Those Ron Paul signs make me disgusted!

[FarLeftFist]

These people are fighting AGAINST corporate malfeasance, something Paul advocates FOR through less regulations.

Less regulations=Dirtier environment, foods, labor, etc. MORE corporate profits.

Also, he would rather people starve to death then let their Govt "save them".

He also doesn't think ANYONE is entitled to a good education provided by the country, or healthcare for that matter.

And that goes for all the other things he doesn't believe our citizens should be provided.

This is just class warfare deconstructed. Ayn Randian shit where only the privileged elite and strong survive.

The weak and vulnerable i.e. THE OTHER 99% will remain suffering.

And besides that, this ISN'T a fucking political rally.

Ron Paul is Yosemite Fucking Sam and this isn't 1812.

We're trying to raise the playing field, NOT DISMANTLE IT!

Put your signs AWAY Ron Paul supporters.

[Drale]

1. Here in Chicago,

Ron Paul supporters are vandals, they stick stickers everywhere.

[vets74]

51. Ron Paul simulates lefty/Kucinich/Sanders -- his FALSE FRONT scam then pulls votes to scumGOPers.

The big money pushes Ron Paul with a vengeance. He gets them votes they couldn't get any other way.

The GOP relies on three of these False Front movements:

1. Fundie anti-abortion projects out the churches do the largest job. This generates "single-issue" voters who say that Liberals are baby-killers.

2. Ron Paul runs his leftie-Libertarian anti-abortion scam.

3. The Tea Party. I knew this bunch 50 years ago as the White Citizens Council. John Birch Society fits in there, too. Racism + paranoia = 20% of the GOPer Base.

Not 1% of the people in these False Front scams know that they are getting conned. They have no idea that GOPer elected pols are running a business that serves the top of the Top 1%.

-----------------

Let's recruit the Paulists.

Get them to vote for true left-center legal-abortion candidates.

[MineralMan]

2. Inconvenient, isn't it?

There's lots of stuff like that.

[sabrina 1]

21. No, it's not inconvenient at all. They are Americans and have shared

concerns about the corruption on Wall St. This is not about partisanship at all. It is about ALL Americans and they are as welcome there as anyone else. That is what has gone wrong with this country, the same old partisan hatreds evident by this OP.

This protest is way beyond all that, it is the future and hopefully will create a new system that works for the people, which includes respecting the fact that people will not always agree but CAN come together on important issues.

Paul is correct on the Foreign policy and has joined Democrats against his own party on some issues.

I am glad they are there, and hope every single American who is sick and tired of partisanship and the broken system we now live under, joins the movement.

Just like Egypt where people who normally disagreed even violently, came together to change their corrupt system. And yes, it will take time, so will this, but it is a process that had not even begun, until now.

[MineralMan]

22. Yes, they can join this. They should be welcomed. However,

it is a little inconvenient, since their message is quite different from the message of the rest. I know you're a fan of Ron Paul. I find that a bit disturbing, but you have every right to hold that opinion. This protest has many participants, each with a slightly different message to offer.

Have a nice Sunday evening.

[sabrina 1]

25. 'I know you are a fan of Ron Paul'

Prove that please, it should not be difficult. All my posts are available through the search engine. I know you think you are clever and that if you just say certain things in a benign fashion, people will be fooled by you, the way you say you fooled freepers for so long. But we are not freepers, and not so easily fooled.

I will check back for proof that I am a fan of Ron Paul. I believe it is against DU's rules to accuse another DUer of being a Republican. So I'm sure that you, who are always so careful to abide by the rules, would not have said that WITHOUT being able to prove it :)

Now, to address the rest of your post. His message on the Financial corruption and Foreign policies regarding unnecessary wars, is very much in line with this movement. But you would have to have been following the movement to know that I suppose.

I will have a nice evening, I usually do, I hope you also enjoy your evening.

[MineralMan]

32. Well, please pardon me if I'm mistaken.

You did praise his position on some issues, in the post to which I replied. I believe that is more praise than I've seen you give President Obama, but I could be mistaken about that, too, I suppose.

As far as my past postings on Free Republic are concerned, it was over 5 years ago that I made my last post there. And, you're right: I was there arguing against their positions. Primarily, I wrote about things like science, evolution, racism, etc. I was very careful, and managed to add my input for quite some time. When Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in 2006, I left that site to its own devices, and haven't been back, except to read links from here. It's a wonder to me that so many people keep bringing that up. I know that it's a popular topic on some other sites, but I just can't see the relevance to anything I'm doing. Still, I find it amusing that anyone would bother to write about me anywhere. Here I am, ready and able to answer any questions anyone may have. I am who I am, and there is no subterfuge in my public activities. :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

34. So you were wrong. I thought so.

Thank you for correcting your error. You do make a lot of errors like that. I supported this president while you were apparently, according to yourself, busy on FR. Worked very hard to get him elected and any Republican who dared say a word against him, was often sorry they chose ME to say it too. And I do got directly to Republicans and argue with them, as a Democrat.

I assume you were doing the same thing, defending Obama to those Republicans you encountered, as I was, considering the vile, hateful attacks they were launching against him. I did not go to FR, as I would not last past the first post, since I would certainly not alloww them to say the things they were saying about this president.

What was their reaction to your defense of the President at that time? I am amazed they would tolerate anyone defending him to be honest. My contact with them is on mixed boards and even now, they are vile in their attacks against him. So, tell me, how did you defend him on FR and still manage to stay there?

Edited to add, you raised the issue of never having seen me defend this president. I never saw you defend him on FR or here when he most needed it to get elected. But that doesn't mean you did NOT defend him on FR, which is why, since defending the president seems so important to you, I am asking the question. My posts on Obama are still available here and on other boards. I defended him fiercely and received many death threats from my efforts. So, just because YOU didn't see ME defending him and I didn't see YOU defending doesn't mean it didn't happen, does it? :-)

[MineralMan]

48. Perhaps you did not read my message. My last post on that

site was in 2006. My first post here was in 2008. In between, I was, indeed supporting Obama. You can click the link in my signature line to learn how.

Goodbye. I think I'll avoid writing in response to you in the future.

[sabrina 1]

49. You falsely accused me of supporting a Republican

You also, and not for the first time, have claimed, again falsely, that I have never supported this president. If you think I or anyone else here will allow false statements about them to stand that is not how it works. I did not falsely accuse you of anything, YOU are the one who chose to do that. I am the aggrieved person here, not you.

I found it ironic for someone I never saw supporting this president during the critical 2008 election, during Obama's run for the Senate two years before that in 2006, someone who admitted to spending time on a rightwing board where since Obama first appeared on the scene in 2004, he was attacked viciously, should have the nerve to falsely accuse those of us who were fully supporting him during all that time, and agitating for him to run for the presidency after enthusiastically supporting him for his Senate run, of not supporting him.

You are not in a position to attack DUers here. The internet is littered with comments from me supporting the president since I first saw him at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I would be willing to bet that my posts in support of him since then, throughout his campaign for the Senate and all the way through until he was elected to the WH, far, far outnumber yours by a very, very long shot.

Do not say this to me again, unless you are willing to defend it. Which I see you have not tried to do. It is false. It is not the first time you have said it. If you choose to make false statements about another DUer, then expect to be corrected. And next do not TELL me who I support, ASK me. You do not know me, yet you claim to know things about me that you clearly do not know. Fortunately I have been online long enough and am known by so many people who worked with me to get this president elected to the Senate and to the WH, to recognize the falseness of your accusation.

Use your ignore feature if you cannot accept responses to claims that are false that YOU chose to make. But I will always stand up for myself, and for others when they are falsely accused. I hope this ends your attempt to discredit DUers you disagree with as you will be corrected, and I am sick of your passive aggressive insinuations and then your running for cover frankly.

[Bonobo]

54. Sabrina, I do not fault Mineral for being a former Free Republic poster.

It is every person's prerogative to express their political opinions freely.

I do not think Mineral Man should be attacked for supporting Republicans by joining Free Republic and posting there for many years.

[FarLeftFist]

68. All I was talking about are the signs they're using, turning it into a political rally.

While pointing out that Ron Paul is FAR from the answer to Americas problems.

[HappyMe]

72. Yeah. I had hoped that politics would stay out of it.

Especially the Paul people. :puke:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[MADem]

46. Really? I think Olympia Snowe is a damn sight better than Ron Paul.

So's Sue Collins.

They're not running, though. I wouldn't vote for them if they were, but in the big scheme of things, either one of them would probably do better than anyone the GOP have got in the race now.

[walerosco]

58. You mean the same Susan Colins

who was lobbying for military assistance of Libya along with McCain and Graham and then arguing for its destruction a few years later. One thing I like about Ron Paul is that he believes in his talking points and hes not up to be bought by the hisghest bidder. This is something you cannot say about Susan Collins or Olympia Snow.

[MADem]

60. Not saying she is a saint--just saying she's better than that racist asswipe. NT

[AverageJoe90]

39. Too bad he's quite the hypocrite and slick operator, though.

Frankly, it has sadly become QUITE obvious to me that Ron Paul is only doing most of what he does, on the pro-Dem side of things to gain support, and NOT out of conviction of any sort(although I do believe many of his admirers are quite sincere and we probably still have a few here at DU).
I have some information on hand for you to see.......check your inbox every so often. =)

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[AverageJoe90]

42. Again, as I said to Sabrina...........

I really do think the majority of his admirers really are genuine.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. They are trying to dominate the Occupy Wall Street movement

I went down to the local protest yesterday and it was mainly Ron Paul supporters and Oath Keepers. I'm hearing this is what's happening in many other cities as well.

I agree. It makes no sense. We want MORE regulations of banks while the Ron Paul groupies want LESS.

I hope we can shout them down or even change their minds.

[FarLeftFist]

4. Tell them this. Feel free to print it out and hand it out.

YES, definitely MORE regulations on banks and Wall St.

[SlimJimmy]

15. Oh yeah, there's a good plan. I'm sure that will sway the public.

I hope we can shout them down or even change their minds.

[StarsInHerHair]

44. sounds like cancer cells

[krabigirl]

67. Perhaps people from diverse political persuasions are just pissed off? Don't see the big deal there.

[Meandering Kitten]

5. They are wasting their money. Paul is going nowhere.

[MADem]

7. Paul may be going nowhere, but they, and idiots inciting violence, are doing a great

job of associating a noble and valid desire to break the linkage between Wall Street and government with "the flake brigade" of anarchists and pissed off provocateurs who like to make trouble for the sheer rush of it.

It's all framing. There are way too many people, as a consequence of youthful exuberance, stupidity, and sheer mendacity, who are fucking up the focus on corporate corruption.

The right wing republicans who don't like the hold that the wingnut Tea Party has on their ability to maneuver are absolutely overjoyed at all the OWS fuckups. They're managing to paint the whole effort against corporate excess as "Tea Party of the Left" (a phrase I heard, to my horror, on tv this a.m.). When people act like nitwits, they get marginalized. They may have a moment in the sun (think "Tiny Tim" who was all the rage for a year or so) but they're never taken seriously.

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. This is the problem with Libertarians.

They don't get it. They hear the tales about how the free market will kill off the top 1% and bring Wall Street under control under some fantasy of "competition".

The next time you talk with someone who believes that this is the way to resolve the problems (that they agree we have), ask them this question:

Name one successful active Libertarian society that is working as Ayn Rand and Ron Paul promote.

Their ideology looks great on paper, but does not account for the human quality of "GREED" and taking away what few regulations attempt to keep that in check (for the health and safety of the rest of society) will only dig the hole deeper.

[MADem]

8. A perfect example of a "free market society" is England, way, way, WAY back in the day.

A tough thug took power in his area, got an army behind him, got more power, beat up other tough thugs and took over their holdings, and over time, became King and his posse was "The Royal Family."

He that has the gold, makes the rules. That's the Golden Rule of any free market society. Who would be the Henry VIII of Ron Paul's visionary paradise, I wonder?

[LeftishBrit]

18. Um, I don't think that ever worked out too well for the serfs and villeins.

Who were much more numerous than the royals. And at certain times, e.g. the Wars of the Roses, the royals were pretty much like rival gangsters anyway.

[MADem]

29. Yep, it sucked for them. If Ron Paul gets his free market utopia, though,

I'd probably be lucky to be a turnip farmer on a quarter acre of lousy land, handing over half my crop as tribute to his lordshit, er ship!

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. You missed the word "active"

Not referring to the fiefdoms of days yore, but looking for an example of a current, active, society that is not only working, but thriving under a Randian, no-laws, everyone for him/herself laizze-faire model.

In years of having this conversation here and elsewhere, that libertarian paradise known as Somalia seems to come the closest.

Then again, there is Libertarian island - with no wage requirements, no building codes and guns for everyone - that is under construction. LOL!

[MADem]

27. No I didn't. I couldn't think of an active one, so I reached back into history.

I get the point, truly I do!

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. Misunderstood ya.

:hi:

[MADem]

45. The written word has its limitations! No prob--I could have been a bit clearer!

:hi:

[MADem]

28. Do pardon my inadvertent double-click! nt

[JI7]

31. Wasn't Ayn Rand on Welfare ?

[Ruby the Liberal]

36. Yep. Social Security AND Medicare.

[Little Star]

53. Your right Ruby! Wish I could rec your post. n/t

[tama]

9. Reminder

Corporations ARE regulations, they exist in law and are created by law. Capitalistic ownership is created by legal regulations. Laws and regulations are made by the 1% to control and rob the 99% - and the 1% sure as hell are not following their regulations and laws. Obama murders people unlawfully and unpunished.

[Maraya1969]

10. He said one thing in the last presidential debate that made people look up

and pay attention and that was we should have never gone to war. And now these ditto heads have followed him into a libertarian waste land where people step over the starving to get to their new job.

[FarLeftFist]

12. Well put. Thanks.

[jberryhill]

11. That's normal

In any mass demonstration, there are groups who want to hijack the message.

The Larouchies are great at that sort of thing.

[Blue_Tires]

20. +1 just as I predicted....

Did anyone actually think the Paulites would sit hand-in-hand with organized labor and the anti-Wall Street crowd??

Did anyone actually think they had honorable intentions after sitting on the sidelines for two weeks then just jumping in?

[1776Forever]

13. I totally agree with you. Also this is why at some point these OWS members must decide who they are

going to support politically. It is not something that will sit well with some of them but in our society it is the only way to finally create change. Look at the Civil Rights Laws, Women Right to Vote, Pell Grants for the Poor, Social Security and we can go on and on. This has to be addressed at sometime in the future of this movement. I think the Unions will help to guide this action but in the end it must be individuals who back people like Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders that will find their American Dream revived. My 2 cents.

[tama]

19. Must?

Do you mean that liberal capitalists will hijack the movement and they must vote Democratic party and Democratic leader?

This is a partisan forum so it is understandable that many people don't understand or accept that this is non-partisan leaderless movement - the only kind of movement that can grow and evolve to make a real difference.

[1776Forever]

59. My opinion is that the members must decide on their own who they want to support if anyone.

If they don't they will continue to be a non-partisan group but go nowhere. I do not believe this movement can approach any kind of change without making a decision to work within the framework of our democracy.

What is your idea of how they will accomplish their goals? Give me an example of what you consider a future for this movement if not with changes in the current rules and laws.

:shrug:

[tama]

61. I really don't know

What I know is that representative partisan system is divisive, often hysterical, corrupt and does not represent the will of majority on issues. We've been trying it for long time but it's now working - and that's why people are occupying squares in Greece, Spain and all over the world.

Where this movement is going, I really don't know - and that is a good thing. I don't want to control the future but go with the flow for something else. Many nations that have rejected IMF and neoliberalism - many South American nations and Iceland - have made new constitutions. That is one possibility, and if US and EU are going to exist, participatory democratic constitutional processes are needed, cosmetic changes are not enough.

There is lot happening on grass roots level, local communities and their networks, alternative money systems etc., and that is the vision I share with many others, networks of largely self sufficient local communities with great variety ("Garden planet") - this movement keeps on growing, but the process can take many generations. What is most important with the indignados/occupy movement is that they focus on the root of the problem, oligarchy of financial capitalism that is ruining our planet, and raise awareness. There are many alternatives, short term and long term, and what is important at this stage is not to get fixated on this or that future scenario of how things should be, now we need to concentrate on dismanteling the system that is destroying the ecosystem and lives of our children so that there will be many possibilities. Possibilities to freely create our futures, together.

[1776Forever]

69. Michael Moore said yesterday on CSPAN Book TV that there may need to be a 3rd Party.

He also said that people need to go to their local Democrat Councils and tell them how they want to form their agendas to be more focused on the true needs of the 99%. All in all I think with the Unions approving of the OWS ideas and Declarations the demands will form soon to be constructive in a deep and meaningful way. Let's hope it does make a BIG change - the future is in our hands and with this Repub Congress going no where they certainly need to change!

[FLAprogressive]

14. This is why we need a Kucinich, a DeFazio, a Feingold, etc. to run for president.

[indepat]

16. What part of "promote the general welfare" does not Ron Paul

understand? Strange since almost all Rethuglicans seem to understand the concept of promoting the welfare of corporations as would be expected of any good little fascist. :patriot:

[FarLeftFist]

23. True, what part of "To form a more perfect Union" do these regressives not understand.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

17. "Ron Paul is Yosemite Fucking Sam and this isn't 1812."

:*

[SanchoPanza]

26. Ron Paul is the Lyndon LaRouche of Republican politics.

Seemingly sane from a great distance, but when you start getting close all sorts of crazy shit becomes glaringly apparent. You start off talking about how the United States should not engage willy-nilly in wars overseas, and pretty soon you're arguing for the re-institution of the gold standard and claiming that Federal guidelines on how much water you should have in your toilet tank is nothing more than the vanguard of jack-booted fascism.

With LaRouche, it's all about sustainable economic growth and the necessity of greater public investments, but before you know it you're arguing that the Queen of England is the world's richest drug dealer and that she personally ordered the assassination of JFK. And Obama is really Hitler, or something.

In other words, more cult than movement.

[Major Nikon]

38. I think those who worship at the Ron Paul altar are worse than the LaRouchites

At least the LaRouche shitbags were good for a laugh.

But I really just don't believe that most of the baggers you see today really are fully on board with Ron Paul. Paul never gained any significant support even among Republicans until after Obama was elected. I think really what you have is a lot of bigots that wanted to take to the streets after a black man was elected, and with Ross Perot completely out of the picture they had nowhere else to go.

[jberryhill]

56. They both draw from both sides

They both draw 9/11 truthers, for example.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

43. well said. nt

[Coexist]

47. +1

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Survival of the fittest

Were the Bourbons or the Romanovs fit to survive? Riddle me that, Ron Paul.

[GreenTea]

33. I despise motherfucking republican Paul & all his elitist corporate bullshit that the pig Paul spews

[Ohio Joe]

41. Correct. Ron Paul is a racist douchebag

And that just starts the problems with the asshole.

[DisabledDem]

50. Ron Paul philosophy works in the world of John Galt

In the real world, nooot so much.

[vets74]

52. John Galt =In_The_Real_World= is Daniel Plainview. Based on Edward L. Doheny the oil baron.

Upton Sinclair's "Oil !"

"There Will Be Blood" with Daniel Day-Lewis taking all the big awards in 2007 for his performance (and terrorizing the crew during the shoot cuz they thought he'd lost it.)

Ayn Rand loved male narcissists. She was a helluva party animal, a Christian-hating Russian-style atheist, and never got any further for 15 years in the movie biz than doing hair and makeup. Big time GOPer political theorist....

Upton Sinclair understood criminals and capitalism. Teapot Dome had it all.

[NorthCarolina]

55. Wasn't the Tea Party originally a Ron Paul movement before being co-opted by the Koch brothers and

the GOP?

[akbacchus_BC]

57. Who knows, he might not be the repub nomination!

[tama]

62. Rap news

latest broadcast has Ron Paul (and others) on: http://thejuicemedia.com/

[Renew Deal]

63. You're 100% right.

Ron Paul's ideas are what we're fighting against! They should go Occupy the Fed like they believe.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Yep.....

[KT2000]

65. Yosemite Fucking Sam !!

:rofl: :rofl:

[krabigirl]

66. people can carry whatever signs they like. i agree with your points, but please.

[FarLeftFist]

70. RON PAUL IS A CAREER POLITICIAN.

[FarLeftFist]

71. K&R.