TPMDC
Ron Paul: President Obama Is Not A Socialist
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
Share
Send to a friend!
Near the end of the third day of this year's Southern Republican Leadership Conference, it was time for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to take the stage. Paul, fresh off his victory in the CPAC straw poll, gave a characteristically fired-up speech that took on the views of the Republican party establishment.
"The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist," Paul said. "I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist."
"He's a corporatist," Paul continued. "And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country."
Paul said examples of President Obama's "corporatism" were evident in the heath care reform bill he signed into law last month. He said the mandate in the bill put the power over health care in the hands of corporations rather than private citizens. But he said the bill wasn't the only place where corporatism is creeping into Washington.
"We see it in the financial institutions, we see it in the military-industrial complex," he said. "And now we see it in the medical-industrial complex."
Despite his opposition to the bill, and despite Republican calls to repeal it, Paul said that when it comes to the landmark health care bill, "throwing it all out is probably not going to happen."
He said the only hope Republicans have is to change the bill for the better. Paul said he will introduce his own legislative fix when the Congress returns from recess next week.
"There's one piece of legislation that I'm going to introduce, it's going to be one page long," he said. "It will be to remove the mandate so you don't have to participate if you don't want to."
His speech, which touched on his oft-repeated calls to close down American military bases overseas and shift toward libertarian-style social policy, drew cheers from the Paul fans in the crowd and what sounded like boos from others in the room.
Comments (274) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
psyclone
April 10, 2010 4:32 PM
In other news, debate continues in the Republican Party over just how many angels can in fact dance on the head of a pin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
April 12, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to psyclone
All I know is, as someone in their 50s, I can not go along with Ron Paul who wants to do away with Social Security. We use to have pensions, until we were sold down the river of 401Ks. Well the market tanked as Baby Boomers are starting to make plans to retire. Guess what? I will now have to work 6-10 more years if 1) My health holds out 2) I can keep the good job that I have
I know many Baby Boomers who are unemployed and can't find work. They are now starting to take their Social Security at 62 in order to survive. As I watch the tea baggers I can only shake my head. Are they rich or just plain stupid? All I can gather is that they just want the Baby Boomers to die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justinb
April 12, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to DownriverDem
You have legitimate concerns, but you're only focused on you you you. These programs... social security and medicare should never have been created to begin with, and now they're holding over 30 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. Since they have been created, I think you should be able to recover what you've put in and it should be phased out. I'm in my 30's, and try and see my perspective. Social Security is going broke, and it's likely I won't get a penny back that I've put in. So while you're concerned about you you you, I'm concerned about me me me. It's time for us to quit acting like little kids relying on the nanny state to take care of us and support us when we retire, and have some personal responsibility to take care of ourselves like big boys. There's no reason why I should have to fund older generations retirements when I could be using a portion of that to save for my own retirement. It's a pyramid scheme that has run out, and it needs to stop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
April 12, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to justinb
These programs... social security and medicare should never have been created to begin with, and now they're holding over 30 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.
Citations, please.
Social Security is over 2 Trillion dollars in the black - it's commonly referred to as a "trust fund", which is the sum of the annual surpluses it has generated since the mid-80's.
So, if we subtract the 2(it's closer to 3, but I'll round down) - or, rather, add the -2 to the 30 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities,
that means Medicare should be 32 TRILLION in the hole.
And that should be pretty easy to back up - so let's see it.
Seriously - I would like to benefit from this knowledge, if it is in fact actually fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justinb
April 12, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to kenga
Kenga,
You are correct to mention the amount of debt, but this doesn't take into account unfunded liabilities (link below explains this concept). I gleaned that 30+Trillion number a few years back from the Board of Trustees report on ssa.gov. Unfortunately, I'm having troubles finding that link now. It should be somewhere on ssa.gov. According to the non-partisan NCPA, it has now reached a total of 107 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662
I recommend google for searching and finding these things in the future. Just be confident of your sources.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
April 12, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to justinb
Thanks for the link to NCPA - I'll have a look.
I'm pretty good with the Google - I was poking you to make sure you weren't trying to blow smoke ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChiTom
April 12, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to justinb
So, you think it should be about "me me me", then, right?
And it looks like your "me me me" is in direct conflict with every other "me me me" (that seems to be your only substantive criticism of "downriverdem").
And, what then, the biggest or the baddest or (in your case) the youngest "me" wins? Do you even have a clue how stupid you are?
When your moral sense exceeds that of a nursing infant, come back and talk. Until then, shut up and nurse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justinb
April 12, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to ChiTom
ChiTom,
Use your brain. I'm simply offering up the viewpoint of someone that is paying into a program that will likely never provide anything back. What were these attacks that ticked you off so much? The fact that I feel the older generation should get back what they paid into it, and have SS phased off? Or are you just too dense to realize the "me me me" was to help others see from different viewpoints.
"When your moral sense exceeds that of a nursing infant, come back and talk. Until then, shut up and nurse." I suppose your moral sense believes you need the Nanny state to help you retire. In that sense, we'll never see eye to eye. I'm perfectly capable of preparing for my retirement on my own thru 401K, IRA, and investing in myself by obtaining more education. Get this, I don't need daddy government to take my paycheck, give it to the people that bought in first, and leave me out in the cold. How about a bit more personal responsibility, getting the government out of the way but cutting all of it's waste out, and decreasing all of our taxes so we CAN all afford to retire on our own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 12, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to justinb
You do republican talking points very well. Too bad the talking points and you are full of crap...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justinb
April 12, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Too bad I'm not a republican. In fact, I don't recall a republican who sat in the presidency that ever actually cut the size and cost of government in my lifetime. Do you have anything to debate me on, or can you only perform partisan deflections by saying I'm full of crap, and guessing at the wrong political party. Let's here a sound argument first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larsvanness
April 12, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to justinb
Sorry, but I don't think it really is your place to pass judgement on a social welfare program that was created in 1935 nor do i thin that you are qualified to do so (if you were I don't thin that you would be posting here). Be sure to keep your crystal ball wiped clean so that you can foretell your own future. Because unless you are the recipient of someonelese's largess and have your future tied up in an absolutely guaranteed trust your personal investmants are at the mercy of the winds of fortune just as every one else who is part of this great economic system. I wholeheartedly second Chi Tom's proposal--When your moral sense exceeds that of a nursing infant, come back and talk. Until then, shut up and nurse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justinb
April 12, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to larsvanness
You're absolutely correct, my retirement fund is at the whims of the pseudo free market. I'd still rather have that extra 7% so I can invest it, rather than just pitching it in the trash.
I'm not sure who made you the king on Social Security either, I'm proud of you that you actually looked up when it was created, that's better than ChiTom or LousGrl, but it still doesn't make the program viable as proven in the numbers.
Next time, maybe you should finish reading my responses before you judge my moral sense. I'm not sure what is so morally wrong about believing the people that paid into the system should be able to recoup it, then phase it out. I'd be willing to give up what I've put in if I can stop paying into it now. Unlike the moral sense of the original poster (Downriver), I didn't blanket label an entire group of the population as those that put their scrotums in other people's mouths (teabaggers), so I think I'll keep my moral sense where it's at.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Serendipity Seraph
April 12, 2010 5:41 PM in reply to psyclone
This is very unfortunate. A bastion of freedom is basically dumping on a form of business organization. That is a mistake. What Ron Paul is calling "corporatism" is actually fascism or so-called "state capitalism" which is not capitalism at all. It is what happens when the state becomes comingled with business where it has no legitimate business except upholding contracts and preventing fraud. Using the word "corporatism" gives credence to the claims of many than our problems are due to evil businesses and therefore the government should be charged with protecting us. Or worse, that a corporation as such is evil. There are very sound legitimate reasons for this business form which I would hope Ron Paul is aware of. His remarks also lend strength to the notion that free markets are problematic. Not what I hope for from him at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
April 10, 2010 4:36 PM
Sorry, Ron, but your party doesn't call Obama a socialist because they think it's an accurate description - they call him that because they think that's a SCARY term.
Why else do you think they call him a Muslim Marxist Socialist Communist Nazi Atheist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
April 10, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to psyclone
There is a certain Republican that has been calling Obama a socialist even when the Senate bill was passed.
His name is Ron Paul.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 12:47 AM in reply to Nutter
How dare you call Ron Paul a Republican!?
The fact is that he's a "Libertarian," but he can't get elected as a "Libertarian," so he lies that he's a Republican.
And that's been workin' for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chriss1519
April 11, 2010 2:13 AM in reply to JNagarya
libertarian, Republican, same difference
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
April 11, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to chriss1519
Nope, that is not entirely correct. Most repuke policies are contrary to libertarians. Many in fact. That is one of the reasons the mountain west is shifting to the dems. Libertarians want the government out of their lives and the repukes want to regulate a person's bedroom and violate their privacy in the name of the war on the 9 foot tall islamo fascists. I would propose dems are more libertarian than today's repukes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
April 11, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to Michael A
You really need to get a better insight into the GOP before you spout off about what Republicans are. There has, and there will always be, a libertarian wing of the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
April 11, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to GOPinNYC
There is a libertarian wing, but it is shrinking because of repuke policies and what the party stands for. That was my point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
April 15, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to Michael A
It isn't shrinking. If anything it is actually becoming a more influential part of the Party. The Paul campaign has demonstrated that it needs to be more vocal and active in influencing the agenda. I know because I'm part of that wing. I'm personally leading the charge in NY to elect more of the wing to party leadership positions. Next year I will be managing a campaign to elect more than fifty people to state committee positions in an effort to influence who our national committee members are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 11, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to chriss1519
Bill Maher said Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke pot....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
April 12, 2010 6:47 AM in reply to chriss1519
Actually, Libertarians and Republicans live on the conservative end of the continuum; where as Libertarians favor the individual and his civil rights and liberties, Republicans are more authoritarian. So there really is two axis that we're dealing with -- the usual liberal-to-conservative continuum on the "X" axis and the libertarian-to-authoritarian continuum on the "Y" axis.
I hope that helps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
April 12, 2010 7:53 AM in reply to BaileyWu
no no no no no...
libertarians do NOT favor civil rights.
there are freedoms to and there are freedoms from. freedoms to are what libertarians are on about. freedoms from are what libertarians are opposed to. freedoms from require government intervention and regulation. civil rights are a freedom from.
while libertarians might ostensibly believe in the right of individuals to be treated equally by their government, civil rights ultimately involve being treated equally by individuals and private entities throughout society. libertarians want no part of that.
libertarians do not support an individual's freedom from being discriminated against by others. libertarians support an individuals' freedom to discriminate against others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to JNagarya
Dr. Ron Paul is Republican in that he supports a republican form of government as our Constitution outlines.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
April 11, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Come on, Dug. That's not what a "Republican" is. That's like saying a "Democrat" is one who believes in democracy. It's the name of a political party. If you want to get historical, the Republicans were the party who rejected the states' rights claims of the Southern states which seceded from the Union to start the civil war.
Unfortunately, since Nixon began the "southern strategy" in the '60s, the Republican party has done a 180 and now supports those who advocate states' rights in race and other matters.
From a political party perspective, those who say Ron Paul isn't a Republican are only partially right: while his views are far more libertarian than those of the Republican party, he aligns himself with the Repubs to the same extent Bernie Saunders aligns himself with the Dems.
Moreover, to say Republicans support the "Republican" form of government is not accurate these days. The republican form of government assumes that voters elect representatives who do the actual governing. When those representatives elected by those voters began to do that, however, the "republicans" objected on the ground the "people" were opposed to what they were doing. I have a hard time reconciling that view with your definition of "republicans".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to George C
I'm specifically speaking about Dr. Ron Paul individually and not the Republican Party in general, our constitution does not outline a democratic form of government but a republican form and for the record...I hate Democracy.
Our republican form of government is not just a republican representation of the people but it means following the constitution as a legal binding enduring document. Dr. Ron Paul believes just that and the belief in our Constitution is what makes him and like minded others, including myself a "Republican", all that believe in restoring the Republic and the Constitution to it's rightful place in government are "Republicans". You too can become a Republican regardless of party affiliation, just uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic, especially the seditionist progressives.
The modern Democratic Party does not uphold their Constitutional oaths of office, much less believe in our Constitutional Republic, hell most Democrats and especially progressives can't even bring themselves to say "Constitutional Republic" much less support it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 11, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
bullshit. The Constitution contains more than the second and tenth amendments, as the wingnuts seem to think. The Constitution has been construed by the Supreme Court for 200 years. You cannot understand the Constution unless you take the time to study how it has been interpreted by the judicial body created to interpret it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to skitzo
Would you agree that during those 200 years constitutional law has often been constitutional and the omnipotence of today's Supreme Court would have horrified the founders?
And if you do agree, specifically how can we stop the Supreme Court from acting as the supreme legislator of the Untied States?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 11, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to skitzo
Actually, the Constitution doesn't give the court the right to interpret anything, but rather they were charged with settling disputes that arose under those laws. Little surprise that most of the court's power has been self appointed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
April 12, 2010 6:41 AM in reply to Jason Miller
If you'll check, you'll find that Jefferson was not successful with that argument. The court has asserted the right of judicial review ever since. Of course, they have to get someone to present the case, but these days that can be made to happen with a phone call.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 12, 2010 8:21 AM in reply to BaileyWu
The court gave themselves more power than they were originally granted under the Constitution over the years and then cemented it with a national fetish for precedent that crushes every ounce of common sense from our original system of government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edman2012
April 11, 2010 11:42 PM in reply to skitzo
"interpret the constitution" I always read this comment and I can't help but laugh. The U.S. Constitution is written in plain, easy English. Once you understand the purpose of the constitution and the intent of the founders, then it's pretty clear why America exists and why WE as a nation are so unique. Both controlled parties are taking us backwards, and the judicial branch is also partly to blame too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 12:29 AM in reply to edman2012
I wholeheartedly disagree. To assert:
fails to acknowledge the LIVING constitution as it is today.
The Constitution was made to be changed, clarified, amended to fit the growing need of the nation and its citizens. If your argument of "written in plain English" is taken literally, then there would have been no debate concerning the 3/4 clause, slavery, voting rights, equal education, etc. Not to mention the right to bare arms as a militia.
Fact is, the Constitution is a flawed document and open to interpretation. Hence the field of Constitutional Law.
If both parties are to blame for "taking us backwards," then I am grateful for the backwardness (i.e., progress) we have made in the 200+ years since its ratification.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 1:25 AM in reply to mophan
The Living Constitution is false doctrine bent undermining Article 5 of our Constitution, only a seditionist would support such a unholy thing.
Often constitutional law has been unconstitutional, our Constitution depends on citizens to know the difference and elect people to reflect our Constitutional Republic and not democracy.
Unfortunately progressivism has taken hold on our educational system where the average person actually believes in the false doctrine of the living constitution or that we are a democracy instead of a constitutional republic, hence the progressive zealot JNagarya actually believes what he says instead of the historic truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 1:39 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
The LIVING CONSTITUTION is a false doctrine bent on undermining Article 5 of the Constitution? And then you accuse me of being a seditionist for stating the Constitution gives explicit instructions on how it is to be amended? Give me a brake.
Take your crazy talk elsewhere. The Constitution was made to be changed. Hence Article 5. If the founders had the intention of leaving the Constitution as is, then there would have been no Article 5. If there is ANY part of the Constitution that is agreed upon by ALL sides, it is Article 5. Except you, and whatever outlandish train of thought you might have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 2:10 AM in reply to mophan
The Living Constitution also implies the SCOTUS making rulings on evolving social standards instead of original intent, textual meaning and legislating from the bench to suite their evolved standard, in that area the followers of the living constitution are seditionist by not reading the Constitution as a legal binding enduring document.
You seem to want to read into more than I actually say...take a breath before you respond and maybe read some of what I already posted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 8:00 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I'm specifically speaking about Dr. Ron Paul individually and not the Republican Party in general, our constitution does not outline a democratic form of government but a republican form and for the record...I hate Democracy.
_____
Even when you lazily borrow snippets from those who actually know this stuff, you fail becasue you don't know what you're talking about even with the "borrowings":
You hate democracy because you are stupid; and there is nothing more to it -- in terms of knowledge or being "thoughtful" -- than that. Meanwhile, back at reality:
The essence of democracy is elections. The Constitution expressly stipulates that there shall be elctions. Thus the Constitution establishes a DEMOCRACTIC republic.
". . . a legal binding enduring document."
Yet another law-illiterate who borrowas shit made up from other law-illiterates because too lazy to bother with facts.
The Constitution is EXPRESSLY the supreme Law of the Land. And it is expressly to endure in pepetuity, and incorporates the means to ensure that, of which is as example US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15.
"Dr. Ron Paul believes just that and the belief in our Constitution is what makes him and like minded others, including myself a "Republican", all that believe in restoring the Republic and the Constitution to it's rightful place in government are "Republicans".
_____
Illiterates such as you are going to "restore" that about which you know NOTHING?
"You too can become a Republican regardless of party affiliation, just uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic, especially the seditionist progressives."
Mud-slinging emptiheaded fool: STFU.
"The modern Democratic Party does not uphold their Constitutional oaths of office, much less believe in our Constitutional Republic, hell most Democrats and especially progressives can't even bring themselves to say "Constitutional Republic" much less support it.
_____
We are a DEMOCRATIC republic, elitist of anti-intellectualism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 8:14 PM in reply to JNagarya
When Progressives like you keep telling this lie over and over again, that somehow we are all suppose to believe and accept this lie of theirs, but facts are stubborn things! And the fact is we are a constitutional republic by the authority of our constitution and not a representative democracy or a DEMOCRATIC republic. Here are some more facts that support our republican form of government being a constitutional republic and not a democracy or DEMOCRATIC republic:
1. The words representative democracy are not found together in Federalist Paper #10 but only arguments by Madison in support of a republic over a democracy as our form of government, “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” But you can find the words representative republic together in Federalist #48, “But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly…”
2. There are 85 Federalist Papers, 18 of which mention our republic or republican form of government. Only 3 of the 85 mention democracy but only in a negative light to promote the republican form over the democratic form of government.
3. Federalist Paper #85 Conclusion by Alexander Hamilton does not mention democracy or democracies even once but mentions the word republican four times.
4. The Constitution of the United States of America does not contain the word democracy or forms of the word.
The Founders that ratified our Constitution knew well about the ills of democracy and that is why they gave us a Constitutional Republic instead.
Come on say it ten time with me..
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
Constitutional Republic...
...now doesn't that feel better...smile
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Elections are the essence of DEMOCRACY.
Does the supreme Law of the Land expressly stipulate that there SHALL be elections?
Yes, it does.
Thus ours is a democratic republic.
Do we elect individuals to represent us?
Yes, we do.
ERGO, we are OBVIOUSLY a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
Why are asserting falsehoods against your democratic right to vote, and to be represented by those democratically elected?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 8:33 PM in reply to JNagarya
Elections are a result of our republicanism, not democracy false prophet!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 10:46 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Elections are democracy in action.
Twist in the wind, Anti-American illiterate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 10:52 PM in reply to JNagarya
No, Elections are republicanism in action.
Did you just pass some wind, progressive elitist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vinquus
April 12, 2010 6:10 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Elections like they have in the People's Republic of China? Now THERE's a Republic!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to JNagarya
I proved you wrong and now is time for you to admit your wrongdoing...or maybe you are truly a product of the progressive indoctrination process that our modern colleges export thus you will never admit your wrong hotheadedness, either case I don't care I'm done with you! You served my purpose, thank you!
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Just for you...
Constitutional republics were first advocated in the 18th and 19th centuries by classical liberals, who were egaged at the time in a political and ideological conflict against conservative supporters of traditional monarchy.
Funny that you are really arguing for liberal ideals, isn't it? :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 9:34 PM in reply to Sir T
Yes, classical liberal. Not today's meaning of the word!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:43 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Funny that you keep looking back to the old meaning of the Republican Party to justify yourself today then, isn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 10:03 PM in reply to Sir T
No just what it meant to be a Republican in 1787.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edman2012
April 12, 2010 12:05 AM in reply to Sir T
yes, but the liberals of then, are not the liberals of now are they? Look, I know it's hard to unlearn all the bullsh!t they teach in school, but no matter how you slice it, the liberals and progressives of today want a form of government that is unAmerican. Let me be fair and also say that the current neo-conservative Republicans are also doing the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:25 PM in reply to JNagarya
To be fair, he is technically correct. The united States is a Federal Constitutional Republic, but you are correct in what it means in practice. Constitutional republics were first advocated in the 18th and 19th centuries by classical liberals, who were engaged at the time in a political and ideological conflict against conservative supporters of traditional monarchy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
April 12, 2010 8:46 AM in reply to Sir T
Neither are the conservatives of today the conservatives of Judge John Paul Stevens even. He was appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford. Today Judge Stevens would not be welcome in the Repub Party of tea baggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
April 12, 2010 8:19 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
you and glen beck (who you are merely parroting) are IDIOTS.
the phrase 'consitutional republic' as it is used in the US means 'representative democracy' everywhere in the world. (indeed, nowhere else in the world is the word 'republic' really used the way it has come to be used in the US.)
this 'republic vs democracy' fetish of beck's is THE stupidest pseudo-political meme yet. and stupid people love the SHIT out of it.
here's the process: "because i lack a functional understanding of civics, i don't understand what the two parties in the US are about. so, i'll play a word game and pretend that i'm revealing the underlying meaning of things as if i'm an etymologist or something (even though 'etymologist' is too big a word for me to understand). i know that i like 'republicans' (my team) and i don't like 'democrats' (my team's arch-rivals). piece of chalk in hand, it stands to reason that 'republicans' must stand for 'republicanism' and 'democrats' must stand for 'democracy'. therefor i must love 'republicanism' and hate 'democracy'. now let me go to my dictionary and have it tell me what it is i love and what it is i hate...."
it is transparently reverse-engineered nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Religiously Secular
May 14, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Just throwing this out there that we are technically as of this moment a Constitutional Democratic Republic. To attempt to erase any of those three words as to what we "are" right now is foolish and ignorant of either words or how our political process and government works.
I say this not to benefit any political party or ideology. It is simply fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
May 14, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to Religiously Secular
Oh really,
Prove it...smile
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edman2012
April 11, 2010 11:56 PM in reply to JNagarya
wow. what's wrong with you? It's typical Progressive behavior and attitude. Always telling others they are stupid and don't know anything, because you're right and will support your political party no matter what, even if the party is corrupt and wrong. Your elitist attitude is no better than what the Neo-con, Limbaugh, Hannity, RepubliCrats out there. Both groups are the same. Just fighting, insulting, ridiculing,without any effort in trying to find common ground.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 12, 2010 12:06 AM in reply to edman2012
So, in your view, I'm a stereotype you project.
Yep: Name-calling, and slogans masquerading as allegations, is all you have.
All of which is damned stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edman2012
April 12, 2010 12:32 AM in reply to JNagarya
I have no slogans. And yes, you do show typical prgressive elitist attitude, Bill Maher style. It doesn't fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 12, 2010 2:19 AM in reply to edman2012
"Thank you" for again informing us of the contents of your projection. Your slogans masquerading as allegations, again wholly lacking in evidence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
April 12, 2010 6:26 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Before I call you crazy, I should ask you just who do you think these corporatist representatives are representing? I know it's a rhetorical question but you seem to need the help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
seon
April 12, 2010 3:13 AM in reply to JNagarya
Ron Paul ran as a republican and is listen as a republican. That is no lie. But I think Ron Paul is to good for the republican party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
April 12, 2010 6:32 AM in reply to seon
I was in his Texas district when he first won his Congressional seat. He ran as a Libertarian. But when he came up for reelection he sold-out and accepted the RNC's money for his campaign. He won reelection. I hated him for it but since those days he's returned to his Libertarian sensibilities. I'd call him a Libertarian no matter what his corporatist party affiliation is.
We no longer have a republican democracy -- we have a corporatocracy and both parties serve as its whores.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SamFox
April 12, 2010 4:23 AM in reply to JNagarya
Ron does not lie. Do some research. He is not shy about his libertarian 'roots'. He has said that the '2 party' set up is so biased that it is almost impossible for some out side the R & D illusion of two parties to make any headway in the electoral process.
SamFox
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 12, 2010 6:03 AM in reply to SamFox
He can't get elected as a "Libertarian" -- he already tried that.
So he LIES that he's a Republican by claiming to be that by party label.
He's also a right-wing extremist; but neophytes to politics don't yet know the meaning of extreme, and why it is termed extreme.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 12, 2010 6:15 AM in reply to SamFox
To presume to be on a first-name basis with a person one doesn't know is comparable to speaking in behalf of one of one's imaginary friends. It may sound good to you, and bolster your confidence, but everyone else is wondering why you are talking to yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
April 12, 2010 6:38 AM in reply to JNagarya
We'll remember that next time we're speaking to Your Highness, Princess of TPM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 13, 2010 12:43 AM in reply to BaileyWu
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'll presume we're equal: you don't either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
April 12, 2010 8:32 AM in reply to JNagarya
It may be working for him, but Ron Paul will never win the repub nomination. As someone who is in their 50s, I do not want anyonw who wants to do away with Social Security. We use to have pensions until we were sold down the river of 401Ks. Well, the stock market crashed as Baby Boomers were beginning to make plans for retirement.
Well guess what? Because of the stock market tanking, I now have to work 6-10 years longer if 1) My health holds out 2) I can keep my good paying job
There are many unemployed Baby Boomers who can't find work so they are starting to collect their Social Security at 62 in order to survive.
I watch the tea baggers yell and scream and all I can do is shake my head. Are they very rich or just plain stupid????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 12, 2010 8:48 AM in reply to DownriverDem
You are probably right but wouldn't that be a great general election? Imagine the debates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SamFox
April 12, 2010 4:25 AM in reply to psyclone
Hey! Some one finally got all the names for O's political bent!
Good list! Accurate as well.
SamFox
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
April 10, 2010 5:22 PM
Please stop pretending you care what happens to the American people Ron Paul. If it were up to it would be every man for himself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
April 10, 2010 6:18 PM in reply to Viva!America!
For some reason, I am willing to bet that if I call any supporter of his a greedy selfish bastard part of a greedy selfish business, they would want to shove a teabag down my throat. I bet NONE of them know that is the FUNDAMENTAL BASIS of "empty hands" economics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McClarinJ
April 10, 2010 5:32 PM
But he has surrounded himself with Marxists. They are setting up the corporations to fail, thereby creating the demand for more government takeover, a classic strategy advanced by Marx and by Saul Alinsky who laid out strategies for arriving at a communist society.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
April 10, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to McClarinJ
Not Marxists - Blue Meanies. Obama has surrounded himself with Blue Meanies. Yep, Blue Meanies.
Blue Meanies.
Hope that helps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 2:32 AM in reply to psyclone
Different film, different movie. Different ethos.
'Wwwwaaayyyy different!
You're thinking of the vanity right-wing self-promoting polemic "Yellow Submoron".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
April 11, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to JNagarya
Love it. But wasn't that a biopic about Dim Son?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ZeraLee
April 12, 2010 2:35 AM in reply to psyclone
Barack Obama is Sgt. Pepper,
Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Bart Stupak are the Blue Meanies,
Dick Cheney is Bungalow Bill,
Newt Gingrich is Rocky Raccoon,
Glen Beck is Mr. Kite,
Sarah Palin is Sexy Sadie,
Michele Bachmann is Lucy in the Sky with Bibles,
Liberals are Revolution 1
Conservatives are Revolution 9
And, of course, the Walrus was Paul.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
April 10, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to McClarinJ
Run for it, Barack!! They're on to us!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 12:51 AM in reply to McClarinJ
Wow! That was fun.
You've almost got it down perfect, the form of brainwashing imposed by "Commies" on themselves and their spawn.
I'll lend you my mirror if you'll use it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
April 11, 2010 8:51 AM in reply to McClarinJ
No,no,NO! You are very confused! Last I heard it was the Tea Baggers who were reading Alinsky and adopting his tactics. Bragging about it too. Get up to date: Tea Party leader and "the co-founder of Top Conservatives on Twitter" ... conservative radical should follow the tactics of Saul Alinsky, ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to McClarinJ
BINGO...give the man a cookie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to McClarinJ
The corporations failed under Bush. Try again, thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
April 11, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to McClarinJ
HAHAHA...setting it up for corporations to fail to impose socialism? Last I checked the failings of corporations all happened before Obama took office and he is just trying to sort it out. Sort it out in a very ineffective corporatist kinda way.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter but he is right on this issue. Obama isn't a socialist he is a corporatist as is Rahm, as is everyone else on his economic team which he has surrounded himself with (Geithner, Summers, et al).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
April 10, 2010 5:36 PM
The tragic thing is that the Dems are more conservative than the conservative parties in Europe. The repukes are like the far right radicals/nazis, like the french nationalist party. There are no "left" or "socialist" parties with power in this country. None. Thanks to the corporate media and the lack of any facts provided by the corporate media, the population is so f'n dumbed down, they have no idea what is going on. Socialist? That's absurd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 11, 2010 5:23 AM in reply to Michael A
Fact! Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
April 11, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to Michael A
exactly; we live in the industrial democracy that offers the least amount of choices of any in the world. We have a choice between corporatists and far-right corporatists who align themselves with loony tunes of society
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
April 10, 2010 5:40 PM
Ron Paul scares me for two reasons: 1. He makes some strong arguments that I find myself agreeing with (for example calling Obama a corporatist). 2. His supporters are rabid.
Paul could easily pluck much of the low-hanging fruit we call conservative dems and independents. And as long as he's got an R behind his name, he'll get the republican/tea party vote. If the Republicans manage to retake the White House, it will be by a candidate like Paul. And that's why he scares me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
April 10, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to happycozy
Eh. If it were so easy for him he'd have done it already. He's hardly new on the scene. He's nutty, but not nutty in the way that will really ever gain traction on a larger scale.
Neither Ron Paul nor his acolytes are going anywhere. There are plenty of things to be concerned about, but a Ron Paul presidency isn't really one of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
minnesconsin
April 10, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to happycozy
He scares me less than Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney... and he does speak some truth. Sure, there's a little nuttery (maybe more than a little), but I'd rather have it up-front and debated rather than dog-whistled.
What I mostly see that I don't see in the rest of the modern GOP is honesty. Mitt, Timmeh, Huckabible - they stand for whatever their perceived base thinks they should stand for. (Hey folks - what kind of a sycophant do you want me to be?)
(Sarah, as far as I can tell, stands for Sarah.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edman2012
April 12, 2010 12:24 AM in reply to minnesconsin
WHAT NUTTERY ARE YOU SILLY PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS TALKING ABOUT!!! There's nothing nutty about wanting a Federal Gov't that is limited in power and scope and giving people TRUE freedom and liberty. All of you are the nutty ones who want a super powerful central gov't that dictates the lives of people. The whole, "the American people are too stupid to run their lives, so we the intelligent elitist will tell them how" is unAmerican period! Stop this partisan bickering and truly understand the roots of what this nation is truly meant to be. We're not Europe, and for good reasons. We are unique, and it is in that uniqueness that we will lead by example.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 12:46 AM in reply to edman2012
Yes, giving the people TRUE FREEDOM to be subjugated to the will of the corporatist! Hear, hear!
The government, and the Constitution upon it operates, is the only defense the people have against greedy, corporate interest.
To have the ideal Libertarian society, the government would not have the power to intercede in the interests of the people. It is a flawed ideology granting unlimited power to the bourgeoisie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 12, 2010 8:41 AM in reply to mophan
Agreed, but the Constitution as originally designed.
Strong state governments following the lead of central government with powers that are limited in scope, though vitally important in purpose.
Not every complaint against an all-mighty Uncle Sam should be heard as a call for anarchy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
likembrave
April 12, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to edman2012
...unless you are gay, then it's OK for the government to tell you that you can't marry...or if you're a woman who wants an abortion, then it's OK for the government to tell you that you can't do that either. Republicans seem to be really picky when it comes to the extent that they want a "smaller, less intrusive government". Republican's ideas of less regulation and free markets rely on the corporations involved to care about the interests of the public as a whole, but unfortunately, the truth is that most corporations only care about the interests of profits. This has been proven time and time again. Regulations and rule of law are there to protect people, because without them, the rich get richer at the expense of the regular guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
s9
April 11, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to happycozy
He's the right-wing Eugene V. Debs.
The man will never get the support from the corporations that it takes to run a national campaign in Citizens United States of America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
April 11, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to happycozy
how is obama a corporatist? the american economy is capitalist. that means that ideologically, all policies would benefit corporations. that is the basis of your economic system.
so calling someone a corporatist and railing against the tenets of your country's vehemently defended economic system is so silly.
if the country was less capitalistic and more open to social ideals (universal health care, for one) instead of seeing them as the enemy, then it would make sense to accuse someone of corporatism.
so basically ron paul is now saying, remove the mandate (which is unenforced), and that will make the bill better.....right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edman2012
April 12, 2010 12:35 AM in reply to elle a
Capitalism is not corporatism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 12:52 AM in reply to edman2012
You are right, capitalism is not corporatism.
Corporatism = Libertarian = Fascism
See my above post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevebeast
April 12, 2010 1:11 AM in reply to elle a
Saying he is a corporatists means he is for increasing the power of the corperations. I dont know why anyone would be against corperate profits, its the power over public policy that is the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Shreiner
April 10, 2010 6:33 PM
He might not label Pres Obama as a "socialist", but many in his pinhead crowd are convinced it's all about control.
They believe his agenda is leading to total government control of private enterprise and our private lives.
And that is their reason for claiming Pres Obama a socialist.
Hardly, but there it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
April 10, 2010 6:35 PM
I agree with Ron Paul's analysis of many of our problems. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with ANY of his solutions, at least on the domestic front.
A Ron Paul who understood that corporate oppression is no better than government oppression, and who felt that society had an obligation to improve the lives of its more deprived citizens, would almost certainly have my full support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NuttyProf
April 10, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to brewmn61
I find myself nodding at much of what Ron Paul says and I have always wondered why progressive democrats despise him and why republicans don't agree with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 10, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to NuttyProf
If you wonder why progressive democrats don't agree with a racist who thinks that all of our domestic problems are the result of having a social safety net and believes that all of our international problems would disappear if we just ignore genocide and all the suffering in the world, then you're as stupid as Ron Paul.
Paul is a moron and his definition of "corporatist" is whack and taken straight from the FDL Erroneous dictionary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
April 10, 2010 8:36 PM in reply to FreeRider
Your mention of FDL is so appropriate. It's where right nuts and left nuts meet and we can't quite tell the difference.
Goddamn simplistic populism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 10, 2010 10:01 PM in reply to geofu54
We can't tell the difference between the right nuts and left nuts because there is no difference. Both sides are stupid, relentlessly angry, unthinking kooks who are never *for* anything. They survive only by being *against* things.
Jane Hamsher is just as miserable conspiracy-focused as Michelle Bachman. That's why she joined forces with Grover Norquist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
April 10, 2010 11:20 PM in reply to FreeRider
Any single-payer advocate that opposed the House Bill needs to roll over and die. What is a single payer? A public option plus a mandate.
And what is the House Bill essentially? A public option plus a mandate.
Which means it is a corporate rag and proof that Obama needs to hang.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 11, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to Nutter
A public option + a mandate does not equal single payer because it leaves the private insurer market in place and offers a public plan as a choice. Single payer means the end of private insurers.
You're stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edman2012
April 12, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to FreeRider
Wow, a progressive elitist calling somone "Stupid".
How very, very, TYPICAL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 1:10 AM in reply to edman2012
HA! Freerider is anything but a progressive. He himself would be the first to acknowledge that about himself.
Freerider likes to call them firebaggers, (disclosure, I am a progressive) a term I do not find offensive because I acknowledge there are some in the progressive side who do not wish to compromise. However, to claim there is no difference between the far right and the far left is a point of contention I must make.
Those who follow the far right ideology are more apt to be racist, white, old, and very ignorant toward facts. Those on the far left tend to be younger, more racially diverse, and knowledgeable towards mitigating circumstances. Big Difference.
They do have the unfortunate related characteristic of not wanting to compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 12, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to mophan
STFU, idiot! I would never tell you that I'm not a progressive because I am. I'm also a liberal. But I'm a pragmatist.
Pragmatism seems to escape the self-defeating nuts on the left because they are "fucking retarded" like Hamsher who join forces with Grover Norquist to take down this WH.
The only thing they have to show for themselves is a bunch of screaming and screeching. Why? Because they're impractical, illogical and fucking retarded!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 12, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
Bingo!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 14, 2010 12:07 AM in reply to FreeRider
Could've fooled me. LOL. Take a chill pill, FreeRider. You are too strung up.
Since you have made yourself more clearer than ever, it appears we are on the same team. Keep fighting the good fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
April 10, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to FreeRider
Don't presume to try to tell people what "corporatist" means, since you're so stupid that you don't even understand what "public option" means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 10, 2010 9:57 PM in reply to NR
And you STILL got nothing, except a huge crush on me. Stalker!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
April 10, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to NuttyProf
You wonder why a man who thinks people should be left to themselves w/o help from the gov't does not appeal to progressives. He's calling Obama a corporatist, but if it were up to him these corporations would do whatever they please. Including continuing to dick the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
April 11, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to brewmn61
Society doesn't = government. The fact that corporatists control the U.S. government, as concentrated wealth has done so since its founding and will continue to do until its collapse, is only yet more proof of that.
As another commenter added, yes the ones called "libertarians" these days are largely right-wing frauds. That's because they don't count as "big government" what helps wealth. If any of Ron Paul's fans in that crowd had thought through the implication of his words here (which even Paul himself isn't quite computing), then they'd realize that even if they see mainstream progressives as part of the problem, the solution is opposition to the state from even further Left, not the right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
April 10, 2010 6:37 PM
I read a great definition of Libertarianism (which Paul mostly is):
"Libertarianism is anarchy for rich people."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Adams
April 11, 2010 1:01 AM in reply to sunnysteve
I prefer Thom Hartman's definition:
"A Libertarian is a Republican who smokes dope."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to Dave Adams
Thom Hartmann is a grand master of progressive propaganda who promotes democracy to undermine the Constitution by introducing "genuine socialism" into our form of government. This makes Thom Hartmann a seditionist against our constitution.
If you follow Thom Hartmann you follow sedition!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
April 11, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Um, I think the "sedition" to which you refer is more abundant on the right, with its talk of (another attempt at) secession than with the so-called left (the actual middle) which is trying to achieve its agenda through democratically elected officials in Congress and the White House.
You are a true Humptycan (words mean what YOU say they mean).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to Cal Gal
If the Sociailist Government of Obama no longer upholds the Constitution then its not sedition its restoring the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You say those words from the safety of your basement, yet if push came to shove you would be crying like a baby. DO you have any idea the firestorm you are talking about letting loose on American soil, while Glenn and Rush live it up in Rio laughing their heads off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 1:15 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
You obviously have no idea what socialism means. I can take the rest of your arguments and have a reasonable debate, but please, lay off the socialism claims. It just proves how much of a fool you are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 1:28 AM in reply to mophan
How do you know, have you ever seen my definitions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 1:44 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
I can define the sky to be that what is underneath me. It does not matter. What matters is what is the widely accepted definition.
Whatever definition you might have for socialism does not agree with the generally accepted definition. Just pointing out the obvious. ; )
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 1:55 AM in reply to mophan
Man that's the most wackiest post I have ever come across, no really it is.
My God, listen to yourself...you're telling me no matter how I define socialism I'm wrong, classic progressivism really classic.
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
p.s. Your reacting on an emotional level please reread my post and give it some thought before you attack my message.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 2:06 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
LOL... Goodnight.
Thanks for being a sport. See you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 11, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
That is a stupid thing to say. The Constitution says nothing about socialism. It does not advocate one economic ideology over another. Understanding economic principles is not a matter of parroting your favorite ideology. Most ideologies reflect some insight and wisdom, but one has not been found that works in all contexts--that is maximizes social welfare-- including free market capitalism. Competition is the engine that drives the economy and it works for most things to increase output and decrease prices, but it does not work in every context. It doesn't work for healthcare because the object of our health care system should be to decrease output and decrease prices, recognizing that it is something everyone needs. Prevention is better than creating new markets for products that didn't previously exist. And having insurance in the loop is detrimental, because it can only profit by decreasing payments for services and increasing premiums. Health care is a natural situation for a single payer system, such as medicare, where a nonprofit government agency is responsible for paying your doctor.
The constitution starts off:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
According to the express language, the founding fathers authorized promotion of general WELFARE! Seems like that would include health care, just as it included social security and medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to skitzo
Nice post but I already answered your concerns in many of my posts right here on this thread, so I'm not going to do again!
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Adams
April 11, 2010 10:22 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Really.
Well I don't "follow" anybody.
By the way, you mispelled :"If you follow Glenn Beck you worship Fascism"
Tsk tsk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 10:32 PM in reply to Dave Adams
Is that your idea of "humor", well it's better than calling some obscenity like your fellow progressives usually do!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Adams
April 11, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
When a person behaves obscenely I have no objection and no problem describing that behavior accurately.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
April 11, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to sunnysteve
Funny.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
April 11, 2010 1:53 AM in reply to brewmn61
When we start seeing signs at Tea Bagger rallies, sponsored by Koch Industries, that say "Obama is a Corporatist!" , I'll start guzzling that goo-goo tea myself. Until then, I'm up for some serious reform of Corporate abuses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
April 10, 2010 6:52 PM
McLarin, you wouldn't recognize a real Marxist if you found Karl himself in bed with your wife.
For the record, this is a direct quote by Saul Alinsky, in response to being asked whether he was a Communist:
""Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."
Saul Alinsky's big sin was that he was devoted to helping poor minorities organize to secure the basic rights and opportunities that most whites take for granted in this country, and that's simply something that ignorant, racist fools like yourself will never be able to accept.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McClarinJ
April 11, 2010 12:22 AM in reply to bluestatedon
Alinsky was smart. I'm sure there's an Alinskyism that says, "Never give the opposition a label they can use as a weapon against you. Work tirelessly for change in your direction, not for a named philosophy that can be discredited."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
April 10, 2010 7:37 PM
Ron Paul makes total sense of the teabaggers points, & it's of absolutely no use. He's herding jackals.
By stating the painfully obvious, he doesn't seem intelligent, he admits he's speaking to fools. He may as well inform them on the shape of the earth & that science exists whilst he's at it.
Mr. Paul should explain Mr. Paul & maybe why his message isn't quite getting through.
Captain of the bitchers bandwagon isn't exactly a desirable command.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
April 10, 2010 7:39 PM
give paul credit. at least he's not just throwing red meat. except to anti-corporatists. give him credit for that, too. it will be fun to watch mittens try that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
April 10, 2010 8:01 PM
"in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist."
"He's a corporatist," Paul continued."
This is correct, though Obama seems to be more reformist oriented than the DLC.
In the end, Ron Paul and followers will support Republicans who oppose reform. He will support Republicans who have nothing but contempt for civil liberties. Ron Paul is just a hot air balloon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
April 10, 2010 8:21 PM
can someone please explain to the R's that its ok to stop fighting the cold war now...its over, we won, nobody is interested in socialism
social responsibility on the other hand is something that a great many murricans are interested...except for the R's, who just want you to slave away and then die
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 10, 2010 8:38 PM
Dr. Paul, is Senator Bernie Sanders a "corporatist"?
Me thinks not, both Sanders and Obama are socialists in the historic meaning of the word, both advocate socialism.
Obama's fundamental transformation of this nation does not mean, "you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country." No Obama meant transforming this country into a Socialist State, Dr. Paul is dead wrong about Obama's designs on America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
April 10, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
that word you keep using...
i do not think it really means what you think it means
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 10, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to NerdRage
Don't think...feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 1:01 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
I can't decide -- are you --
A fake?
A phony?
Or,
A fraud?
All of the above?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:23 AM in reply to JNagarya
One thing I'm not and that is a seditionist against the Constitution, like you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 1:39 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Oh! (Staggering backward, clutching chest) You've cut me to the quick of the marrow of the . . . -- wait a minute!
You're full of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 11, 2010 4:43 AM in reply to JNagarya
Yes, DumFg aka Barney aka Shooter aka Marlowe is full of it. Still, he has two outstanding characteristics: his breath and his perseverance.
DumFg-Barn-Shoot-lowe is a man who spends most afternoons and evenings bent over the tailgate of a Chevy S10 behind Bubba's Shot Stop (not a licensed establishment) in Redbone Crossroads, Georgia, wearing a pair of over-sized oven mitts to protect his forearms from burning. Armed with a case of FlexStraws and a dream, this two-bit felcher dutifully plies his trade, with every quarter bringing him that much closer to fulfilling his lifelong wish: Attending beauty school in downtown Meridian, Mississippi. (Curiously, he wants to be a manicurist.)
Is he full of it? Yes. Should he burp? Not in my presence, please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:31 AM in reply to tiowally
What does the "Living Constitution" mean to you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
April 11, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
its definitely not just a piece of paper
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to NerdRage
That's not an answer, that's task avoidance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
What is the unladen land speed of a sparrow?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to Sir T
It depends on whether you are talking about an African or European swallow.
The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles per hour*, beating its wings 7-9 times per second (rather than 43). But please note that a 5 ounce bird cannot carry a one pound coconut.
*Based upon published species-wide averages of wing length and body mass, initial Strouhal estimates based on those averages and cross-species comparisons, the Lund wind tunnel study of birds flying at a range of speeds, and revised Strouhal numbers based on that study gives an estimate that the average cruising airspeed velocity of an unladen European Swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles per hour.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I asked for a sparrow, not a swallow! Learn to read, moron.
(Gotcha)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to Sir T
So you did...just a minor gotcha...I would say!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I thought you wished me goodnight in another post. Liar liar pants on fire.
Admit it you cant drag yourself away from here. As Hegel might postulate, this place is the only thing that provides self actualization in your meaningless existence. (look him up)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:18 PM in reply to Sir T
Are you my Joker and as I'm the Batman...anyways your quite right I only have a few HOURS left before my Progressive Slayer blogging days are put into retirement...so spill out your guts while you can because I turn into a pumpkin tomorrow at 0600 hrs.
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW...REALLY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:07 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Don't flatter yourself by thinking of yourself as batman. The only thing you have in common with him is a tendency to jump around in tights. Besides we have seen enough pictures of your heroes defacing a picture of the president of the United states with the Joker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You cant be a seditionist against a constitution, you moron. Did you read that in your group think blog?
se·di·tion
–noun
1.
incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2.
any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3.
Archaic. rebellious disorder.
Read it and weep. You commit sedition against a goverment, but the document that gives the framework for its parliment to qrite its laws.
Oh you are questioning that? Ok
"A constitution is a set of rules for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. In the case of countries and autonomous regions of federal countries the term refers specifically to a constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government. By limiting the government's own reach, most constitutions guarantee certain rights to the people. The term constitution can be applied to any overall system of law that defines the functioning of a government, including several uncodified historical constitutions that existed before the development of modern codified constitutions." - wikipedia
See that? The constitution is the framework. IT IS NOT THE NATION.
The fact that you are even saying that means you have not got the foggiest clue what the hell the constitution even is. Anyone that thinks the Constitution is the nations real law and still call himself a constitutionalist is lying to himself and everyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to Sir T
Our Constitution lays out our republican form of government, its one in the same with our Constitution. I swore an oath to a Constitution that laid out a republican form of Government, not democratic or socialist. Unless that government is changed constitutionally and not by sedition, I hold no allegiance to the sedtionists that changed it by unconstitutional means and neither do the American People.
You see...Government and Nation have two different meanings, don't you agree...numb nutts.
If you don't agree with me you must have a learning disability because I have been referring to our "republican form of government" not nation in most of my posts.
There can be sedition against our republican form of government which our Constitution outlines in ....
Promoting democracy to introduce socialism into our "republican form of government" is indeed sedition against our Constitution.
Socialism must first be implemented in government principles before the economics of socialism can be enforced. This is not hard to understand, unless of course one wants to misrepresent what the constitution actually says to promote socialism, someone like yourself for example.
For the record what were the nationalities of Marx and
Engels?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I don't care what bull oath you think you swore. That isn't what Sedition means. The English language says you are talking bull, if seditious is even a word.
Lets see what previous Repulicans thought in their legislation... oh look. The Sedition Act of 1918 was an Act of the United States Congress signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on May 16, 1918. It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt.
No mention of the constitution in that!
"For the record what were the nationalities of Marx and
Engels?"
What the hell does that have to do with anything? They were Prussian (not German if that's what you are driving at), spent most of their lives in Britain. So what? Hitler was Austrian, Admiral Yamamoto spent his youth in the United States. (look him up)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to Sir T
Man you are one 'Hard Headed Numb Nutts', I already answered you dopey questions!
You seem to having problems comprehending what you are reading!
There can be SEDITION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, whether you want to accept that fact is beyond the scope of this lesson!
Take Constitution 101 and get back to me in 3 months!
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:41 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Blathering about a Republican form of government does not change the fact that you cannot, by definition, commit sedition against a Constitution. You can against country and goverment. Sorry and all but The English language and legal precedent is against you. I even quoted a laws passed in your country under the Constitution that said that.
All a "republican form of goverment" says is that its "a type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair""
That's it. That has NOTHING to do with whether sedition can be against a constitution or not. Dragging it in from left field is pointless.
In fact the only one committing sedition here is you by calling for secession from the United States. You really want to have the Guy Fawkes treatment on you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 9:55 PM in reply to Sir T
There is a lot more evidence to prove there can be sedition against the Constitution, but the above is enough for the likes of you!
Proves my points all along, are you happy now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JoeTheMechanic
April 11, 2010 2:01 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
You could say that Eugene Debs was a socialist. You could say that the prime ministers of numerous European allies are socialists. You could even say Bernie Sanders is a socialist, at least philosphically. But Obama? Nope. He's pro-capitalism, though in favor of some reforms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 3:20 AM in reply to JoeTheMechanic
Sorry, you're wrong and you can find out why I think his a Socialist by clicking on the following link...
Obama Socialist
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 11, 2010 5:35 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Tell me, DumFg, do you circular breathe while felching?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:06 AM in reply to tiowally
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
April 11, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Um, I clicked on your link, and this seems to be something you wrote:
"Socialism:
1. A political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.
2. A political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers."
1. Is this your definition of socialism, rather than communism?
2. If you answer to the first question is "yes", do you really believe that Obama wants to end private property and market principles?
3. If your answer to the second question is "yes", can you identify something Obama has actually done or proposed which indicates to you that he was trying to end private property or market principles?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to George C
I already answered all of those questions on the link I provide, you just don't want to digest or accept what I have to say!
How many Marxist do you know personally?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Is rule 7 "Completely ignore it when someone shreds your piece of shit post" because you could not respond when I ripped that nonsense post apart last week.
I guess the psychic shock when I pointed out that the Czars were beaten by the Communists struck you dumb(er)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to Sir T
Nope..here's Rule 7:
With that I must close for the night...
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:38 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Is that like the tactic of dragging the conversation away from stoff you cant answer into stupid questions that have no answer? Like whats the constitutional defintion of invasion?
And whats this "night" buisness. The sun should be still up here if you are in America... maybe you are someone forign trying to undermine the United states?
And finally whats with the picture of Guy Falkes. You know the guy that tried to BLOW UP the houses of parliament and install a new form of government? You are getting really suspicious...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 1:22 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Just because you say he is does not make it so. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 1:29 AM in reply to mophan
Did you follow the link?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 2:04 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yes, I did. With all due respect, it does not prove Obama is a socialist.
All it is is a list of talking points from the teabaggers.
First, no proof that Obama's parents were Marxists, but if they were, that does not make him one. Plenty of examples of liberals growing up in conservative households, and vice-a-versa. I am one of them.
Second, HCR does not impose government control of healthcare. Get off of that also. Healthcare will still be controlled by private corporations operating under government regulations. Regulations fall under the full jurisdiction of the federal government. The interstate commerce clause.
The government you wish to impose requires a completely different constitution. Not saying it would be right or wrong, just saying.
All the rest of the accusations are just as baseless. Obama is as much a socialist as Reagan was a fiscal conservative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 2:13 AM in reply to mophan
Oh really,
How many Marxists do you know?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 12, 2010 2:20 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Well, based on your writings, you. That makes one. Sweet dreams. ; )
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 10, 2010 8:45 PM
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
— Benito Mussolini
So Obama is now a full-blown fascist, according to Paul. Ooooooh-kay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
April 10, 2010 10:09 PM
Why does Ron Paul hate America?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 1:43 AM
So we have the final authoritative verdict.
Oracular Ron Paul informs us that Preidnet Obama is not --
got that? --
is NOT --
a socialist.
Phew! (Wiping forehead with back of hand.)
That's a relief!
Now we can fold up our tents and go home and get on with our lives.
And breathe easier, of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 3:14 AM in reply to JNagarya
Even someone like Dr. Paul could make the wrong diagnosis .05% of the time, no body's perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 3:36 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
"Dr." Paul is an M.D. Guess what: that limits his expertise to medicine. That is not the same as having knowledge of law.
Paul is a liar. That means we don't believe anything he says unless it is verified by a credible source. He is not a credible source.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:21 AM in reply to JNagarya
Your April 11, 2010 1:43 AM, "So we have the final authoritative verdict." is implying that you are agreeing with Dr. Paul about Obama not being a socialist, now you say "He is not a credible source.
What does that make you, a liar or a progressive propagandist or not a very credible source yourself...gotcha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 7:45 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
It makes me aware of irony, and therefore a felicity at comment which includes warmths other than anger.
In short:
1. "Dr." Paul, M.D., does not have any special expertise outside the field of MEDICINE. To pretend otherwise -- to make issue of his being an "M.D." -- is to engage in the appeal to non-existent authority fallacy.
2. My asserting that he is "final authority" on the matter, as shown by the context -- out of which you rip the statement -- is a SATIRE.
You're another of that class of commentators who make it difficuelt to determine:
Are you stupid on purpose, for pay? Or are you actually, genuinely stupid, for free?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to JNagarya
So you are a progressive propagandist, thanks for clearing that up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 8:15 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Is this your idea of "progressive propaganda," ignoramous? --
US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
"Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics.." -- John Adams.,
You're an insult to our system of laws, vapid crap-spewing dipshit. What's worse is that you don't know how profoundly foolish and stupid you are, and the damage you inflict upon your country and its democratic institutions.
Hate is immoral, asshole. Stupid hate -- hating because that's the current politically correct coward's means of conforming to the lurid fiction spewed by loudmouths in exchange for money -- is even more destructive.
Hopefully, someday, someone will sit your stupid ass down and focus sufficiently, for sufficient length of time, to penetrate your stupidity and wake you to the adverse consequences of your talking false ragtime against your own interests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 8:31 PM in reply to JNagarya
No sir the damage you have inflicted upon my country and its republican institutions with your seditionous progressive ideology has cause a great divide in the country, those who believe in our Constitutional Republic and those who believe in the false doctrine of the "Living Constitution", democracy as a tool to introduce socialism and the Democratic-Republic.
If you think you can change my mind by force, not only are you gravely wrong headed but support tyranny as well as your sedition against our Constitution.
DO TREAD ON US
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 11, 2010 10:44 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Your limitation exclusively to name-calling refutes the notion that you have an argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 12, 2010 8:18 AM in reply to JNagarya
The militia that is run and controlled by whom? Oh, yeah, that's right. The governors of the States. Same reason we were never supposed to have a standing army. A lot harder to convince fifty governors and state legislators to go to war than a single Congress.
The rest of your comment is just as lacking in context or self-awareness. Not sure where you think that calling people seditious assholes in need a stern talking to was the best method of political persuasion, but good luck with it.
Amazing the lengths people will go to in order to offer their opinions as if they were facts. Must be a peculiar part of becoming an attorney. They suck all the common sense out first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 13, 2010 12:49 AM in reply to Jason Miller
The militia that is run and controlled by whom? Oh, yeah, that's right. The governors of the States. Same reason we were never supposed to have a standing army. A lot harder to convince fifty governors and state legislators to go to war than a single Congress.
_____
There is no "never" against standing armies. In most instances, the opposition to standing armies is only during peacetime.
_____
Amazing the lengths people will go to in order to offer their opinions as if they were facts.
_____
If this opinion -- or fact? --
US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 13, 2010 6:35 AM in reply to JNagarya
You again avoid the main statement, which is that militias were to be under the charge of the state governors, so you would have to convince them that your definition of sedition and theirs was in line.
Further, it says specifically that no army will be requisitioned for more than a period of three years. That only a Navy should be permanent to protect our shores. Our Army has been in continuous service since the end of the Revolutionary War.
I guess you only like those parts of the constitution that agree with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 13, 2010 11:05 PM in reply to Jason Miller
Stop being a deliberately stupid asshole --
US COn. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15 is follwoed by C. 16:
The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively . . . the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
These are the first three statutes of the Militia Act of 1792 (also) implementing that provision:
Militia Act of 1792, and Amendments
*May 2, 1792: Chap. XXVIII.--An Act to provide for calling fourth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
*May 8, 1792: Chap. XXXIII.--An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
July 6, 1798: Chap. LXV.--An Act providing arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 14, 2010 6:28 AM in reply to JNagarya
Nice use of ellipsis to get rid of wording that goes counter to your rather murky argument. Here is the part you left out. Congress shall have the right to "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
The militias were to be mandated and funded by Congress and under the direct command of the state governors. This was meant to ensure a diffusion of power, something the founding generation did throughout our system of government.
Not sure what the potty mouth is all about, but I expect simple-minded people like you to go away as some point and leave the political discussions to the adults.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 14, 2010 7:39 AM in reply to Jason Miller
The militias were to be mandated and funded by Congress and under the direct command of the state governors. This was meant to ensure a diffusion of power, something the founding generation did throughout our system of government.
_____
Stop while you're behind:
The militia is regulated IN ALL PARTICULARS by Congress. The only thing the state got to do was appoint officers and train the militia -- BOTH OF THOSE IN KEEPING WITH FEDERAL LAW.
And AGAIN, America-hating asshole:
These are the first several Militia Acts GOVERNING THE MILITIA, EVEN WHEN NOT FEDERALIZED. Note especially the third:
May 2, 1792: Chap. XXVIII.--An Act to provide for calling fourth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
I.e., the purposes of the militia include DEFENDING GOV'T.
May 8, 1792: Chap. XXXIII.--An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I.e., the purposes of the militia include DEFENDING THE NATION/GOV'T.
July 6, 1798: Chap. LXV.--An Act providing arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
So much for the "requirement" that those eligible for militia DUTY must own their own gun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 14, 2010 7:57 AM in reply to JNagarya
America hating is the charge? Wow. You are something quite less than human. Here is the actual language, from the actual constitution that I linked to above:
Perhaps they didn't teach you to read in law school, but it is clear that the Militias were to be mandated, funded and regulated by Congress with the direct control and authority resting at the state level.There would only be direct, national control of the militias in time of war as declared by Congress. This is also when the president gets to wear his commander in chief hat.
None of that matters, however, because we have had a standing US Army that entire time, rendering the militias a quaint anachronism almost before the ink was dry on the paragraphs in question.
Your ignorance of the subtext and context during the founding of the Republic is stunning in its totality. You might want to read a few more books before you debate this period of history next time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 14, 2010 7:49 AM in reply to Jason Miller
THIS, lying asshole, is LAW -- not "opinion" --
US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15 is follwoed by C. 16:
The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively . . . the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
That only way you can pursue your fake "argument" is to avoid the actual law -- FACT -- and reduce everything to "opinion".
You have consistently LIED about the intents of the Framers and the actual contents of the Constitution. All because you're an idelogue who rejects the rule of law in favor of the stupidest anti-American horseshit, so long as it's anti-gov't. All because it doesn't fit your America-hating falsifications of law.
The ANTI-Federalists LOST THE ARGUMENT. They are NOT THE LAW. The "states rights" incarnation of the ANTI-Fedelraists were crushed and repudiated as result of the Civil War they started.
Your "argument" is a steaming pile of ahistorical and anti-Constitutional horseshit, and has been repeatedly shown to be that. And yet you continue to spew the same falsfications.
Take it back to the anti-American sewer freerepublic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 14, 2010 8:01 AM in reply to JNagarya
You are a stark, raving caricature of a liberal since there is nothing liberal about you. Congratulations on becoming that which you claim to hate.
The claim that law is anything other than a series of opinions, many contradictory to the original language of the Constitution or law in question but upheld through precedent, is laughable.
You must have gotten your law degree from a cereal box.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 15, 2010 8:18 AM in reply to Jason Miller
I never said I was a Liberal. I did make the central point that I am not the issue. The law is the issue.
You're continued effort to sidestep the law by hiding in ideological crap in order to attack me and my views with a- and anti-historical falsehoods is boring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 15, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to JNagarya
Your view of the law is completely ideological and lacking in even the basics of historic context. That you all of sudden don't consider yourself a "liberal" is laughable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 15, 2010 8:55 AM in reply to Jason Miller
This -- LIAR -- is both law and historical context -- ALL of it being from PRIMARY sources -- ALL of those being LEGAL AUTHORITY. I'm not going to rewrite it yet again for yet another of your "last word" denials of that which is, and which has been stated again and again as the law, AND SUBSTANTIATED THAT AS BEING THE LAW WITH ONLY LEGAL AUTHORITIES.
_____
Law for Gun-Nuts: The Law of the Second Amendment
The bottom line is that gun-nuts, when confronted with the actual legal history and law, essentially insist that the way to determine John Doe's view of a matter is to ask everyone BUT John Doe. Reason and law do not work that way; but irresponsibility and intellectual dishonesty do.
In priors I listed those materials which are LEGAL AUTHORITY. All else, including "The Federalist", private opinions in letters and diaries, regardless how famous the authors of them, are
NOT LAW and have NO legal weight.
That is what John Adams meant when he said: "A system of laws, and not of men." The Constitution stipulates (1) that the laws shall be made by CONGRESS; and (2) that the Constitution, which establishes the Federal gov't, is SUPREME over the states.
As for "the right to bear arms," this is the LEGAL history on that issue, which was originally in response to a person making this FALSE assertion:
"All of the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights. Raving lunatics should read the Federalist Papers for further insight."
Concerning the "Federalist Papers": the CORRECT title of the book is "The Federalist". As well, "The Federalist," having been written by private citizens hidden behind pseudonyms, and not having been enacted by a legislature, is both NOT LAW and IRRELEVANT for several reasons.
First, they were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- only one of whom would later be a member of the first Congress, which WROTE the Bill of Rights, under the newly-ratified Constitution.
Second, the authors ADMITTED that their purpose was to SELL the CONSTITUTION -- which means they were not OBJECTIVE: they were BIASED in FAVOR of ratification.
Third, and most relevant in this context, as the Constitution was framed, and then ratified, WITHOUT a Bill of Rights, the only mentions of "Bill of Rights" in "The Federalist" are REJECTIONS of the "NEED" for one; see Federalist No. 84, in which is said, as example:
"I . . . affirm that bills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. . . ." "The Federalist" (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Jacob E. Cooke, at 579.
Fourth, "The Federalist" was written by THREE delegates to the Constitutional Convention -- out of over FIFTY delegates who agreed on very little. THREE is an INCONSEQUENTIAL MINORITY of that OVER FIFTY. In addition, those three were balanced by THREE delegates on the OPPOSITE end of the political spectrum who OPPOSED ratification of the Constitution, and refused to sign it, because it DIDN'T have a Bill of Rights. One of those was Elbridge Gerry, about whom more below.
Fifth, with ratification of the Constitution completed, Federalist promotion of that outcome ENDED.
It was during the ratification process that several states that ratified the Constitution, beginning with the sixth, Massachusetts-Bay, included PROPOSED amendments with their Notices of Ratification.
This is the chronology:
1. Completion of ratification of the Constitution occurred on June 21, 1788.
2. SUBSEQUENTLY, Congress was established/organized under the newly-ratified Constitution.
3. Congress first "achieved a quorum on 6 April [1789]". "Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress" (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al., at xiv. This volume is the DEBATES -- the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -- of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights.
4. Madison, the ONLY author of "The Federalist" to be a member of that Congress, codified the several states' PROPOSED amendments into a RESOLUTION which he submitted to Congress for DEBATE on May 4, 1789. Id., at 1.
5. On May 25, 1789, Madison himself moved to POSTPONE consideration of the proposed amendments until June 8, 1789, which was agreed to by the Congress. Id., at 5.
6. Debate of the proposed amendments did not begin until August 13, 1789. Id., at 7. That's how "worried" the Founders/Framers in Congress were about there NOT being a Bill of Rights: they were in no hurry. More pressing were establishing the Executive and Judicial branches of the gov't, a responsibility that fell to the Congress.
7. The DEBATES of Madison's resolution in Congress were OBVIOUSLY conducted by those who WROTE the Bill of Rights: the members of that first Congress.
8. Unlike "The Federalist" -- irrelevant to begin with -- the DEBATES of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights are LEGAL AUTHORITY; it is to THOSE we refer when we want to know the intent of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights.
9. The debate which eventuated in the Second Amendment began with and was EXCLUSIVELY concerned with whether to establish a standing army -- the Founders/Framers considered such a "bane of liberty"; a THREAT to the gov'ts they had established -- or to instead rely on the alternative: MILITIA. Elbridge Gerry summarized the issue during the debates of that which became the Second Amendment with this statement:
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Id., at 182.
He makes no mention of "individual" because a MILITIA is OBVIOUSLY no more an individual than is an army. As well, and as obvious, PEOPLE is PLURAL, as in, WE THE PEOPLE. It is NOT "We the individual," or, "I the people".
10. That which became the Second Amendment was drawn from MILITIA clauses in the state constitutions/bills of rights of Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. "The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties" (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1992), Edited by Patrick T. Conley and John P. Kaminski, at xviii.
11. Exactly as with the DEBATES of that which became the Second Amendment, those four MILITIA clauses include the phrase "the right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA]"; and that is directly associated with the phrase concerning standing armies being the "bane of liberty"*.
_____
*The US Constitution incorporates FOUR references to MILITIA. US Con. Art. II., s. 2, c. 1 reads:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief . . . of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States."
And when the militia is not in service to the United States, the commander in chief of it is the states' governor, as is stipulated in each of the several states' constitutions.
The second, US Con. Art. I., s. 8., c. 15, reads in relevant part:
"Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS."
Obvious conclusion: Neither the President nor a state's governor is going to call out the militia to "defend against" himself.
_____
These, in full, are the four state constitution/bills of rights MILITIA clauses from which was drawn the Second Amendment:
"Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XVII. The people [PLURAL] have a right to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA] for the COMMON DEFENCE. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the Legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the Civil authority [GOV'T], and be governed by it."
"North Carolina Declaration of Rights, Article XVII. That the people [PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA], for the defence OF THE STATE [GOV'T]; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power [GOV'T]."
"Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, Article XIII. That the people [PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA] for the defense of themselves _AND_ THE STATE [GOV'T]; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power [GOV'T]."
"Vermont Declaration of Rights, Chapter I., Article XV. That the people [PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA] for the defence of themselves _AND_ THE STATE [GOV'T]; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power [GOV'T]."
12. The first draft of that which became the Second Amendment reads as follows, in full, the final clause being the ONLY "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment by those who WROTE the Second Amendment:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia [NOT "individual"] being the best security of a free country [NOT "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person."
And the phrase "well regulated militia" is addressed it the third reference to Militia in the US Constitution, US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 16, reads in full:
"Congress shall have the Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers [this done by the states' governor and legislature] and the Authority of training the Militia ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." "Creating," at 30.
As the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall make the laws, "to regulate" means by means of LAW.
OBVIOUSLY the final clause of that which became the Second Amendment -- ": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person." -- was VOTED DOWN by those who WROTE the Amendment. AS OBVIOUSLY, as it is the ONLY "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment, that it was VOTED DOWN means that the Second Amendment has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH "INDIVIDUAL" ANYTHING.
Asserting NON-law changes NONE of those facts, BEGINNING with the fact that the Congressional debates of those who WROTE the Second Amendment are _THE_ LEGAL AUTHORITY we consult to determine what those who WROTE the Second Amendment MEANT with the Second Amendment. And as unequivocally shown, it is SOLELY concerned with WELL REGULATED MILITIA, and their being UNDER the law. As is also obvious: as the Founders/Framers were opposed to standing armies because THREAT to the gov'ts they established, they DID NOT intend that
the militia THREATEN the gov'ts they established.
13. The Bill of Rights, consisting of twelve proposed amendments, was submitted to the states' legislatures for consideration on September 25, 1789. The first two of the twelve were rejected.
14. Ratification of the Bill of Rights was completed on December 15, 1791.
15. The fourth reference to Militia in the US Constitution reads in full:
"A Well regulated [by CONGRESS] Militia [NOT "individual"], being necessary to the security of a free State [GOV'T -- NOT "individual"], the right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear Arms [as that WELL REGULATED MILITIA], shall not be infringed."
To underscore those facts: SUBSEQUENTLY, in 1792, Congress enacted the first "Militia Acts" by means of which to regulate the militia by implementing the provisions in the Constitution -- including the Second Amendment. These are the captions of the first several of those illustrating the purposes of the militia, and the evolution of the law:
May 2, 1792: Chap. XXVIII.--An Act to provide for calling fourth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and repel invasions.
May 8, 1792: Chap. XXXIII.--An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
Especially notable:
July 6, 1798: Chap. LXV.--An Act providing arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
March 2, 1803: Chap. XV.--An Act in addition to an Act entitled, "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States."
March 3, 1803: Chap. XX.--An Act more effectually to provide for the organizing of the Militia of the District of Columbia.
April 10, 1806: Chap. XX.--An Act establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States.
April 18, 1814: Chap. LXXXII.--An Act in addition to an Act entitled, "An Act for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes."
April 20, 1816: Chap. LXIV.--An Act concerning field officers of the Militia.
May 12, 1820: Chap. XCVII.--An Act to establish an uniform mode of discipline and field exercise for the Militia of the United States.
March 2, 1821: Chap. XIII, sec. 11.--An Act to reduce and fix the military peace establishment of the United States.
One can either accept those clear and unequivocal facts and that they substantiate -- the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" ANYTHING, let alone "defending against" Constitution and rule of law -- or continue to talk fake-patriot anti-Constitutional ragtime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 15, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to JNagarya
Yep, you're a liberal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 18, 2010 4:11 AM in reply to Jason Miller
I'm not the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Letscheck
April 11, 2010 3:47 AM
Ron Paul is only half right.
Obama, under the tutorship of George Soros, has been using corporate companies to back him and they have complied in many ways, beginning with huge financial backing during his run for the presidency.
On the other hand, the same Geore Soros, has been using corporations and money contacts to make huge amounts of money for himself, while undermining governments around the globe.
It has never been a secret that Soros wants the U.S. taken down and turned into a Communist/Socialist country, and that is why he laid the groundwork for Obama to be made President.
People who do not know the connection between Soros and Obama should start catching up really quickly.
Yes, Obama is a socialist/communist who wants a one world government with him on the top of the heap.
Obama's gift was to convince the likes of Goldman Sachs that he could help them with their world wide markets. He told Google, MS and others the same. He fed them a pipe dream of global conquest and leadership in the new one world government.
So what did these big companies do? They backed Obama without ever realizing that the end game was that he would be in charge of them. They would no longer be their own boss.
Soros was behind the September 2008 meltdown to get Obama into the Presidency. Look for him to create another financial downturn before the November elections.
Ron Paul has missed the connection.
Tea Partiers went past the limited vision of Ron Paul and know that they have to stick to their votes in November 2010.
Ron Paul had his day but he missed the big leap that we are seeing now. He is not connecting the dots.
No more Dems.
November 2010 cannot come soon enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 11, 2010 5:00 AM in reply to Letscheck
I sure hope you have brown eyes because you're really, really, really full of shit! If not, you're a quart low, although, judging by your post, I don't see how that's physically possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:02 AM in reply to Letscheck
I think I love you...smile
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
April 11, 2010 10:15 AM in reply to Letscheck
Right... because, as everyone knows, the Republicans completely disavow any form of corporate support.
(you guys are so cute when you're stupid like this!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to converse
Hey Comrade,
There is nothing wrong with supporting corporations, not all corporations are evil.
(you progressives are so dopey with you're predicable like this!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
April 11, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to Letscheck
Is Soros Jewish ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to rbe1
Bigot
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
April 11, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to Letscheck
soros is not enough of a capitalist for you. o k a y . . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CaliLiberal
April 11, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to Letscheck
thanks for the Sunday funnies =)
tell us - is the sky blue in your world? here's a quarter, please buy a clue and stop hurting America, thx! buh-bye
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
April 11, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Letscheck
You forgot that Obama is doing all this under the supervision of the reverse vampires and in conjunction with the anti-Justice League of America including Evil Superman and Janeane Garofalo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 12, 2010 10:01 AM in reply to Letscheck
Boy that is some reality you live in....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
April 11, 2010 10:03 AM
Right, he removes the mandate and thereby renders the entire reform moot, but he doesn't think the bill can be repealed. Is there a republican anywhere who does understand how the insurance system works ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
April 11, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to rbe1
Oh, absolutely. See you miss the point. The point of insurance is to take money from people and not pay claims. Just take the money and funnel it to repukes and take out profits. Just don't pay any claims. The more taken in and not paid out in claims, the more for repukes and the elite to put in their pockets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
April 11, 2010 12:43 PM
Well, I agree with him about the danger of corporatists, that's for sure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Then you are willing to admit to you're progressive brethren that Obama is indeed a socialist? There is nothing wrong with being a socialist in America, it's an American tradition, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
April 11, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Correct, for once. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being a socialist in America. If you think there is, there is something very wrong with YOUR idea of political freedom and democracy.
Of course, that is already pretty evident from your many ranting posts on this thread just making stuff up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to Cal Gal
I was mocking that position my dear, tell me where in the our Constitution mentions, social justice, socialism or democracy?
"political freedom and democracy" are not synonymic as socialism, are you truly that naive?
If you can answer my questions honestly we can further our discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Haa haa, It would be hard for the constitution to include those words as it was written about 100 years before they were invented, numbskull. (Aside from the mob rule of ancient Athens. Look it up)
However, it drew inspiration from the socialist French revolution. Right down to calling the nation it formed the law framework for a "republic", like the Socialist French Republic. You see French helped The Americans beat the English, and gifted them the statue of Liberty, from Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the pillars of their form of socialism. So its only natural that the constutition of the new land drew heavy influence from the concepts of France. The electoral college system you so love is pretty much a copy of the french one at the time, for example.
So yeah your constitution doesn't mention socialism as that word hadn't been invented yet. But if it had been, it might have...
This history lesson has been brought to you by the Club of clue
By the way your response is "What is the constitutional definition of invasion" or "What is your concept of a living constitution?" 2 bullshit questions you always pull out of your ass when you can't win an argument. Sadly the correct response is "what is the unladen land speed of a sparrow" as that has about as much to do with the discussion as those.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to Sir T
I throw in ...
To demonstrate the inability of the modern progressive to read the Constitution plainly and without political dogma as a filter, so far Progressives have failed miserably in this simple task.
But don't get me wrong, you all haven't disappointed me that's for sure...ha ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yeah like it mentions that anywhere in the constitution. That's an interpretation and a lawyers argument. Considering you have no concept of the subletlits of the English language all I can say is any definition you have you were told by someone or you read it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Ah I fell into your trap of course. :D All you responded to was the last bit. You could not challenge my little history lesson so you picked on the only bit you could respond to, the Shitpost I made about your standard tactic. Asking questions with no answer when you can't respond to an argument.
The US constitution is a French socialist document and does not have the word socialism as it was not invented yet, yet had words with modern socialist meanings. And confronted with that, you could not challenge that and resorted to some bullshit about anotgher part of the post to avoid having the last word.
Wouldn't a true constitutionalist have risen to the defense of your constitution? According to your avowed worldview, when push came to shove you avoided defending your constitution and ran away. You broke your oath.
Sleep well.
(Repeated so you would be notified)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to Sir T
Yes of course your bullshit history lesson, was bullshit.
I could have disprove it all by taking quotes from Federalist 39-43 but I don't always have the time to answer progressive propaganda when other issues are pulling me away...not one of your progressive buddies bother to answer my lengthy retort on ...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/vote-suppression_guru_spakovsky_is_back_at_it.php
...with any substance, so we are guilty of picking and choosing to what we want to respond to or not...I'm not perfect and neither are you!
But I really got to go now...I have played enough today...
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:04 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
No, there can't be sedition against a constitution. And Guy Fawkes would say the same. Especially since they hung, drew and quartered him.
You do know the freedom loving people of Great Britain burn effigies of that guy you are linking to every year?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to Sir T
I don't have a clue to what you are talking about or what you think I'm linking to...enlighten me! Remember tomorrow at 0600 hrs, I'm gone for 3 months..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Start reading history.
The Guy you keep linking to is Guy Fawkes. He was the leader of the gunpowder plot to blow up Parliament and kill King James the first of England and all his family. They planed to put a relative of the king on the throne and make sure his regent was a Catholic. They packed the basement of the parliament building with Gunpowder, but were discovered before it was set off and they were arrested, tortured and executed. The whole thing was a catalyst to discredit Catholics but it became a byword on the dangers of plots against the Parliment.
In response, every year to this day, the British people burn an effigy of Guy Fawkes on Guy Fawkes night, the 5th of November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 10:00 PM in reply to Sir T
No you dope, I'm linking to the mascot and icon for Captain Morgan rum bonehead. My favorite rum, I have a couple each night before I go to bed.
Boy did you jump to the wrong conclusion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:55 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
In case you are wondering, You can tell by the barrel of gunpowder he has his foot on, with the gunpowder spilling out of it, and straw around it. He also has the classic Guy Fawkes hair and beard and 15th century dress.
I don't know who you think you are linking to, but that's Guy Fawkes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 10:13 PM in reply to Sir T
No you dope, I'm linking to the mascot and icon for Captain Morgan RUM . What a Bonehead!
My favorite rum, I have a couple each night before I go to bed.
Boy did you jump to the wrong conclusion.
Remember "Man who jumps to conclusions usually ends up at the bottom of the cliff"...
No you dope, I'm linking to the mascot and icon for Captain Morgan rum bonehead. My favorite rum, I have a couple each night before I go to bed.
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
P.S. See ya in 3 months...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larsvanness
April 11, 2010 11:35 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Thank god. Please take a vacation from yourself. Blather, blather, blather, on and on and on about constitutionality without ever having read the Constitution of the United States for yourself. Your argument is the kind of debate we used to have in junior high school--pointless, empty rhetoric to get adolescents thinking about the type of government we have in this country. And no one who has enough intelligence to post here needs a lecture from you regarding the subtle differences between a Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy. Both forms of which were finely melded together in 1790 to form the Government of the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 11, 2010 11:49 PM in reply to larsvanness
The evidence here does not support your post...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larsvanness
April 12, 2010 12:40 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
The evidence here does not support your post...what are you? a fuckin' sea lawyer here? Allrite moron!!!
A republic is simply a representative democracy. The Founders feared a system in which a majority of the population could empower their representatives to do whatever the majority so pleases. To prevent such a nightmare they proposed limits on government power. Although they feared the unchecked will of the majority, they all agreed that the "will of the people" was a better source of power than any alternative. Anybody who recites from rote the "Republic, not a democracy" mantra to ward off any discussion of perfecting our form of government is forgetting that the preamble to the Constitution speaks of a "more perfect union", not "a perfect union."
Take your seventh grade report and your three month trip and do some college level reading. And let me suggest Paul Woodruff, Bill Moyers, I. F. Stone, Andrew Bacevich, Rhienhold Niebuhr, Benjamin Jowetts translations of Plato, Alexis de Tocqueville, Natan Shcharansky, Henry Steele Commager, Abraham Lincoln for starters. Bone up bonehead and clear the cobwebs from that little used and repressed intellect lurking in the far reaches of your skull.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 12:59 AM in reply to larsvanness
With all due respect please referred to ....
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/ron-paul-president-obama-is-not-a-socialst.php#comment-3878875
..read that post and give it some time to sink in because I really think you miss the boat shipmate...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 12, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
So you choose to ignore Lars' post and then come back with a huffingtonpost article written by Ron Paul. That's so typical of your republican robots....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larsvanness
April 12, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Really, lousgirl84, we need to pick and choose our fights carefully here. Dumb-fuck "DugFmJamul" is clearly out of his league on this site and the consenus against him has to be at least40-1 against. Besides which why he would want to tangle with you is just another indication of a weak intellect and you have far bigger fish to skewer here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 12, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to larsvanness
Doug (expletive deleted) is a fucking (expletive not deleted) is a very sick man. I am truly amazed that he continues to come here and post these loony theories and lies, all the while getting his ass kicked royally. He's a glutton for punishment.
It must be true that these trolls get paid to post their crap on liberal websites.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
"not one of your progressive buddies bother to answer my lengthy retort on ...
Blah
...with any substance, so we are guilty of picking and choosing to what we want to respond to or not...I'm not perfect and neither are you!"
Actually I had a look at your shitpost in that link
"you:
...efforts to print voter registration forms in English-only is constitutionality (sic) sound.
me:
please direct me to the section of the constitution where english is established as the official language.
you:
Don't try to twist the subject...comrade.
not twisting the subject. you're the one who brought up the constitution."
Your response? Dead silence.
Also NOT RESPONDING TO 85% OF THE POST IS NOT PICKING AND CHOOSING, ITS IGNORING THE SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF THE POST AS YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH IT.
Now as for
"I could have disprove it all by taking quotes from Federalist 39-43"
Bull. Shit. If you could have done that you would have been all over it. INSTEAD you dry and distract me with YET ANOTHER stupid link to another thread where you lied your ass off. So I say again. The Constitution in its original form is a document heavily influenced by the socialist ideas of the french revolution. You have done NOTHING to prove me wrong and all you have done is waste pixels trying to distract me away from it.
Obey your oath and defend the constitution, mate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
April 11, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to Sir T
Ah I fell into your trap of course. :D All you responded to was the last bit. You could not challenge my little history lesson so you picked on the only bit you could respond to, the Shitpost I made about your standard tactic. Asking questions with no answer when you can't respond to an argument.
The US constitution is a French socialist document and does not have the word socialism as it was not invented yet, yet had words with modern socialist meanings. And confronted with that, you could not challenge that and resorted to some bullshit about anotgher part of the post to avoid having the last word.
Wouldn't a true constitutionalist have risen to the defense of your constitution? According to your avowed worldview, when push came to shove you avoided defending your constitution and ran away. You broke your oath.
Sleep well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pittprof
April 11, 2010 1:22 PM
It has always amazed me how ignorant of basic economics Ron Paul is. His heart may be in the right place, and sometimes I find myself in agreement with some of his positions, but his usual rants on the gold standard and on the Fed are based on the same flawed understanding of economics as his proposal to remove the individual health insurance mandate from existing law. Without a mandate, the type of individuals who would choose not to participate in the system would tend to be, on average, healthier than those who would continue to participate; this would raise the average health risk among participants, which would increase health insurance premiums, which in turn would peel off a few more relatively healthy individuals from the insurance pool... thus creating a death spiral whereby you end with people buying insurance only when they get sick (because the law now says insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage due to a pre-existing condition) and premiums way higher than they have ever been. This is basic economics; anyone with a simple understanding of the concept of adverse selection gets this. Ron Paul has never had a clue about economics, and yet it's precisely his economic views that are often touted by some (especially his younger followers) as the reason why they support Paul. It's pretty scary, if you think about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
April 11, 2010 2:57 PM
I have some respect for Ron Paul, but this is insane. His economic policies of extreme laissez faire economics is corporatism in the extreme. And as pointed out, the charge of socialism is the new 'n*gger, n*gger, n*gger'. I can't imagine he doesn't know that.
If you think the Libertarian Party is any different....you're gonna meet the same white frat boy assholes you met in the GOP, but they're party platform is even more unworkable. Take a look at the Libertarian platform, it's a roadmap back to the 19th century.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
April 11, 2010 4:25 PM
"He's a corporatist," Paul continued.
FDL and Ron Paul continue to converge. Audit the Fed!
If only we would listen to Ron Paul and remove all that Federal regulation of business. That would sure show those evil corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
buzzmuff
April 11, 2010 4:58 PM
Libritarian, republican who gives a shit, you people are all caught up in a bullshit political bureaucracy debockle about irrelevant semantics. You have to look past all the politics and just ask the simple questions...
1. Does the person truly believe what he says, not because his voters want him to say it? (Obama is the master at this, he's broken 80% of his promises he made during his campaign, yet more than half of america doesn't realize it.)
2. Are the topics he debates valid and prioritized. (who cares about abortion, we have much bigger things to worry about, #1 would be the weakining dollar, This is Ron Pauls main topic, he talks publicly about this more than any politician publicly.)
3. Would his solution be better than the way the system currently works? (financially, definatly not at first, but trading silver is better than the longterm result of having a cashless society.)
4. Is he doing this for greedy reasons like money or fame or to actually help america? (Politicians like sarah palin do it for fame, while Ron has made quite a bit of money, he's also what some people call the hardest working politician in the white house.)
5. Does this person have the balls to tell america what other politicians try to hide from america? (The only time you see other politicians bashing the fed is on CNN, ron paul goes on more live tv shows to educate america more than any other politician, most others are up there for their fame and for votes, not Ron Paul.
His ideas may seem radical but how radical is our out of control capitalist society we live in right now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
April 11, 2010 5:06 PM
I do believe that it was the libertarian Lyndon LaRouche's people who mounted those Obama/Hitler signs, no?
Sure, libertarianism seems 'appealing' but it is just as one-sided as Republicans and conservatives in general are. It all boils down to "me, me, me' without any grasp of how multiform and inter-subjective societies and economies must be if they are not to devolve into totalitarianism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
insomnolent
April 11, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to MyMy
Lydon LaRouche is not, has not been, and never will be a libertarian. He is a product of the extreme left with a severely convoluted ideology that revolves around Marxism and irrational Anglophobia. Even research as basic as a trip to Wikipedia blows that claim out of the water. Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
April 12, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to insomnolent
to be fair, understanding exactly what the larouche cult and their fearless leader are on about or where they're coming from is an exercise in futility and absurdism.
while larouche has political roots in marxism, marxism no longer holds sway in the laroucheverse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eatbees
April 11, 2010 5:28 PM
A better headline for this piece would be "Ron Paul: President Obama Is a Corporatist."
And he's right.
Lefty Chris Hedges thinks so, too. Something we can all agree on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wake up
April 11, 2010 5:41 PM
Nice try, but 'Corporatist' strikes too close to home for the GOP, and it just doesn't have the zing of Socialist, Nazi, Islamo-Fascist or the N word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
April 11, 2010 5:59 PM
Yeah, he's a corporatist. Just like every US President over the past 150 years. We have a corporate, capitalist country. It's what we are. However, unlike Republican corporatists who give corporations carte blanche to violate every civil rights, environmental and health law on the books, Obama strives for a balanced carrot and stick approach.
And as far at the mandate goes, I bet Ron Paul wouldn't have funded a public option which would have been the only alternative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 11, 2010 11:01 PM in reply to jsdc007
Thank for such a good post. I couldn't agree more. Thanks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RoseArt
April 11, 2010 6:24 PM
What does this make him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdWu6SmN3Y&feature=player_embedded
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 11, 2010 11:06 PM
It makes him the President of the United States whose job it is to keep us safe. That's what it makes him....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 12:50 AM
One day last year a Texas Political Science Professor was teaching his class about the failures of Socialism in world governments.
A bright young student arose to challenge the Professor and insisted that Socialism does work in certain areas of the world and indeed is working now in the good ole US of A as well!
The Professor said “OK class if you all agree we will conducted a live experiment in the merits of Socialism, but you must all agree to accept the results of this experiment”.
The class all agreed, they were very eager to precipitate in the Professor’s experiment; which was:
1. Quiz on Wednesday, Test on Friday, the grade will be on an average.
If the average score in the class was an A then everyone gets an A.
If the average score in the class was a B then everyone gets a B.
If the average score in the class was a C then everyone gets a C.
If the average score in the class was a D then everyone gets a D.
If the average score in the class was an F then everyone gets a F
2. This experiment in Socialism would last for one month.
The first grade on the Quiz was a B, so everyone in the class got a B. Some of the A students were complaining, but the C students were happy to get a B.
The A students started to study less and complain more. The results of the Test on Friday was a C, now the A students were really complaining to the other students about studying and they were trying to encourage the C students to bring up their grades, but the C students did not respond.
The next week the grades were a C and D, the former A students lost interest and did not bother to study because now there was no incentive for them to excel and the former C students were mad at the A students for not helping the C students with their studies, so the C students just quit studying.
The result was that at the end of the month the whole class got a F. The Texas Professor said,
When Government programs expand Socialism expands as well, less Government mean less Socialism.
Socialism in the form of Teacher Unions, College Professor’s Tenure, Public Schools, Government Run Health Care, Government Run Wall Street, Government Run Foreign Worker Programs, failure of the US Government to Secure our Borders and States not performing their US Constitutional duty to validate Citizenship when people register to vote and vote has lead to the raise of Socialism and the Fall Of The Republic.
The US Government has moved away from the US Constitution's Principals and Statures.
We The People no longer exists, we are govern by the Tyranny of the Minority and when the Socialist Government of Obama gives Amnesty to 18 million illegal aliens, well the Republic and the Constitution will be a thing of the past, unless of course there is another American Revolution to restore the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevebeast
April 12, 2010 1:40 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
wow! your even against schools? are you also against the standing army, roads, dams, the coast gaurd, air traffic control?
Health insurance itself is a socialist concept wether government collects "taxes" or corperations collect "premiums" the idea is the same everyone pays an agregate of the total cost. is that something your totally against?
whats going to happen when aliens get amnesty? what effect will that really have?
I dont think there is anything in the constitution about illegal aliens, and the idea of a revolution is is just laughable. No really that is funny. I am sure you would laugh at me if i told you that canada would take us over and liberate us, but canada has a lot more force than any anti-government movement comming from this county.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 12, 2010 1:46 AM in reply to stevebeast
Your reacting on an emotional level please reread my post and give it some thought before you attack my message.
Most of what you said I said, I did not say...so relax get a good night sleep and reread the post in the morning after 0600 hrs.
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevebeast
April 12, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Maybe you should re-read my post because it was mostly questoins and you didnt answer any.
After contemplating your post and researching your story i got to say it still looks like yor against socialism in all its forms and you gave a list including schools. Are you trying to be vague or are you against public scools? It does appear from your post that you would advocate unravelling all of the socialism from our society, so again i have to ask where does that end, are you against a government army, a government police force, government controlled skies?
Finally you appear to advocate a violent takover of the country. Are you being vague again? Spell it out real clear for us Do you advocate violence against the US?
Lucky for you there are still plenty of places in the world you can live and not be part of a society.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 12, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
This is another bullshit lie. This story has already been debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ZeraLee
April 12, 2010 1:49 AM
Ron Paul is right, republicans are corporatists. It is in the ideological purity test. The only way into the GOP tent without being a corporatist is through the servant's entrance.
Will they drop the corporate pocket attack, and go back to accusing him of attacking big business, in the bottom half of the hour?
These "Crazy Ivans" are giving me whiplash.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
seon
April 12, 2010 3:25 AM
The other republicans may resort to fear mongering and trying to trap us in the false left right paradigm but tell me: Do you support the bankers bailout and the insane spending? Do you support the Iraq war, the patriot act or the other un constitutional acts passed by congress? Why is Obama continuing almost everything Bush started?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pstamler
April 12, 2010 3:25 AM
About that alleged professor at Texas Tech:
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevebeast
April 12, 2010 3:57 AM
yeah i didnt think that professor story actually happend, it seemed way too trite and i couldnt understand how they would fall all the way to the left.
we did an experiment in socialism here in america
we used to have private fire departments and you got a placard to put on the street so your fire department could quickly find your house. If you didnt have a fire department it was up to you to put out the fire with whatever you had. we found that if you let one house burn the whole town could go up so we decided if a house caught fire we would put it out. After we spent a lot of resources putting out fires we adopted a fire code the fire inspectors found the homes to be unstable and poorly built so we adopted building codes.
We found the same thing in the banking community. That if we allowed one bank to burn itself further and further into bancruptcy they could take down the whole system. So we backed the banks and immediatly people said if we are going to be on the hook for these banks we want to install regulation.
After time the banks convinced us that we dont need that regulation that just gets in the way, so we removed or ignored the regulations and now we are bailing out all the banks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SamFox
April 12, 2010 4:19 AM
OK. Not a socialist. So what? What ever O is called, he IS for total govt control of every one & every thing. Call him what you want, it all adds up the same.
SamFox
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
April 12, 2010 6:05 AM in reply to SamFox
You must be paid a huge amount to be so over-the-top, extreme, and embarrassingly stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
April 12, 2010 6:23 AM
"....he's a corporatist."
Finally! That's exactly what he is and the Congress is packed to the gills with them. We will never see a return to a republican democracy until we outlaw or severely curtail lobbies and their influence. I'm sure the Supreme Court would throw out that legislation as well because it's unfair to the "individuals" that these corporatists serve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 12, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to BaileyWu
Unfortunately, it will never happen in your or my lifetime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miamirox
April 12, 2010 8:14 AM
Republican, Democrat, Liberitarian, Corporatist, Socialist, Progressive, Neocon, representative democracy, constitutional republic; No wonder the American people are so confused, with so many titles and gray areas in the titles this country will always be at war with itself as to the proper way to run things. Everyone has an opinion and those that do not agree with that opinion will give that person a new name if he doesn't quite fall into all the other titles already given. I'm not criticizing mind you, I love the fact that we're free to express our opinions in this country, but it's sad that we can't seem to find a common ground that would really satisfy most of the people. Just when you think you got it, there's a new explanation or new name to that way of thinking.
Clueless in Miami
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 12, 2010 9:33 AM in reply to Miamirox
A little simplification would probably be helpful. Or at least trying to be citizens first and all the rest second. Seems the only label we truly share today is Asshole-American, which apparently trumps all other considerations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
April 12, 2010 8:36 AM
i'm about all out of tears for the word 'corporatism'.
now that everyone across the political spectrum has proven that they have no idea what it actually means and, yet won't be dissuaded from using it anyway...
but why should i care that nobody understands what is meant by 'corporatism' when so many people don't know what the words 'republic' and 'democracy' mean. not to mention 'marxist' or 'socialist' or 'nazi'...
ugh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
April 12, 2010 1:49 PM
Stop feeding the stupid troll. He's one of those who proves the adage "a little learning is a dangerous thing." Ignore him and he'll go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nodonjuan
April 12, 2010 2:13 PM
How can Paul call Obama a Corporatist and friendly to the military industrial complex without laughing? Big Guns Bush did more for corporations and no bid contracts in the military than than Obama could ever think of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevebeast
April 12, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to nodonjuan
maybe you could explain the joke to me. Is your defence of Obama just an attack on Bush. Reagan did more for the industrial complex than Bush, does that mean I should laugh at the idea that Bush was a corperatist? Obama has been pretty freindly to the military industrial complex, we have 30,000 more troops in afganistan, we have more military contractors now than we did with Bush, he has done his best to suppress any evidence of military wrongdoing and made it clear they will not prosecute war crimes. So i have to ask why wouldnt the Military Industial complex like Obama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Mews
April 12, 2010 3:05 PM
That's quite a statement, coming from a Libertarian. I mean, if Paul had it his way, ALL of our social services would be privatized! Schools, Medicare & Health Care, Social Security, etc...ALL except for the military.
However, I think the Left should pounce all over his amendment to remove the mandate! Seeing as how we don't get a public option to choose from and all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spktruth200
April 12, 2010 3:57 PM
Ron Paul is dead on right. I have been saying since before he was elected he was not a progressive or even a moderate. He is an ARCH CAPITALIST. If he were a socialist, he wouldnt have bailed out WALL street, but Main Street. He wouldnt have supported the republican Mitt Romney health care plan he would have supported the single payer plan which 30 nations already have. He would have immediately put money in green jobs, wind, solar...not nuclear power and drill baby drill. He would have brought the troops out of Iraq, and not escalated in Afganistan. He wouldnt be playing footsie with Israel (who the world knows has nuclear weapons and is an apartheid nation occupying and slaughtering Palestinans to this day). He would have insisted the IAEA go into Israel and see what wmd they have? He would not have put the zionist Joe Biden as VP, or Hilary the Zionist as Secretary of State. He would not have put Geithner, Summers et al in the Treasury. He would have put in professorial types who would have opposed the casino games that have become wall street. He would have ended all wiretaping and torture. Both continue to this day. He would have had the Justice Dept. go after the war criminals in the Bush regime. And on and on the list go. THIS GUY IS A CORPORATE PROSTITUTE AND SO IS HIS WIFE. Michele sat on the boards of several hospitals in Chicago and was instrumental in throwing hundreds or thousands of people from the medicaid rolls. This black man is going to deliver what NO white man or woman ever could. The police state under Nixon continues today. ONly know after 911...its even worse. Fusion Centers are popping up all over th country. Dont no what it is....google Fusion Centers and see how our civil libertyies are being destroyed every day, because of FEAR MONGERS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phillipe
April 13, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to spktruth200
"The police state under Nixon continues today."
Funny you said that since only socialists advocate police states, and please dont give me the "Sweeden is a paradise" bullshit.
"He is an ARCH CAPITALIST."
No, he is not, I dont think he really understand Capitalism.
"If he were a socialist, he wouldnt have bailed out WALL street, but Main Street."
Thats probably true, if he really were a marxist like other populist banana-republic socialist leaders "a la Chavez" he would have used the power of the state to put a large number of ignorants and economic illiterates on his side, then when the economy crashes he could have put the blame on the "evil capitalists".
"I mean, if Paul had it his way, ALL of our social services would be privatized! Schools, Medicare & Health Care, Social Security, etc...ALL except for the military."
Oh NO! the people who actually use those services would have to be responsible for paying for them and not be able to use the state to force other people to pay in their place! Madness!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 5, 2010 10:57 PM
All a "republican form of goverment" says is that its "a type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair""
That's it. That has NOTHING to do with whether sedition can be against a constitution or not. Dragging it in from left field is pointless.
In fact the only one committing sedition here is you by calling for secession from the United States. You really want to have the Guy Fawkes treatment on you?
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?