Ray, since you're not from the United States, and aren't familiar with political rhetoric here, you probably miss significant problems with Ron Paul. He uses a lot of language that appears innocuous on it's face, but actually means very specific things to people historically associated with Southern secession movements. He's had a documented friendship with Don Black, founder of Stormfront. There's a reason he has so much support from reactionary groups, and it's because they know him much better than the disaffected liberals who do not speak the "code" and don't have a long-term understanding of marginalized/underground American politics.

My American friends, can Ron Paul win or not ?

Simply put? No.

While many Americans are ignorant/apathetic/lazy...few enough are actually loony enough to elevate this crackpot to anything remotely resembling a position where he could meaningfully compete for the presidency.

However, Paul is not interested in the Presidency per-se, methinks...he has spoken numerous times about how he is "building his movement" and how he is "not good at strategy so [he] just sticks to the same thing and [does] it over and over again." This is what worries me...not because I feel that this movement will ever become a legitimate force to be reckoned with (or a coherent force to any degree) but because we have enough loony, wacko right-wing groups already. It's so incredibly annoying to hear self-proclaimed "libertarians" railing about deregulation and other concepts without actually understanding the impact this would have on the state of the nation and more importantly, the globe.

There have been numerous, factual rebuttals to the "merits" of Ron Paul...if you choose to ignore those, that's fine, but recognize that this response is no different than a small child closing his eyes, sticking his fingers in his ears and shaking his head back and forth while yelling "I'm not listening to you!"

I think you're underestimating him, SnozzleBerry. He has proven to be a frontrunner, as apparent from these recent Republican primaries. As long as he keeps accumulating these delegates, he will be a force to be reckoned with. There's nothing loony about his ideology; it simply has a philosophically individualist basis. To be honest, he is more aligned with the founding fathers than any other politician. So, one has to conclude for himself/herself, as an American, whether the constitution should even apply to us anymore, or whether this form of government (republic) is even adequate for our times. If one wishes to strive for the mindset of the founding fathers, then Ron Paul is the man, but if one wishes to pursue something truly revolutionary, then one is going to have to face the scourge of being branded un-American. Let's be realistic; even though Americans haven't upheld the constitution or the advice of the founding fathers for more than a century, there still exists this value for the beliefs of the founding fathers and the document they drafted. The current that aims to drift away absolutely from that mold will have no chance in this nation.

Ok, so let's assume he is in line with the founders (a dubious assumption, but I'll grant it to you). That means he's in the vein of the men who said:








________________________________________________________________________
This is just a taste of the kinds of ideas our founders supported (there's actually an incredible amount of evidence showing the types of people that the founders were and trust me, they're not the people presented to you in your history class)...things that I personally find abhorrent, and this is far from a comprehensive list. So if you're trying to appeal to my sense of patriotism by invoking the founders, I'm sorry, but that's just not going to have any influence.

We'll see how much of a front-runner he is in the coming months, wont we? There's no need to defend this, the truth will be seen
________________________________________________________________________
Finally, I'll leave you with an interview of Noam Chomsky on the topic of Ron Paul:

BSA: I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I'm also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here is my summary of Mr. Paul's positions - He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

BSA: He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

Chomsky: "Dismantling of big government" sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded -- like what we're now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,....? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

BSA: He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you've already mentioned.

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power -- itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

BSA: He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

BSA: I really can't find differences between your positions and his.

Chomsky: There's a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn't themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being "broken" are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based -- the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we're at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).


BSA: So I have these questions:

Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of "Libertarianism"?

Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion -- on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

BSA: Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of "Libertarianism"?

Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

BSA: Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate...and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

Chomsky: No.

I don't believe Washington meant the word "empire" in the same sense we understand it, in that particular context. He may have viewed this new Union as a great empire unto itself. He also stated this in his farewell address of 1796:



In addition to the Madison quote, one can also point out that the African was only considered 3/5th's of a person, as one can read from the constitution itself. What it all comes down to, putting the personal beliefs of the founding fathers aside, is what powers the government had. One can clearly see from the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 specifically what congress was allowed to do.

I wasn't trying to invoke any sense of patriotism, by the way. I was simply stating that the course of American politics is shaped from the mold of the founding fathers, and these political parties have certainly gravitated away from this mold, but still hold their predecessors in high regard, who possessed a perfect ideal for government. In other words, politicians have been pussyfooting around this constitution in order to not come off as un-American. Either one is for what the constitution stood for, or one isn't, in which case the constitution is not applicable. I believe Ron Paul is the only one in line, for the most part, with the constitution. Not that it matters, but just for personal inquiry: do you really think a current which couldn't care less if the constitution were torn to shreds, and made it explicit, would be a potent force in this nation, SnozzleBerry?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question


I think we already saw this with Bush and the passage of the PATRIOT Act and Obama with NDAA (to ignore a whole list of relatively minor legislation and legislators that have engaged in similar actions as well as things like Obamas renewal of PATRIOT)...you don't need to explicitly state "I am tearing the constitution to shreds" to make such desires explicit. In fact, I would argue that, as actions speak louder than words, the actions taken by recent political figures in the legislative and executive branches have explicitly presented a shredding of the constitution. Thus, I think the answer to your question is a resounding:

No, I don't think that it would be a potent force, I think it IS a potent force.

And certainly not a force that Paul opposes in any meaningful way.

Also, the definition of empire has been rather consistent through time (you can read several-hundred-year-old texts on the Roman empire...they had a clear understanding of what the word meant) so your attempt to whitewash Washington's intent by his use of the word "empire" is rather implausible.

They have done so with the defense of operating within the constitution. They continue to pussyfoot around it, working to amend it, and ultimately render it useless. Paul did not vote for the Patriot Act or the National Defense Authorization Act, so I don't understand what you meant by him not opposing acts which undermine the constitution. My inquiry was regarding a movement seeking revolutionary change, which explicitly makes it known that the constitution not only was far from perfect, but is highly antiquated for our times, and that we must work outside of the framework of the forefathers and the constitution. What kind of force would such a movement have in America, knowing the predominant ideological atmosphere?



I'm not trying to whitewash anything; to interpret that passage as a means of global expansionism would contradict his belief in staying clear of foreign affairs -- a belief shared by Thomas Jefferson. They were both non-interventionists. Chomsky can call non-interventionism ultra-nationalism, but I don't see it.

This does happen, in third world countries. But hell as long as you get your grande latte and apple Ipad who gives a shit.



Gotta love the UN international justice where its a well known fact that war crimes were committed by bush and yet he walks free. Sharing your wealth and extraordinary advantage in the form of cluster bombs and drone attacks on civilians in third world countries might not be as appreciated by the rest of the world as mr chomsky thinks it is.

Maybe after enough bombs are dropped and these stupid brown people finally come around they can have rights as well, like the right to disappear without a trial to a torture camp.

Whoever believes this crap chomsky is spouting has some serious issues.

Once again, you gloss right over questions thrown your way in favor of more rhetoric. Debating with you is like banging my head against a wall.


One very last time, then I'm officially done here:

Is it a program you're looking for? If so, you can read up on it here.

lol - no. I'm well aware of Paul's website and his positions. I'm asking Ray to back up his points with his own words and some critical thinking. Same thing I've asked since the beginning of this thread (YouTube videos DO NOT count as critical thinking).


From Page 1:

Sorry, but such blanket dismissals of the points raised by Noam Chomsky (leading American scholar and most-cited living author) combined with continued rhetoric and a lack of engagement with the issues/problems presented prior indicate that there is no merit to further discussion here.

I still don't see how non-interventionism equates to ultra-nationalism. Are the many indigenous tribes of the world nationalistic because they don't intervene in foreign affairs? Also, I don't see how being a scholar has anything to do with this. Martin Heidegger was one as well, and also was a proponent of the NSDAP.

hiding behind credentials isn't going to make Mr Chomsky's remarks any less abhorrent. Sorry bud.

ok..now this does merit further discussion...what here is abhorrent?

It seems that basically, people tend to support ron paul, the occupy or teaparty movement because they´re fed-up with traditional political movements and the people representing them. Not because mr paul himself has such great points. Ray even admitted this. I think i could summarize his main argument for his support of paul with the words: 'paul is a whacko, but all of the others are even worse'.

...to which I would reply, Paul is clearly at least as bad as his peers.

The only thing that is guaranteed under a Paul presidency is that banks/businesses actually do go bankrupt instead of getting bailed out, and a withdrawal of all U.S. troops internationally.

Chomsky seems to think that the UN is a body of goodness when in fact its a body of shit, a corrupted tool used by america and isreal for world domination. This literally makes me want to throw up.