Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Paul’s office was dedicated, first and foremost, to his political principles, and his work with his grassroots base reflects that. Politics and procedure simply didn’t matter to him. My main contact in Paul’s office even had his voicemail set up with special instructions for those calling about HR 1207, which was the number of the House bill to audit the Federal Reserve. But it wasn’t just the Fed audit – any competent liberal Democratic staffer in Congress can tell you that Paul will work with anyone who seeks his ends of rolling back American Empire and its reach into foreign countries, auditing the Federal Reserve, and stopping the drug war
Paul is deeply conservative, of course, and there are reasons he believes in those end goals that have nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society. But then, when considering questions about Ron Paul, you have to ask yourself whether you prefer a libertarian who will tell you upfront about his opposition to civil rights statutes, or authoritarian Democratic leaders who will expand healthcare to children and then aggressively enforce a racist war on drugs and shield multi-trillion dollar transactions from public scrutiny.
This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul’s stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It’s quite obvious that there isn’t one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn’t be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there’s no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.
What we’re seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.
This is really good read.
Matt Stoller: Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals « naked capitalism
I found this really interesting in the way it shows how Paul operates so much differently that most in Congress.
Pauls office was dedicated, first and foremost, to his political principles, and his work with his grassroots base reflects that. Politics and procedure simply didnt matter to him. My main contact in Pauls office even had his voicemail set up with special instructions for those calling about HR 1207, which was the number of the House bill to audit the Federal Reserve. But it wasnt just the Fed audit any competent liberal Democratic staffer in Congress can tell you that Paul will work with anyone who seeks his ends of rolling back American Empire and its reach into foreign countries, auditing the Federal Reserve, and stopping the drug war
Paul is deeply conservative, of course, and there are reasons he believes in those end goals that have nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society. But then, when considering questions about Ron Paul, you have to ask yourself whether you prefer a libertarian who will tell you upfront about his opposition to civil rights statutes, or authoritarian Democratic leaders who will expand healthcare to children and then aggressively enforce a racist war on drugs and shield multi-trillion dollar transactions from public scrutiny.
This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Pauls stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. Its quite obvious that there isnt one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldnt be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And theres no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.
What were seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.
Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. Thats because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate not the Democrat who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing theyd vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?
It's a historical fact that the financial arm of the government has often served as a mechanism for waging war, and that the desire to wage war has driven the development of this arm. However, the solution for those who want to make war more difficult is not to remove the government from the economy. It is, simply, to spend less money on armaments (and, increasingly, other intelligence and security measures).
It's a historical fact that the financial arm of the government has often served as a mechanism for waging war, and that the desire to wage war has driven the development of this arm. However, the solution for those who want to make war more difficult is not to remove the government from the economy. It is, simply, to spend less money on armaments (and, increasingly, other intelligence and security measures).
Really? Historical fact?It's a historical fact that the financial arm of the government has often served as a mechanism for waging war, and that the desire to wage war has driven the development of this arm. However, the solution for those who want to make war more difficult is not to remove the government from the economy. It is, simply, to spend less money on armaments (and, increasingly, other intelligence and security measures).
Really? Historical fact?It's a historical fact that the financial arm of the government has often served as a mechanism for waging war, and that the desire to wage war has driven the development of this arm. However, the solution for those who want to make war more difficult is not to remove the government from the economy. It is, simply, to spend less money on armaments (and, increasingly, other intelligence and security measures).
If we disbanded our armed forces completely we would never wage war. Of course everyone else and his brother would be walking over our corpses on the way to occupy Washington but the Left doesn't care about that.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
It's a historical fact that the financial arm of the government has often served as a mechanism for waging war, and that the desire to wage war has driven the development of this arm. However, the solution for those who want to make war more difficult is not to remove the government from the economy. It is, simply, to spend less money on armaments (and, increasingly, other intelligence and security measures).
On second look, the Greenwald article is actually better. Love to hear your response, if you have time to read it. It's fairly long.
Really? Historical fact?It's a historical fact that the financial arm of the government has often served as a mechanism for waging war, and that the desire to wage war has driven the development of this arm. However, the solution for those who want to make war more difficult is not to remove the government from the economy. It is, simply, to spend less money on armaments (and, increasingly, other intelligence and security measures).
If we disbanded our armed forces completely we would never wage war. Of course everyone else and his brother would be walking over our corpses on the way to occupy Washington but the Left doesn't care about that.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I didn't say that one shouldn't wage war, I said that government financing and government war-making have been intimately related historically. In brief:
During 1861, the opening year of the American Civil War, the expenses incurred by the Union Government far outstripped its limited revenues from taxation, and borrowing was the main vehicle for financing the war. (United States Note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The budgetary expenses for the years 1941-1945 amounted to some $317 billion, of which $281 billion was directly related to the war effort; expenditures climbed from $9.6 billion in fiscal 1940 to nearly $100 billion in 1945. Of these outlays some 45 percent was covered by taxes and other non-borrowing sources. The deficit had to be covered by selling bonds.
(Series E bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Liberals hate honesty, transparency, and peace. That is why they will vote for Obama.
Liberals hate honesty, transparency, and peace. That is why they will vote for Obama.
I agree with Ron Paul on about 70% of things. I disagree with him so completely about the remaining 30% that I could never support him.
I agree with Ron Paul on about 70% of things. I disagree with him so completely about the remaining 30% that I could never support him.
that's true of most people. but the paulians are a zealous group.
i wonder if the o/p agrees with Matt Stoller that foreclosure properties are crime scenes...
Opinion: Treat foreclosure as a crime scene - Matt Stoller - POLITICO.com
I'll tell you what Aquathena.... If Libertarianism wouldn't be such a hard ass when it comes to the poor and the elderly, I'd probably vote for Paul. But I am sorry.... I am not going to let fellow Americans live a life of shit just because SOME people hate the government and taxation.
Liberals hate honesty, transparency, and peace. That is why they will vote for Obama.
I am hearing how much they are liking Ron Paul, though....
"Ron Paul's favorability soars among Democrats"
Newsletter scandal boosts Paul's support among Dems from 59% to 70%
Libertarian Republican: Ron Paul's favorability soars among Democrats
I'll tell you what Aquathena.... If Libertarianism wouldn't be such a hard ass when it comes to the poor and the elderly, I'd probably vote for Paul. But I am sorry.... I am not going to let fellow Americans live a life of shit just because SOME people hate the government and taxation.
These are lies. SS and Medicare would not be abolished under Paul. However, liberals like to repeat these lies while they cut billions in medicare while spending millions to build a new ghost prison over in the ME.
