tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post7964798787014632191..comments2024-03-26T15:19:23.091-07:00Comments on false dichotomy by charles davis: A final word about Ron PaulCharles Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-74360775206500693042011-11-17T19:50:52.787-08:002011-11-17T19:50:52.787-08:00Charles,
I'm an amateur but been at it for a f...Charles,<br />I'm an amateur but been at it for a few months. I appreciate you being willing to say Paul would be better than Obama. Paul is way off base on most things economic. He also sides with business rights above civil rights. That's not good. <br /><br />I will probably end up voting for Obama over Romney in the general election. That's not something I feel thrilled about, certainly not like when I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary and general election.<br /><br />What is most frustrating to me is how few progressives see that jumping ship to vote for Paul in the GOP primary would be the the most strategically clever thing we could do in this election. If enough of us do it, we'd send the Tampa GOP convention into chaos and put a candidate up against a Democrat who does not have defend his defense policy. This is the simplest and least expensive way to beat the GOP. I know that part of the reason this strategy has not taken root among progressives we do not want to give up on Obama. I don't either. I loved his "More Perfect Union" speech. If he were not so high on making war, he could still become our nation's greatest foreign policy president. He has had to contend with an opposition hell bent on his destruction. I can even forgive his premature accommodations. He seems to assess what can get done and move to that point so as not to waste time.It's bad strategy, even though it would be good governance if he had a less resistant opposition.<br />All that said, the bottom line for me is this: the peaceful green economy America needs will never be built until we have the funds, and the only place to get these funds in abundance is by ending the military industrial catastrophe's empire building and maintenance budget. Again, if Obama would match Ron Paul's cuts in warfare, I would be glad again to vote for him. <br />if you have not already, visit my blog: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/<br />I am glad to hear your thoughts if you have time, and a plug would be great as well. Thanks for your honesty.Corneliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17506103031213301295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-26126867596468703622011-05-16T14:52:21.837-07:002011-05-16T14:52:21.837-07:00Jason,
I think many liberals accepted that percei...Jason,<br /><br />I think many liberals accepted that perceived trade-off during the time of LBJ: a few dead foreigners in exchange for Medicare. In reality, though, a "few" dead foreigners turned out to be a few million dead, nowhere near the number "saved" by Medicare.<br /><br />While an interesting hypothetical, I'm of the opinion that a massive centralized state like the US will do a lot more harm than good in the long run-- it'll use the power it's amassed to enrich the powerful and bomb the powerless much more often than it'll work on behalf of The Little Guy. A smaller Republic of Vermont, by contrast, never would have had the power and resources to invade Iraq; it could, however, plausibly provide its residents with a decent health care system.<br /><br />In rambling sum: I don't think it's possible to accept the good (Medicare or free health care for all) that comes from a powerful central government without accepting a whole lot of bad (blowing up Afghan babies, embargoing Iraq during the 90s). Liberals tried that during Vietnam and it didn't work out so well, especially for the Vietnamese. You can't separate domestic from foreign policy. The current US government also doesn't seem terribly interested in any of the "good" stuff anyway, and I definitely don't see any policy coming out of Washington -- and making it past Congress and K Street -- that has the potential to save more lives than ending the empire would.Charles Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-80004039756374399572011-05-10T19:07:38.771-07:002011-05-10T19:07:38.771-07:00"If you believe it's okay to murder innoc..."If you believe it's okay to murder innocent men, women and children with Predator drones, I don't care what your position on Social Security is."<br /><br />I'm inclined to agree with what you say here (and, well, everywhere else). But to play devil's advocate, what about this counter-argument: <br /><br />Can we assume that there's no difference between aggressively violent killings by drone, and passively lethal killings from, say, lack of health insurance? That the life taken by a political decision on how to allocate economic resources is as valuable as the life taken by a political decision on how to "fight Terrorism"?<br /><br />If so, then if a President Obama is more likely than a President Paul to help the number of deaths in the U.S. from lack of health insurance go down from 45,000 a year to 35,000 a year**, would that change the moral calculus? <br /><br />Disregarding the nationalities of the victims, if the person who supports a policy which kills 1,000 innocents is the same person who supports a policy which saves the lives of 10,000 innocents, then isn't that a better alternative than the person who would prevent the 1,000 deaths but allow the 10,000?<br /><br />I don't necessarily agree with this counter-argument - just putting it out there.<br /><br />**I recognize that the part about Obama being able to save lives with things like health care reform would be more plausible if we were talking 2008 and not 2012; going forward, even if he were willing, he'll be unable to do much of anything for anyone outside the ruling class. (And by not abolishing the private health insurance system, Obama & D.C. Dems proved their indifference to the tens of thousands who will continue to be killed by that system.)Jason Guthartznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-22881847737767661962011-05-08T19:40:02.376-07:002011-05-08T19:40:02.376-07:00I think Ron Paul is wrong about abortion, same-sex...I think Ron Paul is wrong about abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration.<br /><br />And, well, Constitution-worship. And the state.<br /><br />I expect, per the campaign Brad Spangler's been helming, to Vote for Nobody come November 2012.<br /><br />But I think it's worth pointing out that the president's direct impact on whether anyone gets to have an abortion is minimal. Protection for abortion rights is settled federal law absent the overturning of Roe. A president would have to get a justice likely to overturn Roe past the Senate. A president who took Ron Paul's positions on policy issues would in any case be likely to view agreement on other issues as more important than support for overturning Roe. Given that support for Paul's views on those other positions is most likely to come from people who don't share his view of Roe, I don't think it's obvious that, were he president, it would prove at all easy for him to find a generally libertarianism but anti-Roe Supreme Court nominee. And, I repeat: if he did, that person would have to get past the Senate.<br /><br />So the president's impact on abortion rights is, to say the least, limited.<br /><br />By contrast, the president's impact on whether military force is unleashed around the world, whether assassinations and drone strikes are carried out, whether the DOJ chooses to invest energy in enforcing unjust drug laws—that impact is enormous.Gary Chartierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687278491211390956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-7242305272260373722011-05-08T19:34:00.669-07:002011-05-08T19:34:00.669-07:00While there's always the secession option. Eve...While there's always the secession option. Everyone can do it until they downsized to a society small enough to have a civil conversation among themselves. The status quo is toxic.D. Frank Robinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-73807525932692968842011-05-05T12:54:56.857-07:002011-05-05T12:54:56.857-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-66844483793013612912011-05-05T12:53:09.208-07:002011-05-05T12:53:09.208-07:00It takes a genuinely selfish and brain-dead idiot ...It takes a genuinely selfish and brain-dead idiot to focus exclusively on abortion as if it were the <i>sine qua non</i> of social justiciability.<br /><br />Murder a fetus and you're a hero in Sasha's world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-10130971436742869202011-05-04T09:28:51.765-07:002011-05-04T09:28:51.765-07:00Do you think the corporate banks should set moneta...Do you think the corporate banks should set monetary policy or congress? I know there isn't much difference but at least one we can claim to control. Should we continue to fund dictators' ability to oppress their own people so big business can make bigger profits? Should we keep killing women and children for reasons I couldn't begin to tell you? Should we continue fund wars south of the border while incarcerating over a million people a year for engaging in mutually desired trade? Should we continue to allow more than half of TANF funds to be spent on administrative overhead(thank you welfare reform bill and retardicans)? Should we continue to wonder why big business benefits from the laws when we let them write the law? BTW, I am a card carrying libertarian.hanknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-16182126946069312222011-05-04T07:46:58.784-07:002011-05-04T07:46:58.784-07:00Addendum (added to the post and pasted here for go...<b>Addendum (added to the post and pasted here for good measure)</b>: Since some of you in the comments think I'm somehow backing off my original position, let me clarify. When I say that I'm conscious I may be using "my personal hobby horse" -- empire, or rather, the state bombing little children with cluster bombs -- as a litmus test for politicians, I'm being sarcastic. A year or so ago Chris Floyd and I were accused by one particularly dull liberal blogger of of making issues of war and peace our silly little "hobby horse," and I've since embraced the term.<br /><br />Perhaps I was too subtle -- there's a first for everything -- but, obviously, if somebody believes it's okay to blow poor foreigners up with munitions because somebody Bad might be in the vicinity, then they are fucked as a human being and not worthy of your support, whether they're a politician or a friend (I'm harsh like that). If you believe it's okay to murder innocent men, women and children with Predator drones, I don't care what your position on Social Security is.<br /><br />Also, to be gratuitous: Fuck Matt Tabbi on this.Charles Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-50548127618323750312011-05-04T06:54:40.181-07:002011-05-04T06:54:40.181-07:00Hero,
I believe you are mistaking politeness for ...Hero,<br /><br />I believe you are mistaking politeness for weakness and sarcasm for defensiveness.<br /><br />Maybe I should have just titled the post, "Matt Taibbi, Imperialist Cocksucker."Charles Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-79383012529215674522011-05-04T01:22:53.278-07:002011-05-04T01:22:53.278-07:00I think there are so many qualifications and so mu...I think there are so many qualifications and so much defensiveness in this post that it in the end has very little potency. Stylistically it is a big retreat from the original one and I don't know why. You are right, you don't have to write weakly like you were under siege and losing - it makes it appear as if you now realize that your position is a weak one.The Hero of Crappy Townhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04189947827669261501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-8580335698218703362011-05-03T20:13:57.870-07:002011-05-03T20:13:57.870-07:00What do Socialists say about imperialism and wars?...What do Socialists say about imperialism and wars?<br /><br />http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/<br /><br />Short version: It's the fault of Banking interests.<br /><br />What do Libertarians say about imperialism and wars?<br /><br />http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html<br /><br />Short version: It's the fault of Banking interests.<br /><br />War on Drugs, Imperialism, Big Governmnet, Welfare, Economic Neo-Liberalism, etc. etc. - they're all connected. It's Statism-Capitalism.ironchairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13303059839557054988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-77361032513322845442011-05-03T19:50:19.471-07:002011-05-03T19:50:19.471-07:00I used to have a simple litmus test for any politi...I used to have a simple litmus test for any politician that wants my support - Do they support the drug war? If their answer is yes, I refuse to support them. Now, just looking at the numbers, I think Central Banking kills more folks annually than all the military action on the planet. Just because someone doesn't explode when they starve to death it doesn't make them any less dead. If the US can resurrect itself from militarized imperialism and a totally collapsing economy it could serve as a positive role model limited only by the imagination of people that choose to find inspiration there. Central Banking is making slaves and corpses of all but the very wealthiest of our world's inhabitants. RP is far from perfect but if he can limit Central Planning, dramatically reduce our military to a truly defensive position and pay off our debt and drastically reduce (or eliminate) income tax simultaneously (hey that would stimulate the economy)- sign me up. Any other "change" is short.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-77542286411638502162011-05-03T19:45:07.822-07:002011-05-03T19:45:07.822-07:00@Sasha Either you haven't taken the time to ac...@Sasha Either you haven't taken the time to actually find out what Ron Paul's position on abortion is, oryou don't care about the facts and just want to promote your own agenda. He has made his position on abortion abundantly clear. As recent as last week on several major media outlets, he reiterated it. So, assuming you posses the slightest ability for cogent thought, I'll recap it briefly for you. He believes that the abortion issue resides Constitutionally with the states. That Washington has no claim to decide that which the tenth amendment left to the states. While he may be personally agains abortion, he has consistantly stated, on this and many other issues, that he doesn't believe in imposing his will on anyone. And he doesn't believe that anyone else has the right to impose their will on another. With the issue left to the states, like minded people on both sides of the issue would have recourse to find a place to live consistent with their views. Insane? Hardly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-28306378594824943742011-05-03T19:33:10.421-07:002011-05-03T19:33:10.421-07:00Odd small world note: my father and his wife retir...<i>Odd small world note: my father and his wife retired to San Juan del Sur and run the Villa Palermo hotel.</i><br /><br />Seriously? Drop me a line if you ever visit. And let me know if I can use their pool.Charles Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-62691171963292752632011-05-03T19:01:24.676-07:002011-05-03T19:01:24.676-07:00Ron Paul makes politics *FUN*. :D
The RON PAU...Ron Paul makes politics *FUN*. :D<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The RON PAUL challenge for Moron Libs! < armchair73 > 03/26 23:20:18<br /><br />Moron Libs. As you know, Ron Paul is WAAAAAAAAY better than your guys on some KEY, IMPORTANT things.<br /><br />So unless you do something about it, annoying Paultard Trolls like me will make this place a living hell for you.<br /><br />So - You must do something about it. And this is what you must do:<br />You need to contact every liberal, Democrat that you know.<br /><br />And you need to tell everyone to start writing letters. To your senators. Your Congressmen. Your local Newspapers. TV stations. Anyone and anything that pays heed to people's opinions, letters, etc. and publishes them.<br /><br />In these letters, you should demand that your Democratic party representatives take HARD line stances on:<br /><br />-Ending Imperialism. Bringing all US troops home and closing all US bases abroad.<br />-Ending/Defunding wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya.<br />-Repealing USA PATRIOT Act<br />-Ending the War on Drugs<br />-Ending the War on Terror<br />-Repealing NAFTA, along with all of our so-called "Free Trade" agreements with countries like China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea.<br /><br />On EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THESE. DEMANDS you should add at the end "EVEN RON PAUL SUPPORTS THIS, THE MOST CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN IN THE CONGRESS, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A DEMOCRAT IF YOU'RE *WORSE* ON THIS THAN *EVEN* RON PAUL???"<br /><br />Moron Libs. You don't need to cross the aisle and become a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul is for us Conservatives.<br /><br />BUT YOU MUST DEMAND THAT "YOUR" PARTY BE AT LEAST AS GOOD AS RON PAUL ON ALL THIS STUFF.<br /><br />Oh and as you make these demands, also ask that your Democratic party representatives, as they publicly call for ending all the wars and our military presence abroad, propose cutting HALF A TRILLION dollars out of the DoD and CIA/NSA budgets. Then RELENTLESSLY mock the Tea Party retards by pointing out your guys are trying to cut HALF A TRILLION in spending, while their Neocon douchebag pols are diddling around with $80 billion or whatever the chump change actually is.<br /><br />Mmmkay? Get it now?<br /><br />Just sayin'<br /><br />Morons. Heh.ironchairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13303059839557054988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-35551847053414249592011-05-03T18:48:28.777-07:002011-05-03T18:48:28.777-07:00OK, I guess I deleted my comment last night. Once ...OK, I guess I deleted my comment last night. Once more:<br /><br />Following J.D., I can't understand why we should care that Ron Paul maybe once made racially insensitive comments*, when his policies would do enormous good for minorities. What exactly are people afraid of anyway? As President, it would be within Paul's power to pardon non-violent drug users and respect state laws concerning marijuana. On the other hand, what scary racist policies do people fear he would be willing and able to unilaterally enact as President?<br /><br />I just discovered your writing a few days ago, through Roderick Long's link to your last post on Ron Paul. As a libertarian anarchist, I love what you're saying Mr. Davis. I find it appalling that there are so many progressives who denounce people like myself or Ron Paul, when the US is killing thousands overseas and ruining millions of lives at home.<br /><br />*I don't know what Rand Paul has said or done to suggest racist beliefs, and if there are examples, why they should then be attributed to his fatherMJGreennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-64583815421650506452011-05-03T18:19:15.114-07:002011-05-03T18:19:15.114-07:00It's amazing to me the amount of cognitive dis...It's amazing to me the amount of cognitive dissonance coming from highly intelligent progressive personalities like Matt Taibbi. Would it so disrupt their world view to come to terms with what Obama and the United States actually stand for? <br /><br />Would it be the end of the world to come to terms with the fact that most libertarians are, practically, more liberal on just about every front possible than your average liberal? <br /><br />I don't think there's any reason to stop calling these people out. The more you shine light on their hypocrisy, the better. <br /><br />Liberals need a serious reformation or wake-up call or they run the risk of being jr. republicans forever.KEVIN!https://www.blogger.com/profile/05470970841401462628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-86576879087327951182011-05-03T15:04:29.896-07:002011-05-03T15:04:29.896-07:00Matt Taibi has a kind of superficial way of evalua...Matt Taibi has a kind of superficial way of evaluating ideas. He kind of gets Ron Paul because the poeple were polite to him and doesn't like Rand because his fans were tea partiers! <br /><br />Does anyone else find this ridiculous? <br /><br />Then he responds to some eager young Paul supporter asking him to read The Road to Serfdom as if that was the end of the debate. <br /><br />Matt Taibbi circa 30 AD " Oh Jesus? That guy, I wish people would stop asking me about him. His fans are insane and annoying. Plus, I mean he's just a really out there radical. I agree with him on some things though". <br /><br />note: not to compare Paul to Jesus. Just saying how about talking about ideas not politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-30007339315295684092011-05-03T10:39:23.135-07:002011-05-03T10:39:23.135-07:00Sasha,
Don't you think abortion is something ...Sasha,<br /><br />Don't you think abortion is something of a red herring exploited by both parties? While I don't believe any level of government should be able to restrict a woman's right to choose, at least Ron Paul wouldn't impose his view on the entire nation -- he doesn't believe the federal government has that authority. In practice, Paul's return-the-issue-to-the-states position would change little. Not even South Dakota was able to pass an abortion ban. And despite Roe v. Wade, there are few abortion providers in middle America as it is.<br /><br />Barack Obama, meanwhile, hasn't exactly been great on women's issues: his health care reform law forbids insurance companies from covering abortions if they receive federal funding. And the victims of his wars? Women too.Charles Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-18262453712863707452011-05-03T10:29:32.421-07:002011-05-03T10:29:32.421-07:00Any woman who would vote for Ron Paul is insane. ...Any woman who would vote for Ron Paul is insane. Nope, he doesn't want to bomb Yemen. But he wants to control my body. He doesn't much care if I die carrying a child that he has decided I should carry.<br /><br />You don't have a problem with that? You think that is a man of peace?Sashahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06501998212859335778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-57014843898207495952011-05-03T03:22:05.531-07:002011-05-03T03:22:05.531-07:00I'd vote for Paul and I'm a dumbass who vo...I'd vote for Paul and I'm a dumbass who voted team Donk in every presidential from '88 to '08. <br /><br />If elected, we know what Paul would and could do to the state (if they didn't kill him). And some of loony domestic policy ideas wouldn't get very far in congress anyway.<br /><br />As it stands, almost without question now that he can sport an "I'm Obama & I slayed Osama" t-shirt, the POTUS will continue to = the status quo. Jerkoffs for the oligarchs, check, endless war and Orwellian dystopia...<br /><br />Taibbi's not dumb--he knows the media will savage Paul or anyone who threatens the corporatist state. And unlike Hedges, he's not yet personally threatened by the looming collapse. He still doesn't quite believe it can happen or he's already bought a little place in Costa Rica.jcapannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-35595092473925044372011-05-02T23:22:54.734-07:002011-05-02T23:22:54.734-07:00New to the blog - found you off a link from Chris ...New to the blog - found you off a link from Chris Floyd I think. Glad I stumbled across it, you're a very good writer.<br /><br />I agree that there's more power in acting locally - but I wouldn't forgo elections. Rather, I think voting in progressive school board candidates and city councilpersons, mayors, state officials, etc. lays the groundwork for change at the top (arguably, this strategy was pretty successfully employed by Republicans during their years of exodus from Washington congressional leadership).<br /><br />Odd small world note: my father and his wife retired to San Juan del Sur and run the Villa Palermo hotel.Everythings Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-58551217250300384642011-05-02T22:52:15.050-07:002011-05-02T22:52:15.050-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael J. Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07545514401870360899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-60239872401415887532011-05-02T18:05:42.488-07:002011-05-02T18:05:42.488-07:00You opt out of voting, Anonymous. It's that si...You opt out of voting, Anonymous. It's that simple. Opt. Out. And take your goodies with you.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.com