why i'll never vote for obama again
I could not have spelled out my grievances against Obama any more succinctly or eloquently than Glenn Greenwald does in his article Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies:
“The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
“He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.”
38 Responses to why i’ll never vote for obama again
Ron Paul, however… will be able make all the ugly right wing policies, legislative agenda, and worst obstructive governance disappear in a puff of smoke… with nothing more than the snap of his fingers.
However you feel about Obama, Ron Paul is not the answer. He’s pro-life. He’d shut down essential government programs like food stamps, cash assistance, medicare, social security, what little healthcare is available. He’d end regulations, meaning corporations can do anything they want without anyone watching out for consumers. He wants to use federal regulations to bust all unions. In fact, he wants to make the entire country a “right to work” country. Anyone who has lived in a “right to work” state knows that it means no protection for workers, at all. These are all facts you can find right now his website: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/
Libertarianism gets one thing right, the government should stay out of private lives. Beyond that, their views are not even close to being progressive. In fact, they are textbook regressive ideals. It’s the Tea party without the homophobia (but just as much racism).
I see all those arguments as similar to a doctor worrying about removing a splinter when the patient has a severed gushing artery. Nothing, not social services, not regulations, is going to matter if the wars and military expansion are not stopped and stopped now.
“* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
“* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
“* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Also, Ron Paul may not have voted to fund the war, but he did vote to fund the mercenaries and private contractors, like Blackwater, which is no surprise, since private defense is part of libertarianism.
Are you under the impression Obama is not lifting road blocks to coal and nuclear power? Is not dismantling the EPA? And did not just allow the people who brought us the Gulf spill to go back to business as usual in the Gulf? Because he is an did.
I’m not talking about Obama. I’m not in any way trying to suggest you vote for Obama. I just don’t understand how a progressive can choose someone who would shut down public schools, end any existing national healthcare, take away a woman’s right to make choices for her own body, and thinks the answer to our economic problems is fewer regulations. Is he really for ending war, or just privatizing it and turning it over to mercenaries? I’d rather not see private corporations in charge of national defense (which is absolutely a libertarian ideal). Jesus, do you know who would be in charge of that? Dick fucking Cheney. You know that fucker is going to live forever with his robot heart and his deal with the devil.
He can’t take away a woman’s right to choose. The battle between presidential candidates based on something that is not up to the White House is an ongoing melodrama that is specious and not legitimate. The president does not have supreme authority — or doesn’t yet, though Bush policies and Obama policies are doing their best to change that. He can’t and won’t slash all existing medical care and financial assistance programs — too many people are dependent on them and while he doesn’t like them, he won’t gut them as a first act in office because he is aware of the repercussions of doing that. While I do not agree with fewer regulations on corporate enterprise and am absolutely opposed to setting the power industries loose unfettered, they appear to be unfettered now and becoming moreso — regardless of regulations — under the current and past administrations. The army of lobbyists in D.C. representing gas, coal, and oil is writing the laws and dictating whether or not regulations are enforced. Regulations that are unenforced are as good as no regulations. He will end the wars and expansionism. Which I believe is the only thing that will save this country from collapse. He will kill TSA’s encroaching power and the police tactics that grow wider and stronger every day in this country. Which is a strike at the police state this country has become. And he will end the “war on drugs.” Which is a ridiculous “war” in the first place and is another thing undermining the rights of citizens and gutting the economy. Are there things on Paul’s agenda I am absolutely opposed to? Yes. Is he the only person running who actually holds and practices ANY ideals that are liberal? Also yes.
I haven’t decided I am voting for him. I am looking at the candidates and studying him. And from what I can see, he is currently the lesser evil of the choices available, and has some positive aspects that are lacking in any other candidate.
I understand your reservations about President Obama, Max, but Ron Paul is the worst alternative choice in every way. I agree completely with Rane.
Can he unilaterally do any of those things? No. But don’t forget presidents appoint Supreme Court justices. The only thing preventing Rowe v Wade from being overturned right now is that Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, turned out to be more liberal-minded than expected. He’s also 75.
Of the four more liberal justices: one is 73 (Stephen Bayer) and one is 78 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg). The average age of mortality for a man is 75, and 80 for a woman.
A pro-life, anti-worker candidate with a reasonable chance of making even one Supreme Court appointment IS dangerous, and absolutely CAN take away a woman’s right to choose and collective bargaining rights. Especially if there also ends up being a conservative majority in congress (even if only in one branch).
Whatever you think of Obama, he HAS made great Supreme Court appointments. Both strong liberal women with good records on worker’s rights and women’s issues. I’m not in any way suggesting your views of him are wrong, or suggesting you vote for him. But Supreme Court appointments are the most important decisions a president makes, and must be considered.
Well you are arguing for something that sure sounds like Obama, since you keep pointing out things you think Obama is doing right and things you think Paul would do wrong. To argue for Obama, you have to overlook his track record of executive privilege expansion, totalitarian surveillance and citizen shake downs, the oppression of the press, attacks on whistleblowers, attacks on the Freedom of information act, protection of war criminals and Wall Street, support of expansion of nuclear power facilities here and abroad, proliferation and support of drones and smart bombs killing innocents in other countries — not to mention drones brought back home to the US and deployed here and in Mexico, the growing gaping Pentagon budget, eroded civil liberties, the erosion of social security protections, continued support of big oil and the protection of same during disasters, wars waged without congressional permission — the list goes on. But I am supposed to ignore all of this and pretend it does not exist in order to protect and support a man who allegedly will defend a few small final liberties that he is in fact chipping away at himself or allowing others to chip away at under his watch unless they are so tiny and insignificant he can allow them support in order to hold them up brazenly on display to somehow try to pretend he is doing some good?
No. He is a bad president. He does not represent the people. He does not support his candidacy promises. He is a danger to the nation. And I have no faith in his future choices or actions other than that they will further erode the welfare, safety, and solvency of the United States of America and decimate the country and its citizenry.
[Also I am well aware a statement like “I’m not telling you to buy the blue dress, I’m just saying the red dress makes you look fat” is a somewhat veiled argument for the blue dress so that kind of doesn’t work on me though it is darling in its subversive somewhat passive aggressive attempt to persuade. :::delicate cough:::]
Again, I’m not recommending you vote for Obama. I point out his Supreme Court appointments to illustrate that it is something we need to think about when selecting a candidate. The mere fact that he had to make two appointments in a four year period should show how likely it is the next president will make at least one. The current composition of the Supreme Court is four liberals, four conservatives, and one swing vote. With the swing vote and two of the liberals on the way out, probably very soon. That’s a lot of power to hand over to the next president. And, a person’s core philosophies, especially on things like worker’s rights and women’s rights, should be part of that consideration. If you honestly feel that Ron Paul would make good Supreme Court appointments, then great. I personally, would worry about. A lot.
I’m in the awkward position of repeatedly defending Ron Paul when I am not yet and may never be advocating for him. Though that may change. I am studying him. Any time I say, however, look at what Ron Paul is saying — which every liberal/progressive/Democrat should be saying too since when is indefinite detention and the overturn of habeas corpus or unchallenged presidential power to go to war okay with liberals/progressives/Democrats? — or look at the bad things that Obama is doing that have to stop that no one who claims to be liberal or progressive or a Democrat should countenance or support or condone or turn a blind eye to — it comes back to people arguing for Obama or against Paul. And no one acknowledging Obama is a very bad man doing very bad things that should not be happening. Especially under the banner of a “Democrat” president. Nobody who considers himself or herself a liberal, progressive, or Democrat should be backing Obama. Nobody. The fact a large contingent of the left still is is heartbreaking, appalling, and proof positive Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well in the United States. That, or the nation and its people have so lost its and their moral compass, there is no longer any hope for us.
Max, I don’t disagree with your opinion of Obama. I don’t even know if I am voting at all. I do, however, disagree vehemently with Ron Paul as a viable alternative. I don’t even really understand how someone who so passionately supported OWS could even consider supporting a union buster like RP.
Once again, I complete agree with Rane. I can think of plenty counter-arguments to what you’re saying, Max, starting with the hand he was dealt, racist opposition to him such as no president has ever had to deal with before, DINOs everywhere who could have supported him towards more liberal goals but didn’t, his being boxed in at every turn and criticized *no matter what he did* and more. And Ron Paul – don’t get me started. He is an evil man with evil intentions and a bald-faced liar as well. I’m truly sorry to hear you’re even considering supporting him, Max – he’s not the man and while I’d love to vote for a perfect president, he doesn’t exist and even if he did, Republicans / right-wingers / Tea Partiers would find a way to cut him to shreds. So yeah, I’m going to vote for him. The alternative is far worse – the GOP – the party which – together with DINOs – got this country into the mess it is – is the party Ron Paul is trying to win over right now which might even happen because people have conveniently forgotten the Bush years – and the laws Bush (and Rove and Cheney and others) put into place after 9/11. Obama inherited all those laws and is being stymied at every turn trying to do even the simplest things which will create jobs. The GOP has been in control of the House for a year now and has not passed one single jobs bill. Why? They want President Obama to fail just as Rush Limbaugh wanted him to fail before he even took office. They racist, sexist, anti-choice, pro-theocracy, pro-war with Iran, anti-gay, and Paul, Mr. Freedom that he is, is for ‘parenthood’ laws and believes sexual discrimination should be legal, that the woman is probably partly at fault and so what – if she doesn’t like it, she should just go get another job. I’m astounded you’d even consider voting for anyone but President Obama, Max, even if you’re disillusioned. I am but there’s still no other viable candidate. If you want to see it as a choice between two evils, well, that’s politics. I don’t see President Obama as evil at all. I see him as a man who has been put into a *very* difficult position. Ron Paul, in 35 years in the House, has done next to nothing besides draw his paycheck. He has no legislative achievements to show. He’s an obgyn from Texas who bases his political philosophy on a fiction writer’s fantasies – namely Ayn Rand’s – and his economic philosophies on a bunch of racists in Alabama who call themselves the Mises Institute – which preaches ‘Austrian Economics’ – tested nowhere – pure fantasy economics. But every single member of the Republican Party – and Paul is running as a Republican (and is also the white supremacists’ choice, by the way – officially), wants states rights – which over here in the south means the reinstitution of segregation faster than you can say ‘cornbread’ . That’s what you want? ‘Whites only’ and ‘colored only’ drinking fountains again? Lynchings? That’s states rights for you – that’s what Ron Paul and other secessionists and segregationists are championing. Withdraw from the UN? Isolation has not worked in the past and leaving the UN will only lead to worse humanitarian situations around the world than we already have. I truly don’t think you’ve thought this through. Neither Ron Paul nor any other Republican should be in the White House no any DINOs. The combination has led to the stagnation of a very capable man whose only characteristic for the racists is that he’s black and seen as elitist. They’re out for blood – they don’t want to cooperate. What’s he supposed to do? You’re not also saying that he’s done nothing in these three years, are you? That’s a basic right-wing talking point if you are. Yes, I understand your disappointment but not your saying you won’t vote for him in spite of your disappointment. He’s not a Messiah but he never promised to be.
Max, I have seriously missed your writing. Whether I agree with a position you hold or not, you always make me stop and think (and generally make a bad joke).
Thanks for not censoring my comment, Max. He’s not just any evil Republican (yes, I sincerely believe Republicans are evil and have nothing else in mind than to destroy us) but I feel that he’s the worst of the worst but he’s luring kids into thinking they’re going to live in some paradise where marijuana’s legal so everything else is not important. An extension of states rights, in addition to being dangerous as states like Mississippi would interpret them re racial relations, would also produce chaos, a Balkanization of the *United* States into a hodgepodge. He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state, for instance, so if Texas decided to declare Christian sharia law, they could do it and Ron would just smile in perfect contentment as atheists were denied jobs or admission into colleges (all private and religious, of course). No, I’m not overdoing a single possible result of the true mistake it would be to let this man anywhere near a higher national office.
Hey, Firm, been a while. Nice to see you.
Lucian, I think you are extrapolating incorrectly from Paul’s position on non-interference. His stance is simple: You have the right to do what you want as long as it does not impact negatively on or infringe the rights of others. Implementing and trying to enforce a religious law the way you describe would clearly infringe the rights of others so would not fly.
[BTW, I also think it is grossly hypocritical to cheer on the youth demographic for originally backing Obama and for the Occupy movement but then the second that demographic backs Paul as a candidate to say, Oh they just want to get stoned.]
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this, Max, because I think I’m extrapolating exactly correctly. Look at his stance on sexual harassment – that he thinks it should be perfectly legal. If you’re sexually harassed it’s probably your fault and you should just get another job (I’ll provide you the video link for this statement if you’re in doubt as to its accuracy). He’s perfectly happy to infringe on the rights of women with regard to declaring not just the state but the country owns their uteri (he just signed the ‘personhood’ pledge). He’s publicly stated that he does not believe in the separation of church and state so if the state becomes a theocracy and you can’t get an education because you’re an atheist or a woman, it would not be his place to interfere. This would apply to disenfranchisement of minorities because he didn’t believe in the 1964 Civil Rights Act either – so he has no interest in their rights either, even though their not being able to gain an education would impact their entire lives.
As far as the youth demographic now backing Paul, the reason I say that they just want to get stoned is that that’s exactly what I hear each time I talk with them on Twitter or directly here in Jackson. That’s their big deal. They’re not sure about the other stuff. They don’t want wars. Well, no one does except the Republicans – Ron Paul’s party – and the DINOs. I’m not so sure I’d say the young Occupiers I know (quite a few since I’ve been photographing the movement since it started) originally voted for Obama and they’re not all for Paul by any means – they’re just ‘Obama has done nothing’ – ‘Obama’s the worst president ever’ people – but they sure think it’s great he’s going to make marijuana illegal and that Ron Paul wants the Fed audited – as if that alone is going to make the difference in the financial structure which will magically transform the country to what….??? They can’t tell you but they can tell you that capitalism sucks and all politicians are bad except Ron Paul, the man who, in 35 years in the House, got exactly one bill made into law, the authorization to sell a customs house in Galveston.
I would have to disagree with you on no one wanting wars but the Republicans. Obama, an alleged Democrat, is expanding the wars daily.
I just reread this, Max:
“You have the right to do what you want as long as it does not impact negatively on or infringe the rights of others.”
I just realized that you’re not taking the first step into account, Max: taking away the rights of others who don’t fit your vision of what the US – or at least your state – should be.
Once you take away those rights, you no longer have to worry about them.
If Texas is only marginally bound to the United States, it can certainly set up a theocratic government. The theocratic government would then say that the only people who have a right to an education must be Christian. Then when an atheist cannot receive an education, it’s his/her problem. He/she can move somewhere else because no rights have been infringed. The very first act of the new Republican Mississippi legislature (just a few days ago( was to set up a Christian oversight committee of some sort for state affairs. (I’ll have to get back to you on the details of this.)
Segregation was legal under the laws of the State of Mississippi. That’s what states rights are. Ron Paul has said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. That would have meant that segregation would still exist here – and as someone born in Louisiana who has known this state in detail his entire life – I am certain that would be the case and would be in a mini-second again if the segregationists can get a Republican like Ron Paul in the White House.
Again, I don’t think President Obama *wants* wars. He inherited Iraq and Afghanistan and he’s the Commander in Chief of the free world. That’s what the President of the US is. A Republican got him into both wars. Things have happened since which he could not ignore. He has not started another full-scale war. He’s faced with a dangerous situation world-wide because of policies other presidents have put into place, including our blind support of Israel. So you’re saying that our foreign policy should be completely isolationist? I’d love for us to cut down our military involvement but Ron Paul is not the man to do that. He spent 35 years in congress and got *one* bill passed. He’s not a leader. He’d be a disaster as a commander-in-chief. I also don’t think isolationism is a good idea considering the state of the world. What I do wish we’d do is be more active in the world in non-military ways but, once again, the man has had opposition to each and every single thing he’s tried to do since even before he started office – yes, just because he’s black, I’d say – and he can’t do everything alone.
Medical marijuana is legal in California, but the federal government keeps raiding and closing dispensaries. That is also what states’ rights are. Same sex marriage is legal in some states, but the federal government keeps trying to outlaw and abolish it. That is also what states’ rights are. You are choosing to see the worst aspects of freedom of choice and attribute them to Ron Paul, without acknowledging the other side of the coin, there are many instances where states are trying to follow progressive courses of action and law and break new ground and those states are being systematically stomped by the federal government. Freedom of choice does not come without danger, people do not always choose well, but at least they may choose, right or wrong. Your statements imply that the federal government will make wiser choices than states, that big brother breathing down states’ necks will see to it only good happens and will assure an egalitarian society and equal rights for all. This is simply not true.
I do not think advocating removing troops from the 50 plus countries we currently have troops stationed in is “isolationist.” I think it is sanity. Meanwhile, saying Obama is increasing troops in Afghanistan and sending more troops to Pakistan and Israel, blasting rockets and bombs at Libya, and sending war ships to isolate Iran is not his choosing is simply wearing blinders so you do not have to acknowledge our Nobel Peace Prize winner is a war monger perpetuating, expanding, and initiating conflict at an ever growing rate of his own choosing.
“In addition to 4500 military bases on its own territory, the U.S. has more than 1000 bases in over 50 countries. Of these foreign bases, 760 are acknowledged by the Pentagon and at least 300 more are known to exist, many of them espionage bases. In total, the U.S. has military personnel – combatants or civilians – stationed in over 150 countries worldwide.”
http://zainpatel.com/military.html
I’m seeing the negative aspects of states’ rights because they exist and that’s exactly how they were used here and would be used in the South again. I’m not talking about progressive courses of action by states but regressive courses of action. What party are the politicians in who want to outlaw same sex marriages? Yep – the Republican Party, Ron Paul’s party. The man is supported by white supremacists, lets himself be photographed with them, paid one’s salary to edit his newsletter for years which, yes, was racist, voted against Martin Luther King Day and was happy to cash the checks from a newsletter he published which described MLK Day as ‘Hate Whitey Day’. ‘People do not always choose well but they may choose, right or wrong.’ Sure. I think drugs should be legalized, too, but I don’t think lynchings should be – or denying people their right to get an education be or to vote cause of their skin color. As far as President Obama being a warmonger – once again, he inherited two major wars and a world which hates the US because of a Republican’s policies – the party whose ticket Ron Paul is running on, from which he has not distanced himself. He has been trying to wind down both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you in favor of letting Afghanistan be run by the Taliban again? There’s states’ rights for you – women don’t have a chance. You can argue of course, that it’s none of our business, but I would argue that if we as a nation truly believe in human rights, then it is our business and no, I don’t believe we should be so cozy with Saudi Arabia which is only marginally better. I don’t like drones anywhere. I don’t have a problem with our having troops in 100 plus countries if the countries want us to be there. There’s no real expense involved. What I don’t get about the Australians complaining about our troops being stationed there is why they don’t throw us out but when I ask that they say, well, I guess it’s necessary for our defense. No, I don’t think we should turn our back on the world. Yes, I do feel we could tone it down and, while you disagree, I think President Obama is trying to do just that. I’m not for raiding medical marijuana dispensaries but who’s behind that? Not ‘the US’ as such but the ‘conservatives’ in DC who want it banned. This is not about marijuana. So you think sexual harassment should be perfectly legal as well, that the harassee should have no recourse other than to just go get another job? That’s his position plus he feels the harassee is probably partly to blame anyway. This is all on video – I’m not making it up. He cares ‘States’ rights’ is a very slippery slope. What about child abuse? If a state says that a child is not a legal person until it’s, say, 16, then parents can do whatever they like to discipline their children? Yes, I do believe that overall, fairer laws will come from Washington than from individual state capitals. Yes, I do believe that fairer, better worker safety laws will come from Washington than from individual state capitals. I live five minutes from the state capital here – it’s right down the street. These men do not have the good of the citizens of Mississippi in mind.
There is no expense in occupying countries overseas? Are you saying that with a straight face? Military bases and personnel are what now, free?
And you think other countries want us there? Do you want German or Iranian or Chinese or Korean or Russian or French or Australian or British or any other country’s troops stationed in the US? The only countries that might possibly want us occupying their soil are countries that want American’s to die on the front lines in place of their own soldiers. No one else wants US soldiers on their soil. To even suggest they might is ludicrous.
I said ‘no real expense’ meaning relative to the entire US budget. It depends on what we’re talking about. I would *love* a major reduction in our defense spending but there are troop presences and troop presences. I lived in Germany for 16 years. The Germans wanted our missiles out of their country so that they were not a target but wanted them there in case they were attacked by the Eastern Bloc.
However, they were not so happy when we actually started withdrawing our troops (you do realize that, right? we have far fewer troops in Germany now than we did twenty-five years ago when I lived there) because that left them with no serious military defense against the Soviet Union which still existed. We were also a serious factor in boosting local economies.
Do I want foreign troops on US soil? No, of course not, but other countries do, in fact, time and again ask for our intervention (e.g., with Libya) because they don’t have the military power themselves and yes, they trust us.
Here’s an overview of US troops deployed overseas – in 150 countries according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
No, I don’t see that having 54 US Military in Brazil is a big problem and I’m sure they’re there with the permission of the government of Brazil. Nor do I see having 86 troops in Norway as a major problem. Why 39,222 in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea? I’d say that China’s aggressive military stance towards the rest of the world – fueled by our purchases from WalMart – might just have something to do with it and I seriously doubt we’re there without the permission of the Japanese or South Korean governments.
We’re not alone in this world and if we move to an isolationist stance, bring all our troops home, and China invades Japan and/or South Korea are you saying we should just let that happen? That it’s none of our concern?
Incidentally, here’s what the Mississippi legislature just passed: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2012/pdf/SC/SC0505IN.pdf
Incidentally, Max – if you’re thinking I’m pro-war, I’m not for a second. I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. I hate war. I am, however, a realist. The reality is that we need a military presence in the world because that’s how the world is. What we do need to do is foster peace anywhere and everywhere we can. I’m for the Peace Corps not the War Corps. If Ron Paul is such a pacifist, though, why is he giving Gingrich such a hard time about not serving in the military?
I think we are using “they” for different purposes. When you say “they,” you mean the standing governments of other countries. When I say “they,” I mean the people of other countries. It is a solid distinction.
You appear to believe people cannot be given a right to choose how they wish to live their lives, that your morality should be forced on them — not just here at home, which is clear from earlier statements, but also abroad. And also to believe that the US government is a benevolent dictator that does in some way share your values and that that is what we are exporting and imposing on other countries.
I do not believe either of those things. I also do not believe the groaning backs of the peoples of the United States can continue to support and finance sitting armies in nations across the globe in the name of “preventitive” war or defense. It is not the job of the US military to police the globe, nor is it the job of the US military to protect the citizens of foreign nations. It is the job of the US military to protect US shores against foreign military assault. And it is the job of other country’s governments to protect theirs.
Our economy is in tatters. Our people are starving. And good will is not facilitated at the end of a gun. We must change our policy and we must change our way of thinking. And we must do it now.
I mean both the standing governments of other countries because that’s who the US government deals with if it’s respecting their sovereignty which, clearly, we do not always do nor have always done – think Hawaii, a government the US overthrew. I certainly understand the distinction and am surprised you’d imply that I do not. As far as giving people the right to choose…you’re oversimplifying my position. I don’t care if my neighbors smoke marijuana or live together in a same sex relationship. I do care if they own weapons and decide they’re going to randomly fire them if they’re drunk and I particularly feel they have no right ‘to choose how they wish to live their lives’ if they feel they have a right to abuse their children, who cannot defend themselves. I would intervene just as I feel we had a right to intervene in Germany when the Germans decided to send Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others to the concentration camps to be burned. You would not have? Would you not have, as Ron Paul would not have, signed the Civil Rights Act which ended segregation in the South because you felt it was the perfect right of the sovereign state of Mississippi to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin? Do polluters have the right to burn toxic waste because they choose how they wish to live their lives’ and that includes polluting the air. Do they have the right to keep slaves? It’s their choice, after all, and if the slaves are not US citizens, well, that’s their problem.
Our economy is in tatters. Agreed. Why? Republicans – the party whose ticket Ron Paul has run on for the 35 years he’s been in Congress. Do I think we could reduce our defense budget by two-thirds? Yes – and I think we should. And I agree that no good will is facilitated at the end of a gun. But you don’t stop holdups by smiling at the robbers about to blow your head off. Yet who wants US citizens to be able to buy guns? The Republicans. Ron Paul. Ron Paul who advised his newsletter readers on the best way to kill someone and get away with it – to be sure to use an unregistered gun. No, I am not making that up. Yes, I can find the newsletter which says exactly that – it was part of the ‘what to do in case of an uprising’ issue – actions to take when black thugs surround your car (paraphrased). The reasoning behind ‘the more weapons the better, it’s our 2nd Amendment Right, is bogus, though – another discussion. The more guns the better for the white supremacists who support Ron Paul. Yes, I can prove that, too.
It’s late and I’m not reading a treatise. Especially after seeing that first paragraph. But I’ll respond to that first paragraph.
“Letting people live their lives as they choose” has a caveat: As long as it does not do harm to others.
Bringing up Hitler’s Germany is a poor example. The United States did not rush to the aid of the German Jewish community. The US in fact did not intervene in WWII until Europe was losing a war to an advancing German military and Japan bombed the United States.
You have no idea what Ron Paul would do. You clearly know little about his politics outside of mainstream media rhetoric and propaganda you are regurgitating.
You also have no idea what Obama would do. Though, based on Obama’s current track record, it would probably involve smart bombs and drones and indiscriminately killing large numbers of civilian women and children.
This is like listening to a Fox News groupie babble at me – only from the other side of the media aisle.
I don’t see that we’re getting anywhere with this discussion, Max, do you? I know a lot about Ron Paul’s politics, about right-wing politics, and about libertarianism in general, including Ayn Rand’s positions on just about everything. I also know about the caveat: ‘As long as it does not do harm to others’. So does that apply to a woman who’s held a good job for years and is supporting a family and perhaps aging relatives who has to leave her job because she’s being sexually harassed through no fault of her own?’ It doesn’t in Ron Paul’s world. She should put up with the harassment or leave in his view. And legal segregation as it existed all through the South via ‘states’ rights’? That hurt no one either? Well, I guess it didn’t if you don’t care about the people being discriminated against.
When the woman you speak of is arrested without formal charges being made and imprisoned for the next twenty or thirty years without trial, I do not think she will be as worried as you are about the finer aspects of workplace civilities. Nor will she be so concerned about them when her son, speaking out against the government on her behalf, is labeled a terrorist and executed without trial.
Stalin’s in the White House. Caesar’s in the Pentagon. And you are still blinded by party politics worrying about small civilities while the Bill of Rights is being outlawed on native soil. That is short sighted and if a majority of people continue down your path of denial, you and they will take the rest of us with you on your way to a willing demise.
“If Ron Paul is such a pacifist, though, why is he giving Gingrich such a hard time about not serving in the military?”
You don’t have to be a pacficist to call it like it is, Lucien. Gingrich IS a chickenhawk. And he should be debeaked.
I believe Ron Paul is pointing out being so willing to send America’s sons and daughters overseas to die in war when Newt took repeated deferments to avoid military service is hypocritical at best and criminally irresponsible at worst. I could be wrong. It is also worth noting Paul served in the military and had a wife and two children at home at the time so Newt trying to claim family as his reason for seeking repeated deferments probably doesn’t carry a lot of weight with Paul. Do I really have to explain this stuff to people?
Does anyone need to know anything about Obama other then the fact that he not only signed the NDAA into law, but told Congress that they must allow for the unlimited “detention” of American citizens on US soil, without charges; the end of posse comitatus, and the fact that he ordered the assassination of a US citizen without any due process?
Obama is just a continuation of G W Bush. He is the next star player in the puppet show that is the US govt. This “charming” recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize is presiding over our entering and participating in WWIII. We will be fighting Iran before the election. The military and police can now, beginning Jan. 1, 2012, arrest you for no reason and hold you forever, without any due process, lawyer, phone call….there is no Constitution.
Ron Paul will not win, despite the appearance that he is legit. If he did, they would kill him.