Greenwald links to pieces arguing the validity of citing Ron Paul's views, and more

[ProSense]

http://twitter.com/ggreenwald

Here is the most recent:

Finally, on the Paul debate: former ACLU Board Member Wendy Kaminer: http://is.gd/H5QJAW

From the link:

If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner

His platform has some serious flaws, but Paul is the only candidate standing up for individual liberties.

<...>

You don't have to overlook or make excuses for Paul's weaknesses on civil rights or his apparent courting of virulent right-wing extremists to appreciate and applaud his support for liberty, where it arguably matters most. After all, Paul poses no threat to racial and religious tolerance, civil rights, or entitlements; he has virtually no chance of becoming president and his own alleged intolerance is, to say the least, unpopular. (It demonstrates the declining respectability of overt bigotry.) But he has an opportunity to organize and perhaps empower voters who oppose the Bush/Obama security state. If only that were a priority, for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Presidential candidates, like nominal frontrunner Mitt Romney, aggressively advertise their patriotism, their embrace of American exceptionalism, and their love for this titular land of the free. They characterize Obama as anti-American: Santorum has accused him of siding with our "enemies." Romney asserts he knowingly promotes policies harmful to the country and that he will "poison the spirit of America" (and then they have the nerve to call him divisive). But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty. The question is, how many voters care?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/if-voters-cared-about-liberty-ron-paul-would-be-the-frontrunner/250880/

Got it: President Obama. unlike Paul, has "adecidedly un-American disregard for liberty"

I guess the author believes that freedom to treat blacks like second-class citizens and for people to die without health care is "decidedly" American?

Paul On Newsletters: Not Only Did I Not Write Them, MLK Was One Of My Heroes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135956

Ron Paul's hypocritical vision of health care: charity or death, "that's what freedom is all about"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100288476

Republicans Versus Reproductive Rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002141047

In Paul's own words:

“It’s not because I’ve changed my message,” he told FOX News’s Chris Wallace, in one of several interviews on the Sunday political talk show circuit. “This is what I’ve worked my whole career to warn people about,” he said, dismissing criticism that he’s a candidate of the lunatic fringe.

<...>

And the Texas congressman is sticking to his Libertarian guns. He doubled down on statements from one of his books, downplaying the need for sexual harassment laws in the workplace. “Because people are insulted by behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of that,” Paul said on FOX News Sunday, saying that unless there is a threat or act of violence, a sexually harassed person could choose or not choose to work at the offending location.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/the-die-has-been-cast-ron-paul-makes-closing-argument-to-iowa.php?ref=fpa

In Book, Ron Paul Opposed Workplace Harassment Protections

Ron Paul may be be polling well in Iowa, but he’s had a tough few weeks denying responsibility for racist and homophobic material once published under his name. Now, we can add women’s rights to the list. And this time, it will be hard for Paul to place the blame on another author.

As highlighted by CNN on Friday, in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200-Plus Years, republished in 2007, Ron Paul made some eyebrow-raising statements about sexual harassment and women’s rights in the workplace:

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.

<...>

The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?

<...>

Other passages in the book include jabs about LGBT people and AIDS. Like the notorious newsletters which include unsavory passages about the AIDS epidemic, Paul writes that the Founding Fathers probably wouldn’t favor AIDS research and that insurance companies should have the right to refuse care to patients with HIV/AIDS:

Victims of the disease AIDS argue…for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don’t have AIDS), demanding a cure…The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim — frequently a victim of his own lifestyle — but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I believe, the Founding Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.

And of course, Paul also takes issue with minority rights, wondering, if there’s a black and hispanic caucus in Congress, why not a white one too?

White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/in-book-ron-paul-opposed-workplace-harassment-protections.php

Crackpots Do Not Make Good Messengers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002112129

[Enrique]

1. the vendetta continues

GET GREENWALD.

[ProSense]

2. That was

fast. What's your opinon of the article cited?

[Enrique]

13. i liked it

it takes an angle that hasn't been taken before. The part about Obama isn't so interesting to me, more interesting is the GOP candidates, because their rhetoric is so filled with talk of liberty.

[ProSense]

16. Interesting

i liked it
it takes an angle that hasn't been taken before. The part about Obama isn't so interesting to me, more interesting is the GOP candidates, because their rhetoric is so filled with talk of liberty.

...or not, do you agree that with the premise of the piece, "If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner," and this statement: "But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty."

[FarLeftFist]

18. Ah, Libertarianism...

Few social-political philosophies in history can rival libertarianism in the sheer lameness of its vision of the good. It is defined in terms of negatives: just defang religion, defang society, defang government, just leave me alone! Yet this lameness of social vision is almost the definition of its political pride. It should really be called radical bourgeoisism.

[ProSense]

20. And just think

"Ah, Libertarianism...'

...there is talk about Rand Paul inheriting his father's political machine.

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/


The insane part of all of this is that these libertarians can't recognize a demagogue and his propaganda.

I mean, how many clues do they need in order to accept that Paul is not anti-war?

[FarLeftFist]

22. True, for a group who believes itself to be "individuals" they sure act like cultists.

Funny how all that "Liberty" eventually leads to paranoia which in turn leads to a militant police state. Libertarianism imploded.

[Enrique]

23. ah namecalling

let's all confine our thoughts to what is approved by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and David Plouffe, and "correct" anyone who strays. Call them libertarians, say that they're supporting Ron Paul, all that stuff.

[FarLeftFist]

25. Feel free to apologize for misrepresenting my post at any time.

I thought it was CLEAR AS DAY I'm "namecalling" Libertarians, such as Ron Paul and Rand. Please please PLEASE show me how you misconstrued my post as "namecalling" to anyone here. Thanks in advance.

[JackRiddler]

33. You say, "Correct those who stray?"

This has more the character of banish. Or burn at the stake. Those who have already strayed, they are lost. Zombies. Irretrievably infected with the Crypto Republican virus.

Heresy cannot be tolerated! We need a rule that only approved Moralists of the Public Good can link to Greenwald, and only for the purpose of educating us to avoid his evil.

Look away! Don't look, Marion!!!

[villager]

3. Maybe you could address the Atlantic article's concerns about the growing "Defense" Security State

..and its apparatus?

That's the actual discussion we're talking about here.

(waits)

(silence)

(crickets)

[ProSense]

6. Here

Maybe you could address the Atlantic article's concerns about the growing "Defense" Security State

..and its apparatus?

That's the actual discussion we're talking about here.

(waits)

(silence)

(crickets)

Ron Paul will balance the budget "without cutting from...national defense"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632

Start with that.

[villager]

12. again -- a blue link in lieu of actual discussion about *Obama's* policies

Attacking Ron Paul -- or any leftist commentators currently thrown under the bus -- is no substitute.

[ProSense]

15. Well

"again -- a blue link in lieu of actual discussion about *Obama's* policies Attacking Ron Paul -- or any leftist commentators currently thrown under the bus -- is no substitute. "

...as I said before, it's strange that Paul was quick to chime in on the recess appointments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972

Yet not a single word about the President's proposal to cut defense.

It's strange that Paul lambastes Obama for the recess appointments and is silent on the defense cuts.

Does Paul support them or does he believe these cuts don't go far enough?

Here's a perfect opportunity for Paul to stake out his position to the left of Presidnet Obama Obama as attributed by his supporters.


In any case, how about a photo instead of a "blue link"? Ron Paul will balance the budget "without cutting from...national defense"

[villager]

17. You insist on attacking Paul, in order to attack Greenwald, while avoiding *Obama*

...and his security state policies and diktats.

Cutting defense budgets -- as far as they went - is a good first step. Will that mean this government will take on the "black box" budgets of the national security state? I doubt it, but it'd be nice to see.

Additionally, if Obama is such a change-bringer, why do 4th Amendment protections continue to erode under his Constitutionallly-scholared watch?

[ProSense]

19. Wait

You insist on attacking Paul, in order to attack Greenwald, while avoiding *Obama*

...and his security state policies and diktats.

Cutting defense budgets -- as far as they went - is a good first step. Will that mean this government will take on the "black box" budgets of the national security state? I doubt it, but it'd be nice to see.

Additionally, if Obama is such a change-bringer, why do 4th Amendment protections continue to erode under his Constitutionallly-scholared watch?

...criticizing and rejecting Paul as a lunatic is attacking Greenwald? I'm criticizing Greenwald directly for continually promoting Paul.

What's your opinion on Paul's current Florida newsletter stating that he doesn't plan on cutting national defense to balance the budget?

[villager]

24. Well, you criticize Greenwald no matter what. Your current link obsession is just the latest.

What's your opinion of Obama signing the NDAA? What's your opinion of the expansion of spying powers under Obama's watch?

Why do you keep assiduously avoiding a substantive discussion about Obama? (rhetorical question?)

[ProSense]

26. Am

"Well, you criticize Greenwald no matter what. Your current link obsession is just the latest."

...I supposed to care that you object to my criticizing Greenwald? I mean, Democrats have an "obsession" with criticizing Republicans. I do that all the time. As long as Greenwald continues hyping Paul, I'll criticize him.

What's your opinion of Obama signing the NDAA? What's your opinion of the expansion of spying powers under Obama's watch?

Why do you keep assiduously avoiding a substantive discussion about Obama? (rhetorical question?)

Seriously, do you think red herrings and strawmen arguments work?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002105754#post8

On edit, maybe you'd like to join this discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002122711


Now, back to the OP: Do you agree that with the premise of the piece, "If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner," and this statement: "But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty."

[villager]

34. You criticize Greenwald because he raises uneasy questions about Obama policy.

About which there are many uneasy questions to be raised.

Here, actually, is the premise of the piece your Greenwald-denouncing link links to:

"Paul remains the only major candidate, Democrat or Republican, who has taken a stand against our endless wars (including the war on drugs) and the authoritarian national-security state -- the most urgent, dire threat to individual liberty today. It should be but isn't a shock to realize that he is the only major candidate to oppose presidential power to summarily assassinate American citizens."

What's worth discussing is why both Dems and all other Repulicans are on board with this assault against our liberties and rights?

That's the point of discussion. Denouncing someone because they're seen in the virtual company of somebody else -- in lieu of taking on the policies themselves -- is, well, if not demagoguery, certainly sidestepping.

[ProSense]

40. Well,

"You criticize Greenwald because he raises uneasy questions about Obama policy. "

...believe what you want to. I'll continue criticizing him when he advances flawed logic.

You seriously don't want to discuss the article in the OP: Do you agree that with the premise of the piece, "If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner," and this statement: "But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty."

[villager]

41. I just posted an excerpt from the article in the OP. You're the one that's not discussing it.

I guess you didn't actually read the previous reply?

[ProSense]

44. Hmmm?

"Paul remains the only major candidate, Democrat or Republican, who has taken a stand against our endless wars (including the war on drugs) and the authoritarian national-security state -- the most urgent, dire threat to individual liberty today. It should be but isn't a shock to realize that he is the only major candidate to oppose presidential power to summarily assassinate American citizens."

Nonsense. Paul wants to end the Afghanistan war, which he voted for. Obama ended the Iraq war and is working toward ending the Afghanistan war.

Paul's other positions are just as bogus as is alleged anti-war position.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

[villager]

45. Um, so you refuse to discuss the other assaults against the 4th amendment

...signed off on by Democrats, Republicans, and their respective Presidents?

[ProSense]

47. Instead

"Um, so you refuse to discuss the other assaults against the 4th amendment"

....of the blatant attempt at obfuscation, feel free to start you own thread or join one of these discussions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002122711

Now, care to address the question: Do you agree that with the premise of the piece, "If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner," and this statement: "But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty."

[villager]

48. "The blatant attempt at obfuscation!?" Like your OP, you mean?

And why is it you're free to ignore all the questions and excerpts put to you, but keep badgering others to answer questions about everyone and anyone other than this President, and his often troubling policies?

[ProSense]

50. Maybe

The blatant attempt at obfuscation!?" Like your OP, you mean?

...you can explain how the OP is an "attempt at obfuscation"

And why is it you're free to ignore all the questions and excerpts put to you, but keep badgering others to answer questions about everyone and anyone other than this President, and his often troubling policies?

You may want to reread the first few comments in this subthread, before your interrogation began.

[villager]

53. When you address post #34 - directly - we'll talk.

n/t

[ProSense]

59. Well,

"When you address post #34 - directly - we'll talk."

... I addressed the paragraph here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=144060

Now, care to address the question: Do you agree that with the premise of the piece, "If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner," and this statement: "But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty."

[villager]

68. Cited it, yes. Addressed it, no.

You went off about Ron Paul again, rather than address - directly--what the paragraph said about Democratic complicity with the growing security state, and its threat to our liberties.

[girl gone mad]

51. " Seriously, do you think red herrings and strawmen arguments work? "

No, as you have demonstrated time and time again.

[JackRiddler]

38. Careful there. Good citizens don't have opinions about the NDAA.

Habeas corpus, human rights, constitutions, these are peripheral issues of interest only to the 2 percent of pony-seeking progressives obsessed with single-issue exotica of no consequence to Our Fighting Serving Hardworking Middle Class American Voter. Whatever this NDAA was, it is a good thing in exactly the way the PRESIDENT said it was; good enough to sign but really rendered even more double-plus good by his signing statement. Now don't worry about the details. Anyone who wants to know the details is a defeatist or enemy agent!

[frylock]

4. yet when obama praised reagan, you argued vehemently that he didn't praise reagan..

go figure.

[ProSense]

9. Are

"yet when obama praised reagan, you argued vehemently that he didn't praise reagan..

...you saying that, "If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner," isn't arguing that Ron Paul should be the "frontrunner"?

[frylock]

35. does it state that paul should be the frontrunner?

keep fuckin that chicken.

[JackRiddler]

39. When Obama extended (routinely) the perpetual war budget...

it was a historic move toward peace!

[OnyxCollie]

70. Obama extended it to 4% of GDP.

More than the 3.5% to 3.8% that PNAC proposed.

That makes it even more peace-y than PNAC!

[AtomicKitten]

5. For allegedly not promoting Paul, Greenwald sure does a lot of promoting Paul.

The "if voters cared ..." browbeating is seriously lame.

[ProSense]

14. According

to the piece he linked to, he's characterized as supporting Paul.

[AtomicKitten]

21. It will make little difference unless Paul runs third party.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. I once linked to a DU post that linked to a website that linked to Free Republic which linked to...

Drudge.

True Story.

[ProSense]

8. Interesting,

but what's your opinion on this:

If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner

His platform has some serious flaws, but Paul is the only candidate standing up for individual liberties.

<...>

You don't have to overlook or make excuses for Paul's weaknesses on civil rights or his apparent courting of virulent right-wing extremists to appreciate and applaud his support for liberty, where it arguably matters most. After all, Paul poses no threat to racial and religious tolerance, civil rights, or entitlements; he has virtually no chance of becoming president and his own alleged intolerance is, to say the least, unpopular. (It demonstrates the declining respectability of overt bigotry.) But he has an opportunity to organize and perhaps empower voters who oppose the Bush/Obama security state. If only that were a priority, for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Presidential candidates, like nominal frontrunner Mitt Romney, aggressively advertise their patriotism, their embrace of American exceptionalism, and their love for this titular land of the free. They characterize Obama as anti-American: Santorum has accused him of siding with our "enemies." Romney asserts he knowingly promotes policies harmful to the country and that he will "poison the spirit of America" (and then they have the nerve to call him divisive). But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty. The question is, how many voters care?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/if-voters-cared-about-liberty-ron-paul-would-be-the-frontrunner/250880/

Got it: President Obama. unlike Paul, has "adecidedly un-American disregard for liberty"

I guess the author believes that freedom to treat blacks like second-class citizens and for people to die without health care is "decidedly" American?

[Cali_Democrat]

10. I don't agree with Wendy Kaminer's analysis. n/t

[ProSense]

11. I

definitely don't agree with it, but wonder if Greenwald believes she's mischaracterizing his position:

So it's not surprising that Ron Paul has attracted younger voters than his Republican opponents and the support of the occasional left-wing civil libertarian (notably Glenn Greenwald.) But liberal support for Paul is quite weak, and telling: it reflects the dangerous, anti-libertarian drift of today's liberals and progressives. With some exceptions, liberals tend to focus on Paul's alleged bigotry, his newsletters, and his opposition to anti-discrimination laws, while ignoring his lonely support for fundamental liberties.

[trumad]

27. Keep it up Pro---

You're doing great work exposing the secret clan of Ron Paul worshipers.

Flypaper baby--flypaper.

[frylock]

69. are you now, or have you ever been a supporter of ron paul?

smoke em out.

[pschoeb]

29. She Seems like she has decided to redifine civil liberties as those defined by Libertarian Party

Overturning the right of any person to use a Public Accommodation, as long as they are not a threat to public safety, which is what Paul wants by letting Business be the absolute arbiters of who can and cannot enter their Public Accommodation.

That's a civil liberty

Overturning the right of any person not to be discriminated in employment for completely ludicrous reasons like race, creed, ethnicity, and sex. Which Paul is for overturning.

That's a civil liberty

Of course the Libertarian Party and it's followers do not believe in these as civil rights, to name just two.

Notice how she doesn't consider anti-discrimination laws as civil liberties.

[ProSense]

32. Exactly,

they seem to only care about a narrow definition of civil liberties. How do they square that with Ron Paul's support for DOMA?

[Cali_Democrat]

46. Greenwald essentially claims to not be a Ron Paul supporter in this article:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/

[ClassWarrior]

28. You seem to be around 24/7 here. Curious.

NGU.

[ProSense]

30. That's

"You seem to be around 24/7 here. Curious."

...strange. How did you make that determination, and what does it have to do with the OP?

[kctim]

36. Seems this Greenwald cat

is linking to pieces arguing the validity of Ron Paul's views of liberty. And since this country defines liberty in terms of individual freedoms and rights, those views are most in line with what our founders believed in and therefore are the most valid.

[surfdog]

37. Greenwald is a total idiot

Telling Democrats if they vote for Obama then they must not care about liberty

Fuck that idiot , he can jump in the lake

[Luminous Animal]

42. That isn't Greenwald's piece in the OP. It was written by Wendy Kaminer.

[MineralMan]

43. Let me give you some expert advice.

Instead of calling Greenwald "a total idiot," call him an "Asshat." If you do that, he might link to your post in one of his columns, like he did to mine. Apparently he doesn't care for the term, and will call you a "simple-minde Manichean."

[Uncle Joe]

49. The questions you should be asking your self is, does some of Paul's views

re: personal liberty have validity and are the other candidates addressing them?

If the the answers to those questions are yes and no respectively, which I for one believe they are, then Greenwald is giving constructive criticism to Obama and in my view doing the President and the nation a great service.


Thanks for the thread, ProSense.

[villager]

52. Well put, Uncle Joe

n/t

[ProSense]

56. See,

The questions you should be asking your self is, does some of Paul's views

re: personal liberty have validity and are the other candidates addressing them?

If the the answers to those questions are yes and no respectively, which I for one believe they are, then Greenwald is giving constructive criticism to Obama and in my view doing the President and the nation a great service.

...I don't believe his views are valid. I believe they're twisted. Paul believes that people should be free to treat blacks like second-class citizens and that people should be free to die without health care.

There is more at the links in the OP, but this sums it up nicely: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=143843

[Uncle Joe]

57. I said some of his views, not all of them, ie; the corruptive, counterproductive, racist

dysfunctional, disenfranchising, draconian, unjust and Bill of Rights raping "War on Drugs" policies, turning what should be educational, medical, personal privacy issues in to criminal ones.

As I've posted before there is a huge tragic irony, when Paul; in spite of his racism is the only major candidate to come out strongly against a Drug Policy that is most definitely racist to its' core.

The problem with not addressing Paul's points when they're valid is that it more likely empowers him or someone of his ilk in the future to eventually make use of the twisted views that you speak of.

The lines become blurred to the American People between racists advocating an end to Big Brother, authoritarian racist policies and so called "centrists" firmly in the right leaning, authoritarian quadrant promoting or supporting a disastorous and unjust status quo.

[girl gone mad]

58. What do you think of Obama's vile and racist war on drugs?

Do you believe, as Obama seems to believe, that blacks should be treated like second-class citizens, disproportionately thrown in prison to serve disproportionately lengthy sentences for non-violent drug offenses?

[ProSense]

62. It

"What do you think of Obama's vile and racist war on drugs?"

It took 40 years for someone to do something positive related to the war on drugs. http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

Ron Paul's lunatic positions don't impress me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

[girl gone mad]

63. You did not answer the question.

[ProSense]

64. Sure

"You did not answer the question."

...I did, but you didn't like the answer. So let's try again, with expanded comments

You: "What do you think of Obama's vile and racist war on drugs"

Me: It took 40 years for someone to do something positive related to the war on drugs. http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

I do not support the war on drugs.

You: "Do you believe, as Obama seems to believe, that blacks should be treated like second-class citizens, disproportionately thrown in prison to serve disproportionately lengthy sentences for non-violent drug offenses?

See, that claim has already been proven false by the above response.

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

Ron Paul's lunatic positions don't impress me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

His position on everything is anti-federal goverment, and then you're on your own. His position on the war on drugs is no different, and as for any help for people affected by his decisions, well like his opposition to health care, there is always charity. http://www.democraticunderground.com/100288476

I know Paul co-sponsored Barney Frank’s bill on marijuana (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002102660) , but I damn sure know that Barney Frank supports government health care and that he sponsored the Second Chance Act.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Too bad the previous bill co-sponsored by Kucinich and Paul didn't pass...

it would have eliminated the sentencing disparity. Now the disparity is only 1/5 as racist.

Of course, the bill does nothing to address the disproportionate arrests, convictions, and incarceration of African Americans as a result of the drug war. The system is still grossly racist.

[Son of Gob]

61. Apparently that appeals to Greenwald and certain other "Progressives"

Threads like this seem to bring that to light.

[ProSense]

67. Apparently. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Our daily five minutes of hate expand...

So when are you also going to post our daily Ralph Nader post?

[ProSense]

55. Hmmm?

"So when are you also going to post our daily Ralph Nader post?"

Where are you getting your information?

[quaker bill]

60. Voters who care about liberty

quickly dismiss crackpots.

There is this colorful syndrome in politics, particularly here where anyone can run for any office: gadfly candidates. It is cool. When you know from day one that you aren't going to win, you are free to say just about anything and hold any position on any issue, after all, there is no fear that you will ever be in a place to implement any of it.

You can wax all philosophic about the gold standard and fiat currency, even though "settled money" is a fiction that would collapse the economy.

You can claim that liberty means the freedom to harass and discriminate.

You can rail against floridation of drinking water.

You can go on about abolishing the IRS and income tax.

You can go on about cutting a trillion dollars out of the budget in year 1.

You can do whatever you like and count on the notion that with 330 million people out there, some will like it.


However, people who are actually concerned about liberty will find a candidate to support who actually has a chance of winning.

[arely staircase]

66. where to start?

first of all there is the whole 'just quit your job if you get harrassed' business, then there is the homophobic slam at people with aids (from a doctor) - that last one inluded the absolutely idiotic observation that the people paying for research into aids are people who don't have aids.