5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution

[Javaman]

He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution_--_%27cuddly%27_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics/

1) Ron Paul on Race

Based on his religious adherence to his purportedly libertarian principles, Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unlike his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Paul has not even tried to walk back from this position. In fact, he wears it proudly. Here's an excerpt from Ron Paul's 2004 floor speech about the Civil Rights Act, in which he explains why he voted against a House resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the law:


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

>snip<

2) Ron Paul on Reproductive Rights

The sponsor of a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul's libertarianism does not apply to women, though it does apply to zygotes. His is a no-exceptions anti-abortion position, essentially empowering a rapist to sire a child with a woman of his choosing. Although Paul attributes his stance on abortion to his background as an ob-gyn physician, it should be noted that most ob-gyns are pro-choice, and that Paul's draconian position tracks exactly with that of his Christian Reconstructionist friends.

While mainstream media, when they're not busy ignoring his presidential campaign in favor of the badly trailing former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, invariably focus on Paul's economic libertarianism, Sarah Posner, writing for the Nation, noted that during his appearances leading up to the Iowa straw poll (in which Paul finished second only to Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minn., by a 200-vote margin), "launched into gruesome descriptions of abortion, a departure from his stump speech focused on cutting taxes, shutting down the Federal Reserve, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and repealing the Patriot Act."

More at link...

[Skidmore]

1. You are neither liberal or progressive if you support Ron Paul.

[Javaman]

2. Exactly right.

there were a whole slew of them on here a few weeks ago defending that fucking halfwit.

It really was amazing.

[roguevalley]

15. He's a pathetic little shit who uses politics to cover his selfish anti

woman, anti human hatreds. He uses libertarianism to cushion his racist hate mongering corrupted selfish bullshit. He's a punk.

[wtmusic]

3. When I heard Paul say "the Democrats want handouts..."

that was all I needed to hear.

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. And furthermore if you believe he's going to end the war on drugs, I got a bridge... nm

[Little Star]

5. I agree with that Javaman! n/t

[DirkGently]

6. The same evil hiding behind "state's rights." The 'right' to abuse & harm people, is what they mean.

[lonestarnot]

7. fuckwit is right.

[bowens43]

8. Reason number 6

He's a stark mad, raving lunatic....

[HappyMe]

12. Yup. Drooling crazy

and a lying sack o' crap besides.

[pansypoo53219]

9. he is penny wise + pound foolish.

and way to black + white. plus his fiscal ideas......NO GROVER NO AYN.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

11. Meh. At least he speaks out against the wars.

I am glad he is in the race, because he is forcing the candidates to talk about issues that would otherwise be ignored entirely.

He is the ONLY candidate who calls out American empire and warmongering.

And recently he has actually gotten some of the Republican candidates to talk about auditing the Federal Reserve.

Where is our DEMOCRATIC anti-war candidate? Where is our DEMOCRATIC candidate for transparency?

The establishment hates him, because he threatens the status quo re: the banks and the wars. Because of his extreme libertarian views, he has absolutely no chance of getting the nomination.

However, he can do some very good things for the debate.

[Javaman]

13. This is why I believe Sanders should primary Obaman. nt

[MicaelS]

14. You know Javaman

The "love affair" some Progressives have with Paul, because of his position on our wars and drugs, is eerily reminiscent of the "love affair" some Progressives have with Eisenhower simply because of "Military-Industrial Complex speech". Despite the fact that Eisenhower presided over the enormous buildup of the US Nuclear Arsenal, and he was ready to nuke the USSR at the slightest reason.

[Javaman]

18. Right you are...

It seems as if they have this selective disconnect. While they love to quote eisenhower and his crazy ass farewell speak, they fail to understand that he was a major player in the creation of the MIC.

I like to call eisenhower's farewell speech, his speech of self loathing. LOL

[kwolf68]

16. I can't stand anything this guy says

He is a bozo. Yea, the anti-war crowd likes him, but he isn't against war because he finds it morally repugnant, but rather because it's a government action.

If a 'private insurance company' were to take military force against 'infidels' he'd have no problem with it.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

17. He'd go a lot further if he only had H. Ross Perot's personality.

:*

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. Ron Paul is very popular here at DU which is baffling because he's NOT a Democrat

and he's NOT a liberal in the traditional sense.

He's also a bigot and an egomaniac. Other than on a few issues, he should not be heralded here at DU the way he is.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Broderick]

21. Some support him by overlooking everything else

since he is likely the only anti-war candidate running.

[Pubslayer]

22. honesty w/ flaws over a "correct" lier

I'll try to explain it - I voted for a Progressive, but I got another Bush term. Paul is the ONLY anti-war candidate. You can dismiss that however you want but the fact remains. He's also the only candidate who understands money. In the debates he's the only candidate who tells it like it is - he doesn't spin his ideas, he isn't going to water down his beliefs like Romney, and he isn't going to turn out a different person like Obama. Did anyone here watch the GOP debates? He had the audience standing and clapping and made all other politician smell bad. So you ask - how do you dismiss his "issues"? I believe our country is so effed up that most of what people talk about here are luxuries. The country is rapidly turning third world and we are talking about two dudes having the right to marry? That is a luxury issue. Abortion/ P.P.funding is a luxury issue. If we don't solve our financial problems you can forget all about civil rights. I am willing to put certain things on hold right now while we figure out the big picture. I also don't thing Paul has an agenda to dismantle Dem accomplishments; he has an ideology, that's for sure, but most politicians sell what the public wants to hear. They are freakin' liers. Obama falls into this camp. Paul doesn't and the media and public don't know what to make of it so his ideas are blown out of proportion, relative to the norm. I think he has a level head and has "outgrown" his more extreme positions of his youth (and I think his son is a D-bag of epic proportions). His blatant honesty is refreshing, and I'll take that with some bad. I also like the fact that Republicans hate him; even Fox sweeps him under the rug. Take a look at this video, scroll to 7:45 and listen to his prediction; can any of you Paul haters honestly dismiss the wisdom here?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ