Ron Paul is a (standard issue) Republican

al Asaad · 12-06-2007, 11:49 PM

Thought you who should know better that a Wolf (Ron Paul) in "moderate" (revolutionary) Republican clothing is still a Republican... in Wolves clothing.

Of what import is that?

That Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN; which tells you more about Ron Paul than Ron Paul himself is willing to tell you about Ron Paul; and that a lying SOB (Paul) is a lying SOB (read: Republican).

What is disingenuous about Ron Paul supporters (and Ron Paul himself) is he has tried to paint himself as something other than what he is: kinda like a "New, populist Republican, an Eisenhower of sorts", a man who was-if all who remember him recall-under the Wolves clothing; a rock-rib Republican.

Brainpolice · 12-07-2007, 06:35 PM

I don't believe he's ever claimed to be anything other than what he is: an anti-war/non-interventionist, constitutionalist conservative Republican straight out of the old-school right, in the tradition of Taft. What makes him different is that the majority of Republicans don't fit that mold at all, since ever since the 50's and 60's "fusionism" and eventually neo-conservatism transformed right-wing politics into a movement of throne and altar conservatism, corporatism and global crusades against communism and terrorism.

A little lesson in the history of American conservatism: before the influence of people such as Bill Buckley, many conservatives were opponents of the cold war, the draft and the military-industrial complex. But as time passed they started to allow anti-communism to permeate them to the extent that they abandoned their older non-interventionist and cosmopolitan positions out of fear of international communism. Modern conservatism is the result of an ideological disintegration within their own ranks, combined with infiltration from outside.

al Asaad · 12-08-2007, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpolice

I don't believe he's ever claimed to be anything other than what he is: an anti-war/non-interventionist, constitutionalist conservative Republican straight out of the old-school right, in the tradition of Taft.

Yeah, but the point of my comment had to do with the inevitablilty of him, as "President", further empowering "Republicans" (the genre), to include all the slimeballs and nut cases tagging along as bad baggage.
Don't forget, a Republican is a Republican.

Let's try it this way: you know damn well he would kowtow to the Right, religious "conservatives", The NRA-etc.

djack · 12-08-2007, 11:52 AM

Well he used to claim to be a Libertarian until he found out a Libertarian was unelectable in Texas.
Check YOUR history. Libertarian candidate for president in 1988 to be exact.

kblair7 · 12-08-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al Asaad

Yeah, but the point of my comment had to do with the inevitablilty of him, as "President", further empowering "Republicans" (the genre), to include all the slimeballs and nut cases tagging along as bad baggage.
Don't forget, a Republican is a Republican.

Let's try it this way: you know damn well he would kowtow to the Right, religious "conservatives", The NRA-etc.

Well by that logic you should call all Democrats tree-hugging, hippy, big-government, big taxers, communists, socialist, and anti-american...

That is of course, a load of crap. Your characterization of Republicans is also inaccurate. Not every republican supports the NRA, or is a "religious nut."

You have to keep in mind that politics, especially party politics is like a giant social mirror. People want gun-toting, religious zealots (well 28% of republican voters), the rest probably don't.

I spend many years studying this, and I can say with some certainty understanding the nature of people's political affiliations is like trying to catch sand in the twisting winds.

Ron Paul, is for his faults, probably the closest candidate to the traditional republican platform (pre-1968). I don't support all this initiatives, but the majority of his convictions about how government should serve the people of this country, are right on point. He is also correct in stating we have strayed far off the path of being the greatest nation, not just because of military power, because we as Americans no longer have the moral fiber to step up and hold our leaders accountable for their crimes. That I also agree with.
He would be a far better leader than Clinton, or Obama.

BillCosby · 12-08-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpolice

I don't believe he's ever claimed to be anything other than what he is: an anti-war/non-interventionist, constitutionalist conservative Republican straight out of the old-school right, in the tradition of Taft. What makes him different is that the majority of Republicans don't fit that mold at all, since ever since the 50's and 60's "fusionism" and eventually neo-conservatism transformed right-wing politics into a movement of throne and altar conservatism, corporatism and global crusades against communism and terrorism.

A little lesson in the history of American conservatism: before the influence of people such as Bill Buckley, many conservatives were opponents of the cold war, the draft and the military-industrial complex. But as time passed they started to allow anti-communism to permeate them to the extent that they abandoned their older non-interventionist and cosmopolitan positions out of fear of international communism. Modern conservatism is the result of an ideological disintegration within their own ranks, combined with infiltration from outside.

Although Ike gave lip service to it he never really did much about the military-industrial complex.....

I agree w/ your overall conclusion but see the truman doctrine as the core rather than a subtle change over time in response to communism.....

In fact IMO & that of many others, America & that military-industrial complex were @ war w/ communism rather than vis versa....

The cold war doctrine/bull shit of the usa/west/democracy being under overt threat from communism was over shadowed by the aggressive, hegemonic & unwavering assault of that military-industrial complex upon it..............

al Asaad · 12-13-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kblair7

Well by that logic you should call all Democrats tree-hugging, hippy, big-government, big taxers, communists, socialist, and anti-american...

No, those are Republican "Talking points" which fall so easily form your lips, and are what the Right calls Democrats.
Whereas Democrats are what they are, we know the Republican Party is the Looney Bin of American politics (Paul himself an exemplar), with crackpots of every stripe and persuasion.

Quote:

That is of course, a load of crap. Your characterization of Republicans is also inaccurate. Not every republican supports the NRA, or is a "religious nut."

The point of my OP, had you cared to read it for content, was: no matter who the Republican President is, he will and has always been silent whenever the Right Wing crackpots do their thing.
It is not then a strict requirement from the Party that the Republican President speak out publicly against his Parties crackpots or their lunatic fringe. Fact of the matter is, every Republican President, by silent acquiescence, give them courage to speak out following their old dictum of "Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican".

Quote:

You have to keep in mind that politics, especially party politics is like a giant social mirror.

Of what? Most Americans simply want to be able to work, raise their children and live in peace, no politics-no “color” involved.
It is the utterly venal, irrationally fascist nature of modern Republican politics that keeps this nation roiled up, one against another.

Quote:

People want gun-toting, religious zealots (well 28% of republican voters), the rest probably don't.

See how you started that paragraph, using fascist language in trying to make a dubious point? Not only was your “People want gun-toting, religious zealots” a bald-faced lie you instantly ameliorated by saying: “([/i]well 28% of republican voters[/i]), you Parrot Right Wing talking points with an ease that makes one wonder where your politics really lay?

Quote:

I spend many years studying this,

“This” what?

Quote:

and I can say with some certainty understanding the nature of people's political affiliations is like trying to catch sand in the twisting winds.

Bull. Left to their own simplistic devices, “(The) People” have no “politics”: none, not any: nein-nada-zip.

Quote:

Ron Paul, is for his faults, probably the closest candidate to the traditional republican platform (pre-1968). I don't support all this initiatives, but the majority of his convictions about how government should serve the people of this country, are right on point.

The problem with modern, “Paulist” populism is he nor any other Republican, ever factor in the real cost of normal population growth and the concomitant raises in "The cost of doing GOVERNMENT business for the people", plus the cost of serving an ever growing “Baby Boom” population.
Which means he and all other Republicans always think of and talk of “cutting costs” when the cost of “government”, not counting doing the minimums to repair our failing infrastructure, will grow as the millions of Baby Boomers come on line.
While the general population is diminishing in proportion to the number of Baby Boomers, and we will have to educate fewer children per capita, the population as a whole will continue to grow, thus demand more “government services”, which he and again, Republicans think can be done in 2020 with the same budget we have in 2007: stupid Republicans and equally gullible people believe them in spite of the coming calamities in Medicare, Health Care-etc.

Quote:

He is also correct in stating we have strayed far off the path of being the greatest nation, not just because of military power, because we as Americans no longer have the moral fiber to step up and hold our leaders accountable for their crimes. That I also agree with.

Hint: [i]No people throughout history, of any nation, have ever had the “moral fiber” to step up and hold their leaders accountable: nowhere in history. Worse for that far too simplistic solution to “good government”, only by raising the highest qualified person to position of power could any “people” hope to be served as they should be.

Quote:

He would be a far better leader than Clinton, or Obama.

You don’t like Obama, of them all the only person with “people skills” and at the same time, can be thought of as being “of” the people?
Which of the other candidates have done “grunt” work inner cities and Barrios? Which of the others of them has a firm grasp on the problems of the elderly, the poor, the lame and halt?
Which of the others were, as Obama clearly was- prescient about this dirty little war of Dubya’s, his lazer vision slicing through the lies, smokescreens and diplomatic Bullshit?
Where and when was Paul’s voice, raised in stentorian anger in opposition to the war?

al Asaad · 12-13-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillCosby

Although Ike gave lip service to it he never really did much about the military-industrial complex.....
(SNIP) The cold war doctrine/bull shit of the usa/west/democracy being under overt threat from communism was over shadowed by the aggressive, hegemonic & unwavering assault of that military-industrial complex upon it..............

Ike had so many MI Phalluses up his buttocks he dare not do anything but talk about it.
Besides, Kansas during the "Cold War" was the producer of B-47 and B-52 Bombers, each to play vital roles in the defense of this country, the B-52 still on duty in 2007 .
We had not yet landed on the Moon, nor had we firmed up our new military strategies.
With the fires of Korea banked but Cold War embers still glowing, embers which needed only another spark to ignite, the Army and other services, who had fought WW2 and Korea with old, many times inferior gear, had to be refitted and rearmed with new gear, both of which would consume billions of dollars and tens of million of hours of highly skilled labor to produce the needed weaponry and aircraft.

His rant was as much about the incestuous nature of the relationship between government and industry as it was about the unethical immorality of the relationship.
But the need to rearm trumped any real queasiness and our 100% dependence on American industry to do the job made the relationship not only incestuous-but also... cozy.

Elliott · 12-13-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al Asaad

Yeah, but the point of my comment had to do with the inevitablilty of him, as "President", further empowering "Republicans" (the genre), to include all the slimeballs and nut cases tagging along as bad baggage.
Don't forget, a Republican is a Republican.

Let's try it this way: you know damn well he would kowtow to the Right, religious "conservatives", The NRA-etc.

We'll see President Mayor McCheese and Attorney General Grimace before Ronny "Dobbs" Paul steps into the oval office.

mentor · 12-13-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillCosby

Although Ike gave lip service to it he never really did much about the military-industrial complex.....

I agree w/ your overall conclusion but see the truman doctrine as the core rather than a subtle change over time in response to communism.....

In fact IMO & that of many others, America & that military-industrial complex were @ war w/ communism rather than vis versa....

The cold war doctrine/bull shit of the usa/west/democracy being under overt threat from communism was over shadowed by the aggressive, hegemonic & unwavering assault of that military-industrial complex upon it..............

He named it. Even that took balls.

12-06-2007, 11:49 PM	#1 (permalink)
al Asaad Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Houston, Brooklyn NY (Clinton Hill), Wichita, Kansas Posts: 542 My Mood: Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts	Ron Paul is a (standard issue) Republican Thought you who should know better that a Wolf (Ron Paul) in "moderate" (revolutionary) Republican clothing is still a Republican... in Wolves clothing. Of what import is that? That Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN; which tells you more about Ron Paul than Ron Paul himself is willing to tell you about Ron Paul; and that a lying SOB (Paul) is a lying SOB (read: Republican). What is disingenuous about Ron Paul supporters (and Ron Paul himself) is he has tried to paint himself as something other than what he is: kinda like a "New, populist Republican, an Eisenhower of sorts", a man who was-if all who remember him recall-under the Wolves clothing; a rock-rib Republican.
	Top

12-07-2007, 06:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Brainpolice Free Market Anarchist Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Euclid, Ohio Posts: 378 My Mood: Thanks: 2 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I don't believe he's ever claimed to be anything other than what he is: an anti-war/non-interventionist, constitutionalist conservative Republican straight out of the old-school right, in the tradition of Taft. What makes him different is that the majority of Republicans don't fit that mold at all, since ever since the 50's and 60's "fusionism" and eventually neo-conservatism transformed right-wing politics into a movement of throne and altar conservatism, corporatism and global crusades against communism and terrorism. A little lesson in the history of American conservatism: before the influence of people such as Bill Buckley, many conservatives were opponents of the cold war, the draft and the military-industrial complex. But as time passed they started to allow anti-communism to permeate them to the extent that they abandoned their older non-interventionist and cosmopolitan positions out of fear of international communism. Modern conservatism is the result of an ideological disintegration within their own ranks, combined with infiltration from outside. __________________ http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/ Last edited by Brainpolice; 12-07-2007 at 07:06 PM.
	Top

12-08-2007, 11:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
djack Chairman of the Bored Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,187 My Mood: Thanks: 0 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	Well he used to claim to be a Libertarian until he found out a Libertarian was unelectable in Texas. Check YOUR history. Libertarian candidate for president in 1988 to be exact. __________________ "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough." Karl Marx (last words)
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read