tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post1946675209302558101..comments2023-12-29T18:13:21.495-06:00Comments on pink scare: Left Talking Points on Ron PaulUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-17339344437574988762012-01-03T19:48:15.844-06:002012-01-03T19:48:15.844-06:00Great post on racism in the libertarian movement: ...Great post on racism in the libertarian movement: http://herrnaphta.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/racism-and-american-libertarian-thought/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-15604248238772635132012-01-03T13:56:13.541-06:002012-01-03T13:56:13.541-06:00I agree that occupations, demonstrations, strikes,...I agree that occupations, demonstrations, strikes, etc are the real way progress is made. But let's say November 2012 arrives and there really isn't a third choice. We haven't done the work needed to give people a chance to select someone that isn't corporate owned. There are differences between the D's and R's. They may be small, but small differences in such a powerful state can make a lot of difference to suffering people. Take labor rights. Under Bush the National Labor Relations Board just didn't bother enforcing the law. Now we have Obama. A corporate stooge through and through. But now Boeing tries to break a union by moving a factory to South Carolina and the NRLB flags it and opposes it. This kind of thing has a big impact on people's lives. Or take health care. I don't like the Obama plan, but it's better than the R alternative. If the R wins you're really going to see a lot of suffering amongst the poor. Yeah, we need occupations, demonstrations, and strikes. We need to keep doing it until it's actually possible that people get a voice. But you can't just ignore Scott Walker like outcomes. Sitting out or just saying we need grass roots activity produces more Scott Walkers and that hurts.<br /><br />I read your Civil War article, which was very good. In terms of history it's not different from what Paul thinks. The South seceded due to slavery. But the north went to war to keep the tax revenue coming in.<br /><br />On abortion, once again I trust the people to do the right thing. I always prefer democracy to any alternative. Let the people decide. If public opinion were followed we'd have never went to war in Iraq, we'd have single payer healthcare, tax hikes for millionaires, trade relations with Cuba, drug decriminalization, a peaceful settlement in Israel, and the list goes on. The reason we have such awful policies is because powerful sectors try their best to undermine democracy. Try democracy on abortion. You'd get limits on partial birth abortion, and that's about it. Right now it's a wedge issue. Nobody loves the Roe decision more than Republicans who use it to fund raise and divide, all the while selling the poor people that vote for them down the river.<br /><br />Obama was very clear that he'd continue to support the wars prior to his election. He publicly committed to the Bush timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. He said he'd attack Pakistan, which he has done. Obama was mostly truthful in terms of his promises on Iraq. He also voted to fund the wars every chance he got. Paul did not. Paul expressly says get the troops out now and he votes against funding the wars. He'd end the wars.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-19966815411144857582012-01-02T21:17:02.802-06:002012-01-02T21:17:02.802-06:00Jon, Ron Paul's economic policies would create...Jon, Ron Paul's economic policies would create more of an incentive to go to war, as you would have all sorts of profit-seeking institutions wanting to control the world's resources for more profit. I highly doubt ending the Fed and going back on the gold standard would end US imperialism, in fact it would probably INCREASE it since now there would be a huge demand to dig up Africa for all the gold it has under its soil.Julia Riber Pitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03006439247714055292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-23745040961439523162012-01-02T19:26:22.489-06:002012-01-02T19:26:22.489-06:00You could just as well have added to the list that...You could just as well have added to the list that Ron Paul has zero understanding of the global economic crisis. I hate to be one to tell him, but his beloved capitalism kinda has issues (and global ones at that). David Harvey is really good on this stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0<br /><br />Paul also talks about the Fed as if it is an institution that exists for its own sake. As you point out above, he has no understanding of how the Fed plays a particular ruling class function in Paul's beloved capitalist system. He doesn't seem to have any idea how it serves ruling class interests, since he doesn't seem to understand what a ruling class is (or, I dunno, maybe he does since he thinks the 1% is so over-taxed).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-86410851010090776292012-01-02T14:43:01.776-06:002012-01-02T14:43:01.776-06:00Jon, you said "On abortion, Paul wants the st...Jon, you said "On abortion, Paul wants the states to be allowed to decide."<br /><br />Bollocks to that, it should be a womans right to decide.Gary McNallyhttp://www.stokeswp.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-10687392976792349352012-01-02T14:12:44.869-06:002012-01-02T14:12:44.869-06:00"Paul rejects slavery on the grounds that you..."Paul rejects slavery on the grounds that your body is your property and can't be owned by another."<br /><br />That's one enlightened motherfucker!Rory Leahyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08274760637730164505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-34370761991434753502012-01-02T10:25:36.336-06:002012-01-02T10:25:36.336-06:00By and large, Ron Paul supporters don't seem t...By and large, Ron Paul supporters don't seem to give a fuck about black people. They don't care about fighting racism or building a multiracial movement for justice. So the fact that they are so unmoved by the putrid shit floating around in the Ron Paul Newsletters should not be surprising... Libertarians are nothing but conservatives who smoke weed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-9588448705483836962012-01-02T10:19:39.431-06:002012-01-02T10:19:39.431-06:00http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-twitter_n_1173600.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-34630974645787855582012-01-01T21:34:58.467-06:002012-01-01T21:34:58.467-06:00I don't agree with Greenwald in that recent bl...I don't agree with Greenwald in that recent blog post. In general I'm sympathetic to his searing criticisms of Obama, the Democrats, and liberal apologists for the first two. But he's off base in dismissing Left criticisms of Paul which mention his positions, newsletters, policies and politics. I am no liberal, and I certainly don't support Obama one iota. But I am against Paul because of the politics he stands for. Paul adopts very regressive positions on a number of issues and people should be aware of this so that they aren't lulled into political confusion by his progressive-sounding positions on ending the wars. Pat Buchanan is against the wars, but we shouldn't give him an ounce of support. <br /><br />Obama-heads that attack Paul in opportunistic ways are hypocrites; they should take a close look at the numerous ways in which Obama is vigorously pro-status quo. Greenwald is right to attack these sorts of folks. But he lumps those Left of the Dems in with these jerks--and that's a cheap move. I am against *both* Obama and Paul, for some of the same reasons, and for some different reasons. Pace Greenwald, there's nothing wrong with airing my reasons for opposing both of them by pointing to the polices they support and the things they say. The key is to reject the electoral arena as the primary locus of political struggle in the US. The two-party electoral system in the US is no more than a safety-valve (or one of those "door close" elevator buttons that doesn't actually do anything but makes you feel like you are accomplishing something). Both parties--especially Ron Paul's party--march in lockstep with big business. Fighting against the 1% requires occupations, demonstrations, strikes, direct actions, and all manner of extra-electoral struggle.thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268192967377248928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-24584454861823668422012-01-01T21:24:12.593-06:002012-01-01T21:24:12.593-06:002-By supporting a candidate running for one of the...2-By supporting a candidate running for one of the two corporate parties, you thereby lend undeserved legitimacy and credibility to our broken electoral system and the two-party duopoly itself. The lesser-evilist argument is similarly flawed; it de-emphasizes grassroots struggle and shoehorns active people into broken institutions that ultimately yield no serious political change. The way forward is not by straight-jacketing ourselves within a game that is rigged from the start.<br /><br />3-I think Ron Paul's newsletters and his public comments speak for themselves. Even in his most measured and calculated moments Ron Paul endorses colorblind racist positions. Also, his position on the Civil War is flawed; for more on the Civil War from a socialist perspective see this: http://isreview.org/issues/78/feat-civilwarslavery.shtml<br /><br />5-The "states rights" position on abortion is no more than a smokescreen for undermining legal access to abortions. Paul is a well-known "pro-lifer", and holds other regressive positions: doesn't believe in evolution, has scary views re: church and state separation, etc. (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw )<br /><br />6-Before he was president, Obama spoke out loudly and publicly against the war and Bush's foreign policy (just as he publicly supported single-payer). But we all know what happened after he took office: he continued Bush's foreign policy and turned it up a notch. The President has the powers you mention, but given how our political and economic system functions there are plenty of structural reasons why we can't expect substantial changes in foreign policy to come from above (see, e.g.: http://pink-scare.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-problem-1-or-system.html ) As you point out, Paul has no analysis of how economic power (esp. major corporations) actually fuels imperialism and war. Thus, Paul is the contradictory position of vehemently defending the very system--capitalism--which produces and drives the wars he denounces.thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268192967377248928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-81745916856583766572012-01-01T09:58:53.069-06:002012-01-01T09:58:53.069-06:00Glenn Greenwald is right on this point today.Glenn Greenwald is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/" rel="nofollow">right on this point today</a>.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-9977697318417499352012-01-01T09:22:28.229-06:002012-01-01T09:22:28.229-06:00I'm a former huge fan of Ron Paul. Had a sign...I'm a former huge fan of Ron Paul. Had a sign in my yard in 2008 in fact. I changed my view and now would more align with you, but based on what I know of Paul I suspect you haven't followed him closely enough to really understand him. There's a couple of major things wrong here.<br /><br />1-First point you are exactly right, so I'm with you there.<br /><br />2-Paul really does not stand for the 2 party system. He tried to run as a liberterian, but learned during that process that the system is rigged to prevent a third party from having a voice. So it's perfectly legitimate in my mind to adopt a strategy that works within a 2 party system in order to work to dismantle it. People like Noam Chomsky will tell you to vote for Obama over McCain. That's not advocacy for a 2 party system, but an acknowledgement that real activism means you must adopt strategies that actually accomplish something. If a person concludes that working for the Green party won't get the message out, then you can agree or disagree but you don't claim that this means they advocate a 2 party system.<br /><br />3-You are way off on this point. Paul rejects slavery on the grounds that your body is your property and can't be owned by another. He would conclude that the South had a right to secede because associations should be voluntary. He'd also point out, quite rightly, that the war was fought by the North not to free slaves but to sustain tax revenue. The South wanted to buy British industrial products, but the North wanted to have high tariffs in order to develop our own industries (which ended up working really well and propelled the US to the front of the economic world) and to generate tax revenue. Paul also points out that slavery ended all over the world about the same time much more peacefully. So alternatives to a war that killed 600,000 people should absolutely be considered. I think a reasonable person could say Lincoln used the wrong approach. That's a lot of corpses.<br /><br />4-Agree with you on education.<br /><br />5-On abortion, Paul wants the states to be allowed to decide. He's said that if a bill came across his desk that would allow him to ban abortion through Congressional legislation he would not sign it because he does not believe Congress or the President has the authority to impose this rule on people. That's advocacy for democracy, which I support. I think there's nothing wrong with allowing some things to be decided at a state level. Instead in the US we have bizarre rules that allow an abortion literally through 9 months of pregnancy. Don't let people tell you otherwise. There's confusion because of some of the Roe language, but the fact is right now (thanks to a companion decision-Dover) a woman can abort at any time. Reasonable people think that's going too far, but the court rulings won't let people have a voice in the matter.<br /><br />6-Why can't he end the wars? The President legally can bring the troops home. He can decide that the mission is done (and it is more than done with OBL dead and Al Qaeda totally destroyed).<br /><br />I'm not saying I'd vote for him, but I think he can end the wars. My concern is that he'd dismantle so much government that corporations would just hire their own mercenaries, and the wars would be back on after a while under Paul's presidency.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com