Heard Ron Paul interviewed on NPR this morning -- how can anybody

[Sal Minella]

be this disconnected from what actually happens in the world?

He said he believes that abortion should be outlawed because "a woman who is eight months pregnant could get mad at her boyfriend and go and have that eight-pound person killed, just to get back at the boyfriend." (not exact quote, but that was his message)

I am just speechless that anyone this ignorant can appear on a national news media that's not Fox.

[uponit7771]

1. I find most right winger logic not rooted an realities, they sound crazy

[roguevalley]

27. libertarian philosophy distilled: I got mine. screw you.

even if you agree with a couple of their points, libertarianism is bullshit. Lord of the flies.

[FSogol]

2. Maybe that's what Ron Paul would do?

:shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

7. Maybe that's what Ron Paul SHOULD have done!

(I am not recommending the practice in general; only with regard to future far-right senators from Kentucky...)

[mopinko]

13. +1

[catbyte]

3. OH.MY.GOD. How can some progressives like him?

Just because he doesn't like the Iraq War. Of course, they never mention his reasoning.

:puke:

[Capitalocracy]

14. I always say the same thing

With the war, he's got the right policy, but for the wrong reasons. With the Fed, too... yeah, I agree that the Fed is a corrupt architecture (put the banks in charge of money policy? really?) but Ron Paul wants to cut out the Fed so he can institute a gold standard, which makes zero sense in the real world.

And out of all of his policies, ending the war on drugs, destroying the MIC, ending the Fed, ending the Department of Education, ending welfare, ending SS and Medicare, and ending everything the government does that actually makes sense, cutting taxes for the rich, cutting taxes for everyone else, I wonder which options would actually pop out of that very mixed bag if Ron Paul was president. I'm guessing he would have a much easier time with the tax cuts for the rich and ending SS and Medicare and the Department of Education than with ending the wars.

[Lorien]

18. Um, I don't think any progressives like HIM, but some are not such foaming

At the mouth partisans that they can't be objective enough to say "yes, I agree with him on a handful of issues". The wars, patriot act, domestic spying, the fed....if you agree with him on those issues that doesn't qualify you as a Ron Paul supporter.

[Sal Minella]

19. I began really listening to the NPR interview when he said, "We shouldn't

have military based in Germany and South Korea" -- sounded good at the moment.

Will read the AlterNet article and get smarted up a bit.

[G_j]

4. Ron Paul: anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education...

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

AlterNet / By Adele M. Stan

5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution -- 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics

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

August 26, 2011

There are few things as maddening in a maddening political season as the warm and fuzzy feelings some progressives evince for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican presidential candidate. "The anti-war Republican," people say, as if that's good enough.

But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican. He's the John Birch Society's favorite congressman. And he's a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you're a member of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I can see how he'd be your guy.

Paul first drew the attention of progressives with his vocal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Coupled with the Texan's famous call to end the Federal Reserve, that somehow rendered him, in the eyes of the single-minded, the GOP's very own Dennis Kucinich. Throw in Paul's opposition to the drug war and his belief that marriage rights should be determined by the states, and Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people with privilege adequate enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)

Ron Paul's anti-war stance, you see, comes not from a cry for peace, but from the deeply held isolationism of the far right. Some may say that, when it comes to ending the slaughter of innocents, the ends justify the means. But, in the case of Ron Paul, the ends involve trading the rights and security of a great many Americans for the promise of non-intervention.

..more

[Sal Minella]

21. Thanks for posting this. I get AlterNet e-mails all the time but

had missed this -- had no idea Paul believes himself one of the New Chosen, or that he thinks Social Security is unconstitutional.

He needs his own trailer on the Klown Kar.

[gateley]

5. Isn't he an OB/GYN MD? Thank God he's not practicing! Scary. nt

[rurallib]

8. pretty sure he is an OB/GYN -

[Capitalocracy]

12. Yes, he loves to talk about how many babies he's delivered

in a way making him an anti-choice hero

[gateley]

16. He should know better than the "abort the 8 lb baby" crap -

any doctor would be charged with murder! He's so whack.

[Sal Minella]

23. Several years ago, I came up with a bumper-sticker for men who

take all abortions and contraceptives as a personal attack:

Protect your precious pre-born children;

Keep them in your testicles.

[Capitalocracy]

24. Oh, he does know.

Of course he knows.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Ignore the dude...he is a known whacko......lost in GOPland

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Crazy.

n/t

[LynneSin]

10. But in the United States this is not feesible

Most abortion laws prevent abortions after 3 months unless there is serious issue to the mother.

What a dumbass

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Even Barry Goldwater supported abortion rights.

Wouldn't a libertarian argument be made in favor of the government having no right to dictate a health/reproductive decision to its citizens? I thought the policy was that individuals know better than government what they need.

[Lasher]

15. He's part of the sideshow of the US political circus.

He would be the geek that bites chickens' heads off. That's how he gets on TV.

[bowens43]

17. He also is doesn't believe in evolution.....

the guy is a real nut job. I am always a amazed when I hear some one say they support this lunatic.

[saras]

20. You mean we have a choice OTHER than nutjobs? I thought we just had to choose our flavor.

Are there really politicians I can support who want an end to corporate rule, and are willing to both work personally and engage the public as a whole in this struggle?

It looks to me is all there are available are nutjobs who believe that SOMEHOW corporations can be tweaked to suddenly start being nice to people, as though they ever were in the history of corporations without being forced to by more powerful institutions. I just can't get my head around that kind of stupid, so I'll examine any other kind of stupid with an open mind before rejecting it.

[Rex]

22. We live in a time when our politicans are some of the worst in

history, Ron Paul is a GREAT example.

[LeftinOH]

25. No, she can't. Terminations at 8 months are illegal (in almost all circumstances). He knows this,

and he also knows that already-illegal terminations at 8 months (for any reason) will still be illegal if all abortions are made illegal.

So, the sole purpose of Ron Paul making a statement like this must be for the usual reason: To bait & hook the anti-choice crowd, and remind them that he is on their side.

[Honeycombe8]

26. This is true. Roe v. Wade and other cases have ruled right to privacy UP UNTIL POINT....

AT WHICH AN UNBORN CHILD COULD BE VIABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. At the time of those cases, it was six months....so abortion past six months was not protected (illegal).

However, since that time, the advances in medical technology have made it possible for a several month old fetus to live outside the womb (preemies). I think it's now THREE MONTHS as a cutoff in some states because of that. But I'm not sure.

There are exceptions to everything. You could abort past six months, for instance, if the mother's life is in danger. Etc.