A Very Good Commercial From Ron Paul

As we all know, I dislike Ron Paul because he is being endorsed by religious fanatics left and right for his woman-hating ideas. However, his campaign has created a really cool commercial. Note the Agitprop motifs. This makes me wonder what political movement the actual creators of the commercial represent:

141 thoughts on “A Very Good Commercial From Ron Paul”

  1. That is indeed a very cool commercial, and it seems pretty radical for a supposedly racist, women-hating candidate. He also wants to end drug prohibition also doesn’t he? I admit I know very little about the guy. But I do know that the most harm to minorities in the US comes as a result of the drug war.

    Like

  2. Kind of takes the teeth out of the criticism he got from Amanda Marcotte:

    “[According to Ron Paul] the War on Terror is an outward extension of American resources and manpower, but the person whose freedom we care about isn’t the little girl disfigured by a drone or the imam whose mosque was destroyed. It’s the white guy who works long, hard hours to pay for that war, who would much rather be spending his money on other things, like gold bricks or gold boullion or ads trying to get people to buy his stock of gold.”

    http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/ron_paul_the_manic_pixie_dream_candidate

    Like

    1. If that had been actually released by Ron Paul’s campaign and not a third party, maybe, but him being an isolationist lunatic still stands firm. Notice the lack of the usual “I’m Ron Paul and I endorse/support this message” typical of an official campaign ad?

      Like

  3. I think that ad must have been made with people in my demographic, ie, somewhat disenchanted lefties, in mind, because we could be powerful Paul supporters, if we were willing to ignore almost 90% of his platform in favour of his somewhat progressive stances on the War on Drugs et al. I was just arguing with one of Paul’s supporters tonight, what a coincidence! Here’s what he had to say to me:
    “If you do not believe in freedom and would prefer to walk with the sheep do not vote for Ron. If you want Socialism I kindly ask you to leave the US with respect.”

    Something tells me that wanting people to leave the country for disagreeing with them means they really don’t value freedom as much as they think. Or perhaps they fundamentally disagree with me on the definition of “freedom”.

    Like

  4. Ron Paul is the only real anti-war candidate of the whole bunch, so this ad portraits his foreign policy views very well and gives a different view point many Americans do not like.

    Like

  5. Ron Paul, even if I have many issues with him, is less shitty than any other candidate, and that includes Barracks “Uncle Tom” OSama. At least, Ron Paul is not a pro-terrorists like other Repubenrons and OSama.

    Like

    1. Ron Paul is a religious fanatic. Surely, a religious fanatic is scarier than Obama. Look at the list of organizations that endorse Ron Paul. They are all crazed evangelicals. How is the evangelical terrorism less scary than any other kind?

      Like

      1. “Look at the list of organizations that endorse Ron Paul. They are all crazed evangelicals. How is the evangelical terrorism less scary than any other kind?”

        And Rick Santorum? And Michelle Bachmann?

        Like

  6. And Paul is less a woman-hater than other Repubenrons, even if his anti-abortion stance is utterly machist and ridiculous.

    “At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

    http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

    Like

    1. That’s exactly what I’m saying! The jerk! Look at the language. It is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion. That’s what he wants. Send the whole thing to South Dakota and other backwards shitholes like that and let them prohibit away. Not EXPAND abortion rights, oh no. Prohibit, that’s his dream. And I’m not surprised since he gets his support from crazed evangelicals.

      Like

      1. No, he doesn’t want the federal state to prohibit nor expand abortion rights. For example, his position, if applied in Canada, would make Stephen Harper unable to prohobit abortion in Canada. Right now, Harper can do that.

        Like

        1. Canada has nothing to do with this. In the US, the president has no power over abortion. The Supreme Court has. And while the decision on abortion remains federal (that of the SCOTUS), abortion will not be endangered in the US at large. Ron Paul’s “let’s allow the states to decide” is an anti-abortion position that he tries to mask as something else.

          Like

      2. No, David, that is exactly what he wants. Paul’s an outspoken anti-abortionist. He’s the congressperson who introduced the life-begins-at-conception act, and the one who introduced an act to forbid federal courts from hearing cases regarding not only abortion but same-sex marriage, sexual activity, and religion, with the clear intent of making it impossible to challenge state decisions on these matters. Don’t believe me? Another part of that same act would have made federal court decisions unbinding as precedent in state courts. Hello Ron Paul, goodbye Roe v. Wade.

        He also wants to throw out the Fourteenth Amendment – guaranteeing citizenship to the children of immigrants born on US soil, as well as due process and equal protection under the law – and wipe out major federal departments entirely, including Education and HHS, which from his point of view serve no purpose except as bureaucratic bogeymen holding the sovereignty of the individual states in chains to the federal government.

        His handful of funtime ideas – marijuana whee! free internet for all! – do little more than blind the hopeful to the civil rights disaster that would follow his election. The man is simply godawful and quite possibly crazy.

        Shiny commerical though.

        Like

        1. “His handful of funtime ideas – marijuana whee! free internet for all! – do little more than blind the hopeful to the civil rights disaster that would follow his election. The man is simply godawful and quite possibly crazy.”

          EXACTLY!

          Like

    1. Why is securing the borders racist? What other country has open borders like the US? And studies have shown that it does depress wages for Americans and recent immigrants at the bottom. Again, where else can 1 million people cross the border each year so easily? How does Mexico treat undocumented immigrants?

      Like

      1. ” What other country has open borders like the US?”

        – Where exactly does the US have “open borders”? I have traveled the world quite a bit but I haven’t been able to find customs security that is tighter than in the US.

        “Again, where else can 1 million people cross the border each year so easily?”

        – Everywhere. Or haven’t you heard? The illegal immigration into Russia is far greater than that. In Spain, that is also a huge problem. Note how I only discuss countries I have extensive personal knowledge of.

        “How does Mexico treat undocumented immigrants?”

        – The illegal immigration into Mexico is as huge as illegal immigration from Mexico. Once again, you pontificate without bothering to learn anything about the subject you blabber on and on about.

        Like

      2. I should correct that – half a million undocumented, half a million legal immigrants. Which is way too much for an economically depressed country to absorb each year. And a majority of Americans agree (and also to legalize cannabis).

        Like

        1. “I should correct that – half a million undocumented, half a million legal immigrants. Which is way too much for an economically depressed country to absorb each year. And a majority of Americans agree (and also to legalize cannabis).”

          – Those Americans who agree are ignorant idiots. Immigrants are the greatest hope of a failing economy. Always have been, always will be. I direct you to any textbook of this country’s history for information about that. Or are you so completely and hopelessly stupid that you will regale us with stories of immigrants “stealing jobs”? Surely, you are not as dense as that, are you?

          Like

        2. “I should correct that – half a million undocumented, half a million legal immigrants. ”

          – In Russia (which has a lot smaller population than the US), the 4,000,000 immigration per year was barely cut down to 2,000,000. And that’s just the people who get official permits to immigrate to Russia. Yet the supremely stupid Isabel pontificates. What a stupid stupid freak she is.

          Like

      3. “In Spain, that is also a huge problem.”

        How many per year was that?

        “- Where exactly does the US have “open borders”? I have traveled the world quite a bit but I haven’t been able to find customs security that is tighter than in the US. ”

        So how do 500,000 per year (by all estimates, I am hardly making that up) cross over. Strange, isn’t it?

        “The illegal immigration into Mexico is as huge as illegal immigration from Mexico. ”

        That wasn’t my question.

        “Once again, you pontificate without bothering to learn anything about the subject you blabber on and on about.”

        This is just silly.

        Like

        1. Your question was “” What other country has open borders like the US?”. The answer was, all of them. Should I repeat it? All of them. All of them. Get it now?

          ““Once again, you pontificate without bothering to learn anything about the subject you blabber on and on about.”

          This is just silly.”

          – I know. So stop doing it already.

          ““In Spain, that is also a huge problem.”

          How many per year was that?”

          – Spain legalized 600,000 illegal immigrants in the same period of time that US legalized 2.7 million. Now compare the population and the size of the two countries. And then chew on it for a while, you vicious immigrant-hating stupid loser.

          Like

      4. Also, I was referring to first world countries.

        “Those Americans who agree are ignorant idiots. ”

        So we are back to most Americans are ignorant idiots. Well, most of your readers will agree, no doubt.

        “Immigrants are the greatest hope of a failing economy. ”

        Yes, when there aren’t enough good jobs and social mobility is stalled, millions of (mostly low-skilled) immigrants will solve the problem! Look how much it has helped since these numbers increased so dramatically (from 20K per year in the mid-1960’s).

        “Or are you so completely and hopelessly stupid ….etc etc”

        I just love these intellectual discussions.

        Like

        1. “So we are back to most Americans are ignorant idiots.”

          – No, we are back to “Isabel is a stupid jerkwad who projects her stupidity on Americans.”

          “I just love these intellectual discussions.”

          – Relax, freakazoid. Nobody will have “intelelctual discussions” with an ignorant idiot like you.

          “Yes, when there aren’t enough good jobs and social mobility is stalled, millions of (mostly low-skilled) immigrants will solve the problem!”

          – There are enough fantastic jobs for me, my immigrant relatives, my immigrant friends and colleagues. We are all doing great, actually. Our social mobility is also beyond wonderful. So I don’t see a problem.

          Like

      5. “In Spain, that is also a huge problem. ”

        Why is it a problem? I would think you would see it as a wonderful gift to the country. 🙂

        btw, I am on the side of the people of Latin America. That is a major reason why I have been a vocal, active opponent of the US Drug War for two decades, unlike most of my ignorant fellow liberals. The war on drugs has had a much more devastating effect on Mexico than NAFTA has, for example.

        Here in the US, the drug war has resulted in far more racism than the tea partiers who want to close the borders.

        Like

        1. ““In Spain, that is also a huge problem. ”

          Why is it a problem? I would think you would see it as a wonderful gift to the country. ”

          – Spain – unlike the US – is not a country of immigrants. It’s the opposite, a country of emigrants. Are you really that ignorant? Do I need to explain 1st grade world history to you?

          “I am on the side of the people of Latin America.”

          – Yeah, they totally need a stupid ignorant hater like you on their side. What an acquisition! Yippee! Any decent person, would vomit if you came close to them, you jerk.

          Like

      6. The US has a very interesting “open border policy”… Illegal immigrants indeed move in pretty easily. Try legal immigration instead – I know many people on legitimate work visas for whom becoming permanent residents took many, up to six, years. And I am counting not from the moment when they first entered the US, I am counting from the moment they applied for Green Card.
        The only explanation – the US is protecting its middle-class job market, while allowing in the working class immigrants who will not compete for white collar jobs.

        Like

        1. “The only explanation – the US is protecting its middle-class job market, while allowing in the working class immigrants who will not compete for white collar jobs.”

          – Mail-order prostitutes are let in easily. As are religious fanatics.

          Like

      7. “- There are enough fantastic jobs for me, my immigrant relatives, my immigrant friends and colleagues. We are all doing great, actually. Our social mobility is also beyond wonderful. So I don’t see a problem.”

        Yes, it is all about you, Clarissa. You are typical of the million immigrants who enter the US each year. Right, okay.

        Like

        1. “You are typical of the million immigrants who enter the US each year. Right, okay.”

          – Oh, so your anti-immigrant sentiments are motivated by your concern for the welfare of those very immigrants? You know what’s better for them, which is why you want to prevent them from coming? Are you trying to prove you are a nasty hater? That’s done already, you can relax.

          Like

      8. “The only explanation”

        What country are you from? Legal immigration has increased from 20K to 500K per year. However, at the same time preferences for certain countries was ended (a good move). Now that the US has opened up to the entire world, it may seem like a constriction to people from some countries. Also are you aware that many professional jobs are earmarked specifically for (lower cost) immigrants? I don’t think the US immigration policy is in place to protect Americans in any way.

        Like

        1. “Now that the US has opened up to the entire world, it may seem like a constriction to people from some countries.”

          – And it keeps pontificating stupidly. The depth of your ignorance, Isabel, is quite stunning. The US that HAS OPENED UP to the ENTIRE world in recent years is the joke of the year. What a fool you are.

          Like

      9. “Your question was “” What other country has open borders like the US?””

        All the countries? Germany? Japan? really?

        My question that you didn’t answer was How does Mexico deal with illegal immigrants?

        Like

        1. I have asked you to discuss only places you have personal knowledge of. Do you have personal knowledge of Germany and Japan? If no, there is no reason for anybody to discuss them with you.

          “My question that you didn’t answer was How does Mexico deal with illegal immigrants”

          – Is your Google broken, or something? Start learning to do research, even the minimal kind, before posting your stupid comments.

          Like

      10. Clarissa, you are the ignorant one here. Before 1965 (or so) most immigration was restricted to keep the racial composition of the country stable. Whites definitely had preference. That is no longer the case.

        Like

        1. “Clarissa, you are the ignorant one here. Before 1965 (or so) most immigration was restricted to keep the racial composition of the country stable. Whites definitely had preference. That is no longer the case.”

          – Yes, we all know this country was even more racist then than it is now. How does this banality translate into “The US that HAS OPENED UP to the ENTIRE world in recent years”? Please concentrate and try to answer the question instead of reciting platitudes.

          Like

      11. “I don’t think the US immigration policy is in place to protect Americans in any way.”

        Also, to the extent that people are not able to convert work visas to green cards, it is hardly to protect “Americans”. It is to protect businesses of course. I agree that that is an unfair situation, absolutely.

        Like

        1. “Also, to the extent that people are not able to convert work visas to green cards, it is hardly to protect “Americans”. It is to protect businesses of course.”

          – Protect businesses from what? Businesses have to pay huge amounts of money on a regular basis to renew H1B visas to their employees. That expense would be removed if H1Bs could be converted into green cards.

          But, of course, that is one more thing you are unaware of.

          Tell me, is there something at all, a single topic where you have at least some basic knowledge? Can you count your own toes, for example? All fifty of them?

          Like

      12. According to wikipedia:

        “. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.[1] Since the removal of ethnic quotas in immigration in 1965,[2] the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[3] from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.[4] 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading emigrating countries to the United States were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China.[5] Nearly 14 million immigrants came to the United States from 2000 to 2010.[6]”

        I am not saying “close the borders”. But debate over the extent seems like a perfectly valid subject for the residents and politicians of the US to have, without instantly being labeled “racists”.

        Like

        1. You are so useless, Isabel, that you can’t even analyze a Wikipedia article. Even that source is too complex for you. Do you know who “first-generation immigrants” are? Look it up.

          Also, “removal of ethnic quotas” somehow translates into “The US that HAS OPENED UP to the ENTIRE world in recent years” in your diseased imagination? Can you read? Or is copy-pasting your only skill?

          Like

      13. “- Protect businesses from what? Businesses have to pay huge amounts of money on a regular basis to renew H1B visas to their employees. That expense would be removed if H1Bs could be converted into green cards.”

        Those on H1B visas work for lower wages than American citizens and are valued for their “work ethic” which at least partly results from their insecure situation. I clearly remember the debates over the issue, which mainly occurred before you immigrated to the US.

        Like

        1. “Those on H1B visas work for lower wages than American citizens and are valued for their “work ethic” which at least partly results from their insecure situation. ”

          – God, what a hopeless fool you are. I understand that you “clearly remember debates” and that’s a very reliable source of information. I and my husband, however, work on H1B visas in the US right now. And we don’t get “wages.” We are paid salaries accepted in our respective fields. Our employers had to prove that people with our qualifications and experience could not be found anywhere in the US. We cannot be paid less than citizens because the condition of an H1B visa is that no equivalent citizen should exist anywhere in nature. Got it?

          Will you stop pontificating about the stuff you don’t know already? With every comment you seem more and more stupid.

          Like

      14. “- My point is that removal of ethnic quotas does not in any way mean that the entire world can come in.”

        Okay, all ethnic groups became eligible. Is that better?

        “So the removal of ethnic quotas actually led to closing down of emigration from that area of the world altogether. Are you getting this now?”

        That is exactly the point I was making. My comment was a response to V, who claimed that legal immigration was difficult for people he/she knew. I was suggesting this might be why. Is that clearer now??

        ” If you know what a 1st generation immigrant is, can you figure out on your own why the number of 1st generation immigrants is useless for determining the size of immigration? It’s not that hard. Just try.”

        It is not meant to do that! And I never said it did; it was simply another related statistic in the article and I was quoting that paragraph in full.

        This is all getting too inane to respond to further. OF COURSE V, I didn’t mean people could just get on a plane and be admitted into the country as a legal immigrant. DUH. I meant exactly what I said; that the potential immigrants were no longer restricted to to countries/ethnic groups that reflected the current ethnic composition of the country.

        Like

        1. “I meant exactly what I said; that the potential immigrants were no longer restricted to to countries/ethnic groups that reflected the current ethnic composition of the country.”

          – I am now convinced that you suffer from delusions. How is this idiotic platitude relevant to anything being discussed here? Everybody knows this. Nobody cares. Nobody is discussing this because it’s self-evident and boring. Why do you keep harping on this banal and irrelevant issue?

          Like

    2. Clarissa, again, I am not talking about you and your husband. I began my statement with “Also, to the extent that people are not able to convert work visas to green cards,” I suspect that that will not be an issue for you and your husband if you get tenure.

      (There were endless debates about increasing the number of H1B visas to allow more south east asian immigrants to work in the internet/tech industries throughout the 90’s, for the reasons I mentioned).

      btw, I have mentioned a number of times on this blog that I am a first generation immigrant. But thanks for implying that I don’t know what one is. Very enlightened of you.

      “Also, “removal of ethnic quotas” somehow translates into “The US that HAS OPENED UP to the ENTIRE world in recent years” in your diseased imagination?”

      Again, what is your point here? Why not stop hurling baseless insults and explain your objection to this statement. It strikes me as semantic.

      Like

      1. “Clarissa, again, I am not talking about you and your husband. I began my statement with “Also, to the extent that people are not able to convert work visas to green cards,” I suspect that that will not be an issue for you and your husband if you get tenure.”

        – I am trying to explain to you that I have a personal and detailed knowledge of H1B visa process. The knowledge that you do not have. Also, tenure has absolutely no relationship to my immigration process. Will you ever stop talking about things you don’t know?

        ““Also, “removal of ethnic quotas” somehow translates into “The US that HAS OPENED UP to the ENTIRE world in recent years” in your diseased imagination?”

        Again, what is your point here? Why not stop hurling baseless insults and explain your objection to this statement. It strikes me as semantic.”

        – My point is that removal of ethnic quotas does not in any way mean that the entire world can come in. In 1980s, for example, there was a huge immigration from Russian-speaking countries (again, note how I’m talking about something I happen to know about). Then, it was shut down completely. That happened in the early 1990s. So the removal of ethnic quotas actually led to closing down of emigration from that area of the world altogether. Are you getting this now?

        “btw, I have mentioned a number of times on this blog that I am a first generation immigrant. But thanks for implying that I don’t know what one is. Very enlightened of you.”

        – If you know what a 1st generation immigrant is, can you figure out on your own why the number of 1st generation immigrants is useless for determining the size of immigration? It’s not that hard. Just try.

        Like

      2. Let’s imagine a completely fictitious citizen of the world outside of the US by the name Ramesh Zhao 🙂 :). Let’s imagine Mr. Zhao just boarding the plane headed to the US and declaring to the US border officer upon his arrival that he just came to live and work in the US. Because he has read certain Isabel said on a certain blog that “the US has opened up to the entire world in recent years”. Dare to predict the reaction of the US border guard? 🙂

        Like

      3. ““I meant exactly what I said; that the potential immigrants were no longer restricted to to countries/ethnic groups that reflected the current ethnic composition of the country.”

        – I am now convinced that you suffer from delusions. How is this idiotic platitude relevant to anything being discussed here? Everybody knows this. Nobody cares. Nobody is discussing this because it’s self-evident and boring. Why do you keep harping on this banal and irrelevant issue?
        “”

        How is that an idiotic platitude? What delusion? That doens’t even make a shred a sense, Clarissa. It is simply a fact. And it was in response to the repeated harping on the subject and intentional misunderstanding of the statement by *you* and V. Apparently you guys are the delusional ones. You interpreted the statement to mean anyone could jump on a plane and be welcomed as an immigrant.

        Suddenly you are “bored”. Yes, I think I know what that means. You’ve got nothing.

        Like

        1. “It is simply a fact.”

          – Yes, and it’s a fact everybody knows. How does it bear on our discussion.

          “Suddenly you are “bored”. Yes, I think I know what that means. You’ve got nothing.”

          – Nothing on what topic? The removal of ethnic quotas? Nothing new to contribute whatsoever.

          Like

      4. “It is simply a fact.”

        – Yes, and it’s a fact everybody knows. How does it bear on our discussion.”

        I already explained why I made this statement. It was in response to a comment by V. Try to pay attention.

        The point is that it is ridiculous to paint Americans who would like to reduce immigration (the majority, in fact) as racists. People who do this are the real haters; you said yourself that you consider most Americans idiots for this reason. On the other hand, I said nothing hateful.

        Like

      5. I said most Americans agree with restricting immigration (including recent immigrants btw), and you said Americans who agree with that position are idiots. It is right here on this thread. Don’t tell me I “invented lies”.

        Like

        1. Those Americans who want to restrict immigration and are idiots are not a majority. Normally, those who do want it are recent and first generation immigrants whose main fear is that the door doesn’t close fast enough behind their backs. Such people (like you) are a joke among all immigration specialists. A friend of mine who worked in immigration her entire life told me how hilarious it was to see those Johnny-come-latelys screech about the need to restrict immigration.

          Like

      6. “Those Americans who want to restrict immigration and are idiots are not a majority. ”

        True perhaps, as far as the “idiot” descriptor goes; but those who want to restrict immigration, either by controlling illegal immigration or reducing legal immigration or both, are indeed a majority. Surveys have shown this time and time again.

        My parents immigrated over 50 years ago, with great difficulty, when the totals were 20K/yr. According to you, because they don’t agree with the liberal open borders policy and 1 million/yr during a time of high unemployment and depressed wages, they are “idiots” who want to “shut the door behind them”. Clarissa, you are flailing here.

        Like

        1. You want me to engage in a discussion with your parents whom I never met and who don’t participate on this blog? Seriously? What are you, a little girl who can’t participate in a discussion without quoting her mommy’s opinion?

          Isn’t it time for you to learn to speak for yourself without quoting what daddy might have opined on a subject?

          Like

      7. I should correct “liberal” immigration policy, as conservatives just pay lip service to restricting it, as it provides such cheap labor. Just as the drug war is not a “conservative” policy (as Clinton and Obama clearly illustrate).

        What these two policies have in common is they both fly in the face of what Americans want.

        Like

      8. “You want me to engage in a discussion with your parents whom I never met and who don’t participate on this blog? ”

        Please stay away from my parents. I was only defending them from your disgusting insult – of people you admit you have never met. Even if they wanted to cap immigration at 50K a year (not that *anyone* is suggesting anything even close to that low number), it would only be the same difficult situation they faced. That is hardly “slamming the door behind them”.

        “Isn’t it time for you to learn to speak for yourself without quoting what daddy might have opined on a subject?”

        And who’s been speaking up for me here? ME. Boy are you flailing. So sad.

        “Isabel, the mouthpiece of “the Americans”. Do you read tea leaves, too?”

        I base my opinions on the results of repeated surveys of American residents. I’ve been an activist against the drug war for two decades. You belittle the idea of legalizing cannabis, while Mexican drug cartels make 70% of their profits from cannabis. Legalizing cannabis would do more for the Mexican people than all your whining about “racist’ Americans ever will.

        I certainly don’t pretend to be a spokesperson for all immigrants based on my personal life, as you do. Oh and by the way, you may have noticed that your insults have zero effect on me. I don’t take them personally as they are too bizarre, and you pull them out hyper-defensively on anyone whenever you are losing an argument. It’s sort of amusing, if I can forget how pathetic it is. The last thing I am looking for on-line is approval or friends so I couldn’t care less what you think of me.

        Like

        1. “Especially when he has no intention at all to pass any anti-abortion federal legislation”

          – Because what he plans to do will effectively wipe out abortion. People are bamboozled by his “it’s not my place to decide, let’s leave it to the states” because they don’t understand what it means in practical terms.

          Like

  7. @P. rhoeas

    You don’t have to talk about his racist stance because I know his racist positions very well. We talk about his so-called anti-women positions, which are grossly exaggerated.

    “He’s the congressperson who introduced the life-begins-at-conception act,”

    Which is a contradictory with his “let the States decide” philosophy, I admit. That’s why, like I said here before, I have many issues with him.

    “and the one who introduced an act to forbid federal courts from hearing cases regarding not only abortion but same-sex marriage, sexual activity, and religion, with the clear intent of making it impossible to challenge state decisions on these matters.”

    And I support this because this would prevent Stephen Harper to ban abortion and same-sex marriages in Canada with its newly acquired majority…or to an American President to nominate judges who overturn states’ decision on this.

    Like

    1. “this would prevent Stephen Harper to ban abortion and same-sex marriages in Canada”

      Irrelevant in the US context. The President doesn’t have that kind of authority to begin with. That sort of stuff is related to creation and interpretation of the law, which is up to Congress and the courts, not the executive branch.

      But let’s forget that for the sake of argument. What Paul wants would simply move the authority to make those kinds of decisions to the governments of states. It would not solve anything. It would give the states immunity from challenge in federal courts on decisions related to sexual freedom and women’s health. We’re talking about trading one Stephen Harper for up to fifty. I don’t know if you fully realize how many ass-backwards, assault rifle-toting, fundy fanatic, gay-hating, fetus-cuddling, Planned Parenthood-loathing, Nathan Forrest-lionizing, rich fatass patrician trash we have running our states down here, but we really need the Supreme Court to keep at least a few of its teeth.

      Also: “it is up to the individual states to PROHIBIT abortion.” You quoted it, not me. It’s on Paul’s website, not mine [which I hope to have up and running within the next couple weeks for the interested!]

      Like

      1. So, if Rick Santorum was the President, he could packed up his Supreme Court with his religious fanatic friends and ban abortion in all States.

        “We’re talking about trading one Stephen Harper for up to fifty. I don’t know if you fully realize how many ass-backwards, assault rifle-toting, fundy fanatic, gay-hating, fetus-cuddling, Planned Parenthood-loathing, Nathan Forrest-lionizing, rich fatass patrician trash we have running our states down here, but we really need the Supreme Court to keep at least a few of its teeth.”

        There are not 50 repubenrons who serve gubernatorial duties…

        Here in Canada, federal has decided than gay marriages and abortions are legal because of Québec province’s pressure. But with his majority, Harper could change that without the consent of Québec.

        Like

        1. Santorum doesn’t have a chance to be nominated. He is the flavor of the week for the desperate Republicans who have been going through candidates faster than they change underwear. 🙂 🙂 He is unelectable, though, and everybody knows it.

          Like

  8. “and wipe out major federal departments entirely, including Education and HHS, which from his point of view serve no purpose except as bureaucratic bogeymen holding the sovereignty of the individual states in chains to the federal government.”

    Come on! There’s no federal education department in Canada, fucktard!

    Like

      1. If you want Ron Paul to run for Canadian office, we’d be happy for you to take him. Sure he’s made of wood, and it sounds like the forces of destruction are knocking about inside him, but what you hear is only the candy shifting. Put him at the center of your nation and sleep soundly for there is nothing to fear from Americans bearing gifts.

        Like

        1. “In Canada, there’s no Federal Department of Education, which should be the case in USA.”

          – If the Federal Dept of Education is eliminated, all of the religious fanatics in this country will stop educating their miserable kids altogether. You should not analyze what happens in the US on the basis of what goes on in Canada. The two countries are too different for that. A strong federal government is crucial in the US because the danger of scary religious cults and unhinged militia groups running around being all crazy is very high. None of this is present in Canada. The population of the US is too huge and too heterogeneous for the federal government to be weakened without horrible repercussions. We can’t follow the example of Canada and Canada should not follow ours.

          Like

      1. My understanding is that the Dept. of Ed. already does very little as is, and that curricula and funding is mostly up to states and local gov’ts anyway. At least, Texas sure makes up its own crazy, fundy, racist mind about what constitutes “education”. What this suggests to me is that there needs to be greater oversight of state education policies and practices, not less. Paul’s ideas about gutting the Supreme Court and the federal government of power are going to make the already heroic task of challenging state decisions impossible. I do not have the knowledge or experience to assert whether or not or how the Canadian provincial system works, or if everybody in Canada gets merrily along with respect to what kind of education the populace needs, but I do know that that sure as fuck is not the case here.

        Like

  9. “People are bamboozled by his “it’s not my place to decide, let’s leave it to the states” because they don’t understand what it means in practical terms.”

    In practical terms: a mediocrat governor could expand abortions rights…and yeah, unfortunately a repubenron governor could ban abortion.

    Like

  10. Civil right disaster? You have a civil right disaster right now in USA with the Patriot Act, the War on Terror for Halliburton and BP 😉 😉 , the War on drugs and the overcrowded repubenrons prisons.

    Yeah, vote Santorum!

    Like

      1. “Obama would have to shit on a church to lose in 2012.”

        – 🙂 🙂 Very true. But knowing him and the history of Democrats at large, maybe he will. They do all they can not to get elected on a regular basis.

        Like

      1. Ron Paul is the less shitty repubenrons for liberals like you, at least. And I think OSama prooves that he’s mort shitty than Paul. (unless I hope (and I think he will) the he’ll be re-elected if someone else is nominated)

        Like

        1. “Ron Paul is the less shitty repubenrons for liberals like you, at least. ”

          – In what, exactly, should he be better for me, of all people? The guy is endorsed by evangelicals, and we all know how much I love those.

          Like

  11. “In what, exactly, should he be better for me, of all people? The guy is endorsed by evangelicals, and we all know how much I love those.”

    He would end the War on drugs, the War on Terror, and all the shitty federal programs in education like No child left behind. Now, why Romney should be less shitty?

    Like

    1. “He would end the War on drugs, the War on Terror”

      – Do you really believe that? Like the Pentagon will allow him to breathe in their direction, let alone take their wars away from them. As to the war on drugs, I don’t believe he’ll do anything either. These are just talking points aimed at bamboozling people. Have you heard any specific practical discussion from him as to how he will stop military interventions of the US in other countries? And the war on drugs, how can he practically stop it? It makes no sense.

      Like

    2. I don’t see your point in this comparison of general levels of Republican terribleness. The only qualitative difference between Ron Paul and his contenders is that he has a few left-baiting talking points to kick around and a record of yelling at Tom DeLay while they are pinching their assholes trying to toe the GOP line. Other than that his legislative record is pretty consistent with right-wing social and economic positions, and in some cases even more radically right-wing than the rest.

      Like

  12. “If you want Ron Paul to run for Canadian office, we’d be happy for you to take him. Sure he’s made of wood, and it sounds like the forces of destruction are knocking about inside him, but what you hear is only the candy shifting. Put him at the center of your nation and sleep soundly for there is nothing to fear from Americans bearing gifts.”

    The difference is that we don’t have a President in Canada, so I vote for a separatist party in Québec. Unless Paul would run for this party (He’s too retarded for that), I would not vote for him.

    Like

      1. I knew that, and that’s an issue for me, even tough syndicalist monopolies cause harm in the public secotr. But in the private sector, I see his position as utterly corpo-fascist.

        Like

  13. “If the Federal Dept of Education is eliminated, all of the religious fanatics in this country will stop educating their miserable kids altogether. You should not analyze what happens in the US on the basis of what goes on in Canada. The two countries are too different for that. A strong federal government is crucial in the US because the danger of scary religious cults and unhinged militia groups running around being all crazy is very high. None of this is present in Canada. The population of the US is too huge and too heterogeneous for the federal government to be weakened without horrible repercussions. We can’t follow the example of Canada and Canada should not follow ours.”

    Faith Initiative, anyone? What’s the purpose of the federal government who supports these religious assholes?

    We have this very problem not a long time ago in Québec, and this problem is certainly not resolved because of a strong federal government in Education.

    Like

    1. I see no force capable of opposing the religious fanatics in the US right now other than a president who is not one of them and who is not endorsed by them. It is so shocking that such a relatively small minority would be able to undermine such a big country to this scary extent.

      Like

        1. “This very same problem is resolved here in Québec because Québec liberals and separatists decided to stop to support religious groups, not because of the federal governement!”

          – We should never compare the enlightened Québec with scary places like South Dakota or Texas.

          Like

  14. “Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the federal Taft–Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring, which would require the workplace to be a closed shop.”

    This is even anti-free market!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

    Like

  15. “- We should never compare the enlightened Québec with scary places like South Dakota or Texas.”

    Yeah, but this Québec was not so enlightened only 60 years ago. This was called “Grande Noirceur”.

    Like

  16. “Santorum doesn’t have a chance to be nominated. He is the flavor of the week for the desperate Republicans who have been going through candidates faster than they change underwear. 🙂 🙂 He is unelectable, though, and everybody knows it.”

    I agree. But I don’t think any of these candidates, except maybe Paul, is really electable right now. But the statist militaro-terrorist Repubenron establishment will never accept a Paul nomination, so Romney will prevail (even if I don’t think that Gingrich is dead), and Obama will be re-elected.

    Like

    1. I don’t really buy Ron Paul’s self-pity act as to how he is so persecuted by the rest of the Republicans. He’s just trying to stand out and conceal the fact that he doesn’t differ from Bachmann, Romney and Santorum a whole lot.

      Like

      1. Yeah, he plays that political game, but he’s right on this. Never the militaro-terrorist repubenron establishment will accept this because if Paul is nominated, this may be the end of the GOP like we know…

        Like

  17. “I wasn’t in Québec 6- years ago 🙂 but I can’t believe it was ever as bad as South Dakota.”

    This was worse 60 years ago in Québec. Any Québécois who’s 60 years old or older will tell you that. “Orphelins de Duplessis” and “Grande Noirceur” are main key words for this

    Now, even the Québec Right wants even more laicity in the State.

    Like

  18. Ron Paul is the only candidate that brings something new to the table. His stance on foreign policy and the war on drugs is very refreshing and makes much more sense than anything the other candidates are saying. The other candidates are just for the status quo. This includes Obama, who on many issues is just Bush 2.0.

    I disagree with many of Ron Paul’s positions such as abortion and the environment, but I also completely agree with him on several key issues to me.

    Like

    1. I don’t see how the newness of what one brings can be a legitimate factor in selecting a candidate. According to this logic, if he put on rabbit’s ears and a bunny tail and hopped around the stage during the debates, he’d be the perfect candidate.

      Remember that in spite of all the nice words a candidate says during a campaign, what he will actually do in office will be defined by the list of folks who contributed massively to his campaign. Remember Obama and his promises? And how he appointed Summers and Geithner the moment he was elected? What makes you think that Paul won’t do the same and start giving back to his Fundamentalist backers the moment he is elected?

      Like

    2. Remember in 2008 when Obama made a bunch of promises to end US military involvement in the Middle East and to recategorize the “war on drugs” as a public health issue and not one of legality? Yeah, those sure were “new” and “refreshing” ideas to which he totally committed himself once in office. Pay attention to recent history and try again.

      Like

    1. Where is the blackmail? I just checked the wikipedia article on “emotional blackmail” and it didn’t help at all with understanding this comment. How can this occur on a comment thread???

      You and others can psycho-analyze others’ comments constantly but I can’t even on occasion or it’s blackmail? I don’t get this at all, Jennifer.

      And I think it is pretty well established that boredom is usually a symptom of a deeper problem. Blaming other people for it is silly.

      Like

  19. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

    “And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

    * Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

    * Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.””

    So he changed his mind, and this new position is ludicrous.

    Like

    1. ” Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade”

      – The hypocrisy is daunting. Saving lives by repealing Roe v. Wade? When the mortality from back-alley abortions is going to skyrocket? Such people make me want to vomit.

      Like

  20. “War on drugs is not limited to marijuana.”

    Legalizing cannabis would absolutely take the wind out of the sails of the WoD. The majority of arrests, the majority of expenditures, and as I pointed out above the majority of drug cartel profits are from cannabis.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.