________
Cui bono?
Thus Spake JimBob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheryl
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3932
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm all for plain talk too.
Tom Tancredo has clearly shown us that he is not fit to be president. Chalk one up for plain talk.
Obama's comments over the past few days are interesting. I'm not sure that it's just inexperience. He's trying something beyond Hillary's triangulation and George's lying.
I'm not at all happy that he's agreeing with George that we should invade other countries at our convenience or desire. But taking nukes off the table against bin Laden is a good thing. That "don't take any options off the table if you're the president" has hurt the US more lately than it's helped. It's convincing our allies that we're madmen. Nukes are useless for getting bin Laden unless (1) you have absolutely ironclad information about where he's going to be when you drop that nuke or (2) you're willing to scorch the earth all along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border where he might be. Either would be a violation of national sovereignty, an act of war, and generally irritating to other nations that might be in the fallout path.
So saying we won't use nukes in that case is a small step back towards national sanity.
Yes, I know, the president can't take any options off the table, blah blah blah. That's the conventional wisdom, the sacred cow all right. But some options are just so stupid that it doesn't hurt to take them off the table. In fact, pulling back from the madman theory of presidential power might just help the US internationally.
_____________________________
Yes, I intended "people like you" as a good thing. 
_________________
...And when we laugh, we're indestructible.
Joy Harjo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
