On the fifth of November, the American libertarian candidate for the Republican nomination, Dr Ron Paul, made history by raising an amazing $4.3 million dollars in a single day of online fundraising.
The fifth of November is, of course, the day on which an attempt was made to blow up the parliament and features prolifically in the movie V for Vendetta. The next online Ron Paul fundraiser promises to be even bigger; to be held on December 16th, the day of the Boston Tea Party.
Unlike some of his opponents, Ron Paul’s message of small government, humble foreign policy, personal freedom and low taxes is simple and coherent. It is interesting that the message — or elements of the message — evidently resonate with many people, including people who might not have identified themselves as Republicans or libertarians in the past. A Ron Paul victory would be good for the United States and good for the rest of the world. Let’s hope this is the start of something.
(And, of course, if you are Australian and you too are sick of the depredations of government, then you know who to vote for in the coming election.)
20 comments ↓
salam..
When you linked the “some” of his opponents to the Muslimmatters post, I am assuming you are referring to some of the commentators? Because the post certainly wasn’t an anti-Ron post.
I think in general Ron Paul has the most appeal to Muslims in America. In fact, opposition is quite minimal. People are willing to overlook Ron’s “anti-socialism” part for the sake of the bigger picture (many Muslims want government to play a role in alleviating poverty and providing healthcare for all). The bigger picture of course being foreign policies and privacy rights, both of which have been completely savaged by the Bush clan. And which will continue to be savaged if either of the front-runners for the Republicans– neo-Giuliani and Romney win. May God protect us from these two wild-eyed lunatics.
I meant Giuliani who you wrote about in the post. i.e. unlike Giuliani, Ron Paul has a coherent and sensible policy, etc.
Ah… got it.
i thought the name was rudy jewliani not giuliani?
Oddly enough, the other end of the anti-semitic spectrum - the White Supremacists - is also pro Ron Paul and anti Rudy.
If you hate aspects of US capitalism (eg, you don’t get treated in casualty without cash up front) you certainly don’t want to vote for a politician who wants the government to spend LESS on health etc, and who thinks the individual Billy-Bob has an inherent knowledge of how to solve all problems.
In a realistic situation, I wouldn’t fear a rollback of any and all social spending initiatives if Paul were elected. It would take years and years for him (and the libertarians that follow him) to create the situation they want. In the mean time, the rest of the world can reap the benefits of less military spending and engagement.
It would be a wise choice to support him for Republican preselection regardless of what you think of his economic policies. Regardless, though, it looks like it’s going to be a Clinton victory anyway.
I do not think he has much of a chance, he surely won’t get the Republican or Democrats nomination, so what chance does he really have?
I cannot see such a great and admirable man winning the Presidency.
I hate too post what I already Written on another thread, but I’m running out of time.
1) Ron Paul has a history of making racist comments. I’ll give you a few. If you read the Entire article You realize that I haven’t taken it out of
“our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
“only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions”
“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
2) He’s endorsed By StormFront a Neo-nazi organization. ( I particularly have a grudge about this group after they spread lies about my race and culture. Aboriginal Australian if anyone cares)
3) he doesn’t believe in a religious freedom. He wants a Christian state.
4) He’s not for civil liberties. If he held libertarian Ideals he would favor Abortion and Gay Marriage but he doesn’t .
These are all fabrications spread by socialists.
Here’s a great video by Dr Paul from 1988!
It certainly isn’t a fabrication that Stormfront and other neo-Nazi/racist organisations like him.
I’m not Ron Paul’s biggest supporter, although I recognize his virtues and his dedication to the Constitution and liberty of America are admirable even if one is not an American - and his forthrightness on monetary policy and the delusion of paying future debts with imaginary bills is refreshing.
Just to respond to Burnum, the quote you relate was written by an intern in Ron Paul’s bulletin, not his statement, and he has made that clear, though without identifying the one responsible:
In 2001, Paul took “moral responsibility” for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. The magazine defended Paul’s decision to protect the writer’s confidence in 1996, concluding, “In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations “quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....wanted=all
I wrote up a Long Response but Fire Fox crashed on me and my boss ( I don’t get much time on the internet) is looking my shoulder so I got a lengthy post somewhere else. That and my English isn’t that good (English is a second language.)
1) I suppose that if we believe Ron Paul’s change of story after his 1996 confirmation and insisted that he wasn’t a racist, then I suppose that we would also have to believe Larry Craig after he retracted his guilty plea and insisted that he definitely wasn’t gay. I mean, why would a politician lie in a way that would make him sound innocent? It’s way more plausible to believe that a politician would only lie in a way to make himself sound guilty, which can then be retracted after the fact.
2) You don’t get to claim full responsibility, and then insist that you aren’t responsible. It doesn’t work like that. If you want to claim full repsonsibility, then it should be perfectly okay to hold you responsible.
3) The fact that Ron Paul hired a ghostwriter is irrelevant. If Ann Coulter reveals that she hired a ghost writer for one of her books, does that mean that we shouldn’t blame her for any of the things that those books say? If George Bush hires a professional speech writer, does that mean that he shouldn’t be responsible for his speech?
4) The official story has a number of basic logical flaws that have never once been addressed, aside from response of “Well, he denied it, I believed him” (see point #1). For instance, how such an article could go out without Ron Paul knowing. Why no one would have written letters to the editor in response. Why Ron Paul wouldn’t have issued a retraction early on in the newsletter itself. How Ron Paul could commission an article in response to the LA Riots, a time when people were being aware of the need for racial sensitivity, with complete and utter indifference. Why the article would cite personal anecdotes from generic “experts” who have no credentials whatsoever, other than the fact that they happen to be close personal friends of Ron Paul.
Antish,
Determining guilt or blame, wholly or in part, based on nothing more concrete than association, or a failure to be omnipotent, is patently ridiculous and is in itself the perpetuation of a tribal mindset.
Just because some White Supremacists like the idea of individual liberty and responsibility, which is one’s fundamental right to do with as one wishes, suddenly the character of Ron Paul and the agenda of Constitutionality and freedom is suspect? What collectivist nonsense!
Burnum,
If you want a clear and particularly concise take on Racism by Ron Paul, then have a gander. If you’d rather engage in guilt by association, that is your God given right to do so, damn the man who would infringe on it.
Personally, I think giving individuals the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them to express themselves clearly and unequivocally is healthier than suspicion and attribution of ulterior motives.
Then there are the devils you know.
Ron Paul, really? We have been down this road before. Libertarianism is answer to a very foolish question. Libertarianism ignors the fundimental reality of Corporatist Capitalism. It ignors the fundimental power difference between the idividual and transglobal coporations.
When the idvidual tries to negotiate against a titian like Exxon-Mobile guess who wins? Please, please, please look at history. Unregulated Capitalism always ends up with a vast pool of poor and a tiny privlaged elite. Marx was right, left to its own devices Capitalism will destroy itself.
If you really hate the welfare state, then walk the walk. Stay out of government run schools, don’t use government supplied water, and when you get sick pay your own fair, or quietly die in a corner if you lack the funds–just like they did in Charles Dickens time.
Burnum: For the past 7 years Bush’s speech writer has been on strike, he’s been winging it. :o)
“If you want a clear and particularly concise take on Racism by Ron Paul, then have a gander. If you’d rather engage in guilt by association, that is your God given right to do so, damn the man who would infringe on it.”
I hate too repeat my self but I already had a point about that.
“The official story has a number of basic logical flaws that have never once been addressed, aside from response of “Well, he denied it, I believed him” (see point #1). For instance, how such an article could go out without Ron Paul knowing. Why no one would have written letters to the editor in response. Why Ron Paul wouldn’t have issued a retraction early on in the newsletter itself. How Ron Paul could commission an article in response to the LA Riots, a time when people were being aware of the need for racial sensitivity, with complete and utter indifference. Why the article would cite personal anecdotes from generic “experts” who have no credentials whatsoever, other than the fact that they happen to be close personal friends of Ron Paul.”
The article in question:
http://groups.google.com/group.....d3662b0fa5
Well, for those of us who liked the platform of Ron Paul, former Republican congressman Bob Barr seems to be getting prepared to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. Like Ron Paul, he is committed to fighting the growing encroachment on our civil liberties, as well as opposing global interventionism, including the Iraq war, and is an advocate of small government. Barr may be a good option for those properly disillusioned with the two major party candidates in a McCain vs. Clinton match up, but find Ralph Nader as being a very non-serious candidate.
A good article on the potential campaign of Bob Barr: http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13009
James, how would you respond to anarcho-mutualists who claim that it is the capitalist State, not the market, which is to blame for corporate power?
Does the taxation system favour the large over the small?
Aren’t a lot of the big corporate bete-noirs dependent either on government-granted monopolies - either patents (Big Pharma, electronics) or copyrights (recording, movies, computer software) - or on direct government subsidies (agribusiness, aerospace, armaments)?
James is allergic to the idea that humans can come together and co-operate on issues of mutual concern, and prefers forcible, government mediated, co-operation brought about by taxation and government’s monopoly on force.
Leave a Comment