Ron Paul: dangerous enemy of freedom

Ron Paul's iconoclastic stances on foreign interventions, civil liberties and the war on drugs are unfortunately winning him much support from naive "progressives"—despite the fact that he is clearly a right-wing wackjob. This is obvious enough from his own words, if his paradoxical "progressive" pom-pom wavers would take the time to do a little reading. For instance, this bogus pseudo-libertarian is proudly anti-choice! USA Today reported Oct. 14 that Paul is airing a lugubrious anti-abortion ad in Iowa. In the 60-second spot, an announcer says Paul is a "man of faith committed to protecting life" before the supposed gadfly congressman recounts how he once watched a late-term abortion being performed, calling it something "I am not able to accept." Where's Mr. Gadfly now? Like a typical weasily politician, he'll talk up the "revolution" (sic!) when he wants to make inroads to gullible elements of the Occupy Wall Street crowd—but toe the Republican line against reproductive freedom when he wants to win over heartland conservatives.

The Addicting Info blog assembles from the public record, "16 Ron Paul Quotes That Prove He Is NOT A Liberal." Well, nobody ever said he was a "liberal," but the assembled quotes indicate he is not even a "libertarian" (except where the sacred "free market" is concerned, natch). He disses gay marriage as "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." He rejects the very concept of separation of church and state, saying (combining bad history with bad politics): "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." He rails against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as unconstitutional (huh?). He vents wrath at affirmative action and says he would vote against the Civil Rights Act if it were to come before Congress today. And of course, the free market will take care of everything: "The freer the market is and the more respect you have for private property, the better the environment is protected." This after lax oversight caused last year's Gulf Coast oil spill!

To these we can add one gem dug up by Gail Collins in the New York Times:

"The founders of this country were well educated, mostly by being home-schooled or taught in schools associated with a church," he [Ron Paul] reasons. Those of us who were not born in the gentry could presumably go back to sowing and reaping hay.

But the real investigative digging was done by the African American NewsOne website, which convincingly finds "Ron Paul Is A White Supremacist." NewsOne documents the links between Paul and the ultra-right John Birch Society—the voice of paranoid anti-communism during the Cold War and today a peddler of anti-immigrant and especially anti-Mexican paranoia (e.g. the "North American Union" hallucination). Paul, it seems, was the keynote speaker for the John Birch Society's 50th Anniversary bash in 2008, telling the assemblage (at a resort near its headquarters in Appleton, Wisc.):

The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster 'less government, more responsibility…and with God's help…a better world.' ...I am delighted to help celebrate this birthday... Continue what you have been doing… I come with a positive message and congratulations to you for all you have done. Congratulations and thank you very much for having me tonight.

This is all straight from the account in the Birchers' own publication, the New American, which NewsOne links to.

NewsOne then goes on to note the broad overlap between the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan and racist radical right. E.g. one notorious Bircher was William Pierce—founder of the blatantly white supremacist National Alliance, and author of The Turner Diaries. That's right, the book credited with inspiring Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

Is this the kind of "revolution" Ron Paul wants to see?

If this joker ever gets into the White House, he'll be bringing troops back from Afghanistan, all right—to wage a race war in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Houston. Do not fall for this fascistic demagogue.

See our last posts on the radical right and the idiot left.

Please leave a tip or answer the Exit Poll.

More misinformation.

More misinformation. He personally is against some things. BUT, he simply believes that abortion, gay marraige, and other issues should be governed by state. Therefore, if the people pass smart and just laws per state, then other states will follow. Whoever wrote this needs to do some more research. The way this author uses facts, I bet he/shr could link Ron Paul to the salmonella in spinach.

Yes, I can link Ron Paul to salmonella in spinach

If his ultra-lassiez-faire economistic prescriptions hold sway, there will be a whole lot more salmonella in our spinach. Good point. Thanks.


I work in the food production industry under food safety, and you sir, are an idiot.

Back atcha, idiot

Credential-flautning and name-calling are not substitutes for argument.

Neither is fear mongering,

Neither is fear mongering, and baseless posturing.

It seems to me people have been eating spinach for ages without needing the government to make sure there's no salmonella on it.

Apparently the idea of "COOKING FOOD TO ENSURE THERE'S NO BACTERIA ON IT" is one of those foreign concepts that the people of the United States wouldn't be able to figure out without a government agency there to do it for them.

Then again, given the sorry state of public education that statists like yourself promote as necessary, I can see why you feel that Americans need someone to do their thinking for them. Why imagine if the people thought for themselves! Perish the thought.

The FDA was created for a reason

Not out of some arbitrary ideological imperative. As long as we have industrial farming, we need a stronger FDA.


The Board of Kosher Rabbi's (or whatever it is) was created for a reason. And without government aid.

This board does a heck of a lot better job certifying good, clean food than the FDA. And all free-market.

Look for one of the many TRADEMARK symbols to ensure food quality. Their trade depends on their performance, unlike the FDA.

TRADEMARK symbols ensure food quality?

Patently illogical. You wanna go back to the days when common foods were laced with arsenic and formaldehyde? Fine, move to China, where a similar 19th-century-style free-for-all currently obtains. But please don't take America with you.

You know whats else was created for a reason?

The Fed. The Patriot Act. The IRS. Just to name a few.

You know what else had a reason?

The war in Iraq. The drug war. Viet Nam.

Are any of those reasons good reasons? Not by a long shot.

Weak Weinberg, weak.

Then you, Sir, should take a

Then you, Sir, should take a leaf out of your own book, since this article starts by calling Ron Paul a 'right wing wackjob', and tries to tar and feather him with being a racist.


YES you are absolutely CORRECT! Because the FDA is the only REASON that we don't have poisoned food. If I read in a magazine or saw on the news that a brand of food had salmonella, I would continue BUYING it because I don't believe anyone, except for my LOVING GOVERNMENT.

FDA the solution??? You must be kidding!!!

What on Earth did we do before the FDA? I don't believe that huge government organizations are the only reason we don't have poisoned food. The huge corporations DO have poisoned food, it's just that it's poisons nobody wants to mention- pesticides, herbicides, etc. Why not look at the local economies and how they regulate food, by word-of-mouth. When people actually new the growers. They new where their food was coming from. Bring that back to our country and you will not need huge corporations trying to control/oversee every thing. The only real reason that salmonella could be in our spinach is because of these big corporations growing "food" in the first place.

Like a batch of marinara sauce, smaller is always better!!! Just look at all the made in china items that break or are of poor quality.

I never said the FDA was "the solution"

Overthrowing capitalism is "the solution." Until then, I want the FDA, thanks.

Funny to hear you deeply confused people rail against the corporations while supporting Ron Paul's pro-corporate laissez-faire economics. The mind truly boggles.

Captialism was overthrown in 1971

On August 15 1971, Nixon removed the gold standard from the dollar completely. That is the day true capitalism stopped operating in the USA. This is the result


that is honestly just as stupid as when people claim that the u.s.s.r. was not an example of "real marxism" or "true communism". we live in a capitalist global economy, whether your zealous, puritan mind can accept that reality or not.

No, it's even stupider

Because the USSR wasn't real Marxism (see critiques of Milovan Djilas, Raya Dunayevskaya, etc.), but the US assuredly is really capitalist.

Bill obviously is just a troll

Bill is obviously just a troll. Please move on. Don't feed the troll.

Paul's Abortion Reasoning

You say Ron Paul is contradicting his libertarian principles by personally being anti-abortion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, your logic is that by taking away a women's choice you're also taking away her liberty in the matter.

Do you also agree that everyone has the right to liberty as long as it doesn't take away from another individual's liberty like in regards to rape and murder?
Ron Paul and the constitution agrees with this idea.

So Ron Paul's logic is that allowing a women to abort a baby is taking away that baby's rights and liberty. Specifically it's right to life. That's how it is still libertarian in principle. The women's choice to abort takes away the baby's right to life.

The grey area is the question of when is a fetus an individual? Nobody can answer this question without it being littered with personal opinions.

Please note that I'm pro choice however I understand Ron Paul's reasoning and I respect it.
Read his book "The Revolution: A Manifesto". In it he tells a terrible story about when he was a doctor and his co-workers aborted a 6 month or so baby. It can out crying and moderately healthy so they just placed it in the corner to die. If I was in that situation and delivered babies for a living I would probably be anti abortion too.

I feel the same way.

I was going to post almost exactly the same thing.

All for a womans rights over her body. But at some point obviously it becomes 2 bodies, not just 1.

And the arguments for pro-choice are really bad at times. Especially among liberals.

And I ask again, all you anti-war Paul supporters....

How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Well?

Typical partisan polemic.

Typical partisan polemic. You absolutely ignore the relatively well-reasoned statements of the first anonymous poster, and simply accuse them of guilt by association. This is the problem with the entire abortion debate (as with any other debates). Pro-choice and pro-life--both stances are correct, and both miss the point. Life clearly begins before birth--that is unquestionable, and so very late term abortions (at least after the point where the child could have survived if birth had been induced) are frankly, infanticide. Personally, I believe that "life" does not begin at conception, either. Unquestionably, everyone should be able to do whatever they want to with their own bodies, right or wrong, as long as it doesn't harm another person. The only question to answer, is at what point does the unborn child become a "person". That question is hard to answer, so it becomes easier to just chant slogans.

Of course, your political thinking is clearly so unsophisticated that you also can't conceive of the distinction between thinking the federal government shouldn't do a thing, no government should do a thing, and that a thing should not be done. The three things are entirely different, so just because someone like Paul doesn't think "there ought to be a [federal] law" in support of any of your particular pet causes, doesn't make him an EVUL denier/racist/bigot/corporatist/fascist.

So I guess the question is, how could you possibly ever vote for anyone? Even if you do disapprove of some of what a candidate does or says, that's going to be true of all candidates (and all people who aren't you). You have to pick the person who you think will do the best job. All things being equal, I'll take the small government man I don't like over the big government man I don't like--the small government guy is going to do less damage.

False information

Your article here paints a very false impression of Ron Paul. This is an obvious hack job in an attempt to discredit him. Ron Paul could not be considered a true libertarian because he does not believe in abortion. It's personal reasons for him. It's not about limiting choices for one's actions but what he perceives as a violent act against another individual. People who are pro choice will never accept the argument and I wouldn't try to sway them. The laws do confuse me however and I'm not trying to be sarcastic but if a woman is driving to an abortion clinic and a drunk driver hits her car and she loses the baby, he is charged with murder. I don't understand how it's a life in some circumstances and not in others. It confuses me. Anyhow, Paul wants the Federal government out of the issue and leave it to the states government. If you want it legal or illegal, petition your state government.
I believe your quote on gay marriage is an outright lie. Paul thinks the government not be in the marriage business. He states that he may have a personal belief in a definition of marriage but he has no right to impose his beliefs on another individual any more than they have a right to impose their beliefs on him.
The John Birch Society is a group with strong libertarian beliefs that many think are too extreme. To associate one members association with a racist group and condemning everyone else associated with that group is like saying my local grocer is drug dealer because the bag boy got busted for selling pot. A shallow attempt just to smear Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul believes in individual liberty. You get to make the choices for your life, good or bad. They cannot be imposed on you by someone else. He believes the government does not have the right to listen to every phone call or read every email for no reason. He believes American exceptionalism is in our Constitutional ideas of individual freedoms and not how many bombs we can drop on someone else. You know, I believe in that too. I'm sure there will be things I disagree with him about, but I do believe he is honest, he will work for the people and not the corporate lobbyist, and we will all be a little better off in the end.

Ron Paul 2012

Look a little further into each of these positions and you'll find a principled approach to freedom for all individuals and a dedication to human rights. PEACE

principled approach to freedom?

Like denying women the right to control their own bodies?

Paul is the only REAL hope

Paul is the only REAL hope for the direction this country is heading. People who think otherwise are and have been carefully brainwashed by the media. Who owns the media...the banks. Paul wants to abolish the federal reserve think about it. Thats right you cant wait for fox news or cnn to get you the real story ha ha ha moron


Ron Paul is anti-abortion, but you're missing something here: as President, he would still allow abortions in states that voted for it. He'd get rid of the national law making it legal, sure, but that doesn't in turn make it illegal to do, unless the state you're living in says you can't get one. Solution? Move to a different state or convince the people in your state to vote differently.

I think the thing you're missing here is that Ron Paul wants to take power AWAY from a large, centralized government and give it to THE PEOPLE through distributed governments. Competing govt's = more chances to solve the same problems and get things right / people have the freedom to live under the gov't they believe best suits them / greater ability to change ones own circumstances through voting. Don't like the way things are locally? Convince fewer people, those local to you, to vote as you are and you're all set! Better than being a libertarian dealing with foreign wars that you can't do anything about because "the majority knows better than you do"

They understand his position on abortion.

They're just throwing it out as a Red Herring for those who only read headlines.

abortion argument

How utterly lugubrious

How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice crowd, Naive Progressives for Ron Paul?

Just asking.

When does a fetus become a baby

This is the central key point. It isn't about "anti-choice" it is about writing a clear line in the sand that says "this is when a fetus stops being a bag of meat and starts being a person and here is a scientific and logical reason why".

As pointed out, currently the law is illogical. If someone else causes a woman to miscarry in some instances it it murder of a baby, but if she went the next day and got an abortion is it is not murder, just the woman performing a medical procedure.

It can't be both ways.

Draw whatever line you want and back it up with a reason. Is it physically cutting the umbilical cord? if that is the case, if the cord is cut during an abortion and the fetus doesn't die instantly, it is now a person (see Ron Paul's anti-abortion ad). So that doesn't work. What is the line and why?

How does it feel to be in the bombing babies crowd?

So you want to abort little brown babies overseas as well as here at home. Well I guess its important to your freedom

"bombing babies crowd"?

If that is to imply that you think this website is pro-war, you aren't paying very close attention.

No choice

No, protecting the most vulnerable in society: babies.

Food safety & abortion rights.

To the guy who railed against the F.D.A., do you know who set up the F.D.A.?
It was that well known, limp wristed pinko, Teddy Roosevelt.
Do you know why he did it?
He saw his men in the Spanish-American War dying from bad beef from the American canneries.
The early F.D.A. stopped common practices such as spraying arsenic on apples as insecticide and putting formaldehyde (the active ingredient in embalming fluid) into milk as a preservative.
Yeah, I'd just love some arsenic and formaldehyde with my breakfast.

Abortion is not just a political position, it is a moral one.
I hate showing my age, but I still have my draft card.
Had the Vietnam war not stopped when it did, I would have been obligated to risk my life, limb, and conscience for the American state.
Our gov't, and the other gov'ts of the earth, have never accepted that any person has an absolute right to his or her own body.
No, Bill, women don't have an absolute right to control their own bodies; no one does.

How sexuality can be a completely private matter baffles me.
Since sex regularly leads to new human beings, how can it be private?
Only a society in which human life had come to have no meaning whatsoever could regard sex & pregnancy with indifference.

- Raymond

I'm with you on the FDA...

But not on abortion. Whether or not to keep a fetus alive is the choice of the woman carrying it. Period.

For what reason?

Abortions are done not because of body issues(which I find to be ok, like if the woman is going to die). It's done because the woman doesn't want the responsibility once the child is out of the body the majority of the time.

The reason is the woman's business.

Not yours.

OK, anti-war Paul supporters—how does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? C'mon, tell us.


I don't understand this abortion issue. A women's right to choose does not start at conception, it starts at contraception! The government should not be in the business of murdering babies, instead it should work harder to educate the public on how a 2 dollar condom can prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

Condoms break.

And it is not an either/or. Abortion is the last resort, not the first. I don't see anyone treating as the first resort. And no true "libertarian" would support the government interfering with a woman's right to control her own body.

horrible argument

So you think you should have the right to kill a baby because it spends 9 months in your body? And not to mention the entire argument is utter BS, it's the taking care of the baby after it's birth that they are really making the choice for, not their body.

And the worse part is the hypocrisy of liberals. You sit there and make that argument. And yet at the same time you believe that every other person should be forced to pay for others via social programs like welfare. Including other peoples babies!

I generally consider myself to be pro-choice, but every day I get closer and closer to pro-life due to these horrible arguments.

abortion laws would be passed state by state

abortion laws would be passed by the state. small government, the states have the power. Don't like it? Move out of the bible belt, it'll be legal somewhere in America. There is always birth control and safe sex, which are both legal. There is always the unfortunate case of rape, and incest, which makes up 1% of abortions in America. If your state decides to take this right, perhaps they'd be considerate enough to make exceptions for both this and the 6% of abortions that are performed for health concerns, but altogether, Ron Paul wouldn't be the one taking that right from you.

Great, let's sell out women in Texas

OK, all you anti-war Paul supporters. C'mon, I'm talking to you. How does it feel to be in bed with the opponents of Roe v. Wade? Well?

How does it feel to be in

How does it feel to be in bed with Corporations owned by foreign investors like Saudi Arabia buying our elections?

RE: principled approach to freedom?

I guess that would depend upon your definition of, "their own bodies." If you want it to be legal for women to dispose of their children as they see fit, just say so and save us all a lot of time.

From what I'm reading here, may I assume that you would have considered a five-month-and-one-day collection of prematurely-expelled cells, now 24-year-old James Elgin Gill, a non-person until he left his mother's body? Sure, cases like his are not the norm, but since abortions in the U.S. can be legally performed at any time, provided one can find a doctor who shares the abortion-on-demand sentiment, a woman can terminate her child up to one minute before it would otherwise be born alive, presumably guilt free, since she would merely be exercising control of her, "own body."

Perhaps you've forgotten that necessary components of every child's genetic material belong to the male parent? This being the case, shouldn't your liberal sense of fair play necessitate the legalization of the same privilege for men? It may sound radical, but with over 50 million children aborted in the U.S. since 1973, I hardly think that anyone in the pro-abortion business would be overly concerned about a few thousand late-late-late-term abortions taking place per year, unless of course some of those, "post-womb," abortions were performed without compensating an abortionist for previously-forgone revenue, or worse, performed with firearms or discharged in some other method that could be used to advance a leftist cause. Yes Billy, those of us with our heads screwed on straight know full well that those who disingenuously attempt to tie children's safety at all costs to every pinko cause under the sun don't truly care about children at all.

Oh, and BTW, if you're interested in some predictions that make Nostradamus look like a rank amateur, just saunter on over to You Tube and enter, "Robert Welch," Crazy isn't it, that a nutjob from a nutty organization composed of nuts, nuts, and more supposed nuts knew over a half century ago exactly where we'd be today? Oh well... we all know that there are some people out there who won't ever admit that actually catching witches ever justifies a, "witch hunt."

Just ask Joe McCarthy.

A fetus is not a "child"

OK, all you anti-war, cannabis-smoking Paul supporters. I'm talking to YOU. You clutter up my Facebook page every day with Paulist propaganda. So I want to know. How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Well?

You lose.

Who are you representing, the pro-murder, pro-war left?

"Cannabis-smoking?" You'd better have another toke and then check the dictionary Mr. High Times.


Definition of CHILD

a : an unborn or recently born person

Definition of PERSON

b : the body of a human being

Definition of HUMAN BEING

: human

Definition of HUMAN

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man

Definition of MAN

a (1) : an individual human

Definition of FETUS

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.

"usually two months after conception to birth."

Does this mean that Bill is okay with destroying a fully-formed child as long as it is still inside its mother?

Well, how does it feel, Paul supporters?

"an unborn or recently born person" So a fetus is a "child" but a 10-year-old isn't. This says everything about you people and your values. Sacred in the womb, but once they're out, they're on their own—kick 'em off welfare, shut down public education, take away their Medicaid.

OK, all you anti-war, cannabis-smoking Paul supporters. I'm talking to YOU. You clutter up my Facebook page every day with Paulist propaganda. So I want to know. How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Well?

Didn't I make clear that you've already lost?

Never was a weaker strawman argument made, and you're not helping your cause by demonstrating your ignorance of how a dictionary functions.

Allow me to clear things up for you:

Dictionaries use numbers and letters to indicate entries and sub-entries. I truncated the full list of entries to include those that were germane to my point instead of leaving a response that would have filled the entire page. In other words, that's the first definition entry, and it does not preclude the existence of the others.



Definition of CHILD


a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

"Sacred in the womb, but once they're out, they're on their own—kick 'em off welfare, shut down public education, take away their Medicaid?"

No, once they're out, they're the responsibility of their parents, not churned into dumbed-down, brainwashed wards of the state. The problem with people like you is that you think that those who aren't responsible and/or who do not have responsible parents should be subsidized by the rest of us through the continuation of a system that in turn, seeks to take over the parenting of ourselves and our own children.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather make my own decisions, and to donate charitably to causes that I myself deem worthwhile.

You've made clear that you love fetuses and hate kids

OK, all you anti-war, cannabis-smoking Paul supporters. I'm talking to YOU. You clutter up my Facebook page every day with Paulist propaganda. So I want to know. How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Well?

This is intellectually dishonest... well as being just plain dishonest.

Ron Paul says it's not his place to decide what a woman does with her body, nor is it the federal governments place to decide. He would not criminalize abortiion nor would he give it legal cover because doing so is simply not the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

As a person who is pro-choice, up to a certain point, I see no problem with this position whatsoever.

Bill, You should be ashamed.


You should be ashamed. Who is protecting the life inside the woman? Fucking "burgs"

"Fucking 'burgs'"?

What, no anti-Semitism here.

OK, all you anti-war, cannabis-smoking Paul supporters. I'm talking to YOU. You clutter up my Facebook page every day with Paulist propaganda. So I want to know. How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Well?

Wow you are a tard.

Wow you are a tard.

What is a "tard"?

Thank you for this reasoned and well-documented argument.

The answer to your query can be found

in the mirror. You sir, are a 'tard' as demonstrated by your piece - it is evidence of failed and or abnormally low mental capacity.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with everyone.


says the fellow who calls ron paul the diplomatic 'right wing whackjob'.you have no credibility you pathetic tarball.
if your girlfriend wants to kill your 6 month old baby -she should go right ahead.dont expect ron paul to give you a pat on your back.move to a state like oregon where killing foetuses is ok with most people.
state rights..kapishce?

OK, all you cannabis-smoking anti-war Paultards

This is who you are in bed with. Happy?

What's wrong?

What's wrong with disliking war and smoking some pot?

Nothing wrong with being anti-war and pro-pot

Nothing whatsoever. But (on the same truly libertarian principles), there is plenty wrong with denying a woman the right to control her own reproductive system.

killing little people

Hmm. MIght want to ask the baby about what it thinks before you kill it, Moms.

Or do we have to wait until they can have an intelligent conversation first? that's right. If they can't defend themselves, kill away.

A baby born is no different than a baby in the womb.

But if you want to kill the baby, Ron Paul isn't the one to say anything. Your State people should take care of that.

Why? Because if I want to live with a bunch of baby killers, I should have the option to move to that state.

And if I want to live in a place where women don't kill babies regularly, I should have the option to move there if it is important to me.

I don't see where this is such a hard concept to grasp.

A zygote isn't a person

OK, all you anti-war Paultards. Happy to be in bed with the anti-choice crowd?


ron paul is ok with your girlfriend killing your zygote.he isnt going to police your dustbin to look for the emergency pill.
foetus killers like you think its fine to kill ANY child .even those 8.5 months old in the womb.
if you and your gf want to abort do it within the first 4-5 weeks .when you miss a period.get that?
if you wait longer,you are indulging in murder you slavery supporting tarball.
you must support slavery since you think of unborn children as your personal be killed or disposed off as you wish.

CLEARLY author is dumb


1- A woman should not be forced to bare the child of a rapist. TRUE.
2- A child should not be punished because its father was a rapist. TRUE.

Abortion is a very personal issue, and is decided on a personal level. If you buy into this bull about pro-life or pro-choice then you are allowing yourself to be distracted from broader issues. This issue will not change. It is there to be fought over. Be smarter than that.

Pot calls kettle black

The usual Paultard equivocation. Either you support the right to an abortion or you don't.

You don't seem to get it

You keep making the same point, which has been argued already. Your point seems to be that all us gullible and ignorant Paultards that want to deny a woman a right to kill her inconvenient conception are stupid and misguided, but you ignore the argument that Ron Paul, and many others, have the opinion that the unborn life is valuable and abortion is a violent act against an individual. The Federal Government has no role to legalize it. That is a State issue, or should be, just like gay marriage or drug laws. For you to slander Dr. Paul just because you want the right to kill unborn babies is ignorant. Allow people to choose to live in an area of like minded people and those who want pro-life will tend toward States that support that thinking while pro-choice can congregate in States of their choice. Dr. Paul is not saying you have to believe like he does, he's saying it is not a Federal issue. If you don't get that then you are too dumb and shouldnt be writing columns. For someone so adamant you seem to be a shallow and selfish thinker.

OK, anti-war Paultards

How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Rethinking your political choice yet? I hope so.

You know, I feel a little funny using the word "Paultard," because it seems to be a variant of the ugly habit of calling the unsophisticated "retards." But the Urban Dictionary suggests it has truly entered the American political lexicon.

State Laws, State Laws, State Laws!

Not everything should be a Federal Law, especially abortion, this country is HUGE (Largest empire ever) with different opinions all over it. It should be up to the smaller states to decide whether you can abort a fetus or not. Stop trying to convince people Ron Paul is trying to force-feed people "Pro-Life" bull shit, he is pro life, it doesn't mean that abortion will be federally illegal.

We need Ron Paul's policies to counter-act the crap that has been corrupting our government since 1913.

Once again, anti-war Paultards...

Happy to be in bed in with the anti-choice right?

Well? Are you?


Let me see where I put abortion on my list of priorities:

1- Assassinating American citizens without trial
2- Detaining American citizens indefinitely without trial
3- Illegal search and seizures involving physical molestation and nude photography to travel
4- A highly militarized police force more motivated to stop drug use than protect people
5- Thousands of dead soldiers in an increasing number of wars and "Nato led conflicts"
6- The centralization of all power with no checks and balances into the hands of a few people
7- Corporate Personhood corrupting our political process
8- Rampant and unfair wealth redistribution from the poor to corporations based on cronyism
37- Abortion

So a better question, Why are you willing to jump in bed with the Democrat/Republican attempts to destroy all civil liberties and bankrupt the country over abortion? Is the right to not have the government shoot you without trial less important to you?

"Josh" dismisses abortion as a "priority"

Josh, not Jane. As long as it isn't your freedom that's under attack, who cares, eh?

What makes you think I am "in bed" with any politicians? Do you see any shilling for politicians on this blog?

Wow... How demented...

He just listed a bunch of reasons how his freedom IS under attack right now. This post just proves how totally clueless you are.

You're like a broken record repeating the same lie over and over and over and over. Ron Paul will not deny anyone an abortion, nor will he allow the federal government to deny anyone an abortion.

"Okay everyone! Let's not care about anybody else's freedom except for women who get pregnant and don't want to have a baby!!! It doesn't matter that the government now has the right to lock you up forever with no evidence and no trial!! At least Jane can abort her 6-month-old fetus because she forgot to use birth control!"

Of course that's the only position that makes and sense at all. That's really going to comfort me when I'm locked up in Guantanimo Bay after disappearing off the face of the planet and my family is wondering where I disappeared to for the rest of their lives.

Bill - you're right. Ron

Bill - you're right. Ron Paul's abortion stance does not align itself with libertarian philosophy. However, he derives his belief from the Declaration of Independences "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". He believes that everyone has a right to life - without life, there is no liberty to protect, and certainly no pursuit of happiness.

On that note, he is the only candidate who believes in protecting ALL life. This separates him from the hypocrisies of the right/left paradigm - the left fights to protect life by protesting wars and the death penalty, yet they do not bother trying to save life in the womb - the right fights to protect the life of the unborn, yet they do not care about victims of war.

And I ask yet again, all you anti-war Paul supporters....

How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Well?

Your an idiot. Wow. You are

Your an idiot. Wow. You are insane.What do you know about anything. Your general statements taking out of context is simply rediculous. Making personal attacks against a candidate who speaks out against the hypocracy is cheap and lacks intelligence. You have been bought and sold. There are problems everywhere in gov't its time for a real change.

You can't spell

OK, I'm an "idiot," but you don't know how to spell "you're." Or "hypocrisy." Or "ridiculous."


So Bill Weinberg, Who do you

So Bill Weinberg, Who do you support? Ready to go to Iran? Speak Farsi by any chance? You've presented your opinion of Dr. Paul, flawed as it is; who do you favor to lead us over the next 4 years?

Anti-Iranian card

I'm not interested in being a shill for any politician, thanks. Freedom is secured by a vigilant and informed populace, not a Big Daddy to protect us. What is with the Iranian-baiting?

you give jews a bad name...maybe that was your true intent

i dont know if you are purposefully trying to smear a man who may not share your political views. you should take a note from mainstream media of just ignoring Ron Paul and just flat out denying his existence. to smear him using such amateurish tactics that high schoolers can see through will only create a backlash and be counter producitve....but then again...anyone with a brain would know this...therefore I suspect you may be purposefully sounding desperate and unintelligent to draw support for Ron Pauls views.

Anti-Semitic card

Shoulda known that was coming.

Spelling carelessly while on

Spelling carelessly while on the internet is all too normal. My best friend can't spell to save his life and he graduated from biomedical engineering at Texas A&M University one of the finest engineering institutes...whats your point?

I am so sick of you guys...

I will take your first point, cuz to be honest, I , and everyone else, are so sick of uninformed unintelligent people writing untrue articles like this... I couldn't go much further. First, every time you guys write something like this after a rise in the poles... It just shows how scared you are...& he keeps rising.
Second, the difference between Paul and all you hacks i's that he understands that no matter what he believes, he won't write law to force others to follow his beliefs.
If he came out and said "a federal law against abortion is unconstitutional" you would all be calling him a liberal, so he has to clarify what his personal beliefs are, then take 2 weeks explaining to people like you that he won't/doesn't write laws based on personal beliefs, but by what the constitution allows... And you still won't get it.
You have been in this system so long (2 party) you can't see past it... Don't worry, the rest of us are going to free you from the Matrix... Just remember to thank us 3 years from now!

its sad

He's just too complicated for some people to get, we just have to.accept that sometimes

You're 100% right about his

You're 100% right about his views on these social issues. However, he asserts these matters to be issues that solely the states should have the authority to regulate, make illegal, promote, or decriminalize. He isn't hypocritical when he espouses being a constitutionalist while making his opinions known because they aren't roles that the Federal Government are enumerated with from the states.

You can make the same claim of a past history of racism and connections to the Ku Klux Klan to the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as the John Birch Society.

Although Occupy Wall Street does have at least a facade of liberalism, Pro-Choice or Pro-Life are not issues that root the organization, and neither are they secondary to the cause. Although their message is not totally clear, the ambiguity of their protest does typically allude to economic conditions currently prevailing in the country along with their causes. So when Dr. Paul says things like understanding the anger they have at the greed of wall street, it is not hypocritical in the least. That being said, he does think their anger is misplaced, and should instead be directed at Pennsylvania Avenue and the Fed because they are the ones that give secret loans to special interests and allow for the risk part of the risk/benefit dichotomy which happened when the federal government made policies that encouraged the banks to make bad loans to people that did not have the money or credit by allowing them to insure the loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (which as independent government-funded corporations, these firms were sure to not run out of money to pay the banks insurance money when the bad loans started to default because since they are backed by the US gov't they cannot go bankrupt because that would affect the U.S. credit rating and therefore the cost that we can sell our debt for). I'm digressing though, but the free market wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

The separation of church and state isn't hypocritical either. The role of the church(or synagogue, mosque, businesses or community) is the same in the past as it was now, except that in the past the church, etc. was the powerful institution of charity, instead of the government. These charities supplied affordable housing, homeless shelters, etc. because its in their belief to be their civic duty. They didn't need or want the an executive order, law, or court ruling to tell them that people are in need in this world due to bad luck or discrimination.

The Gulf Oil Spill happened despite regulation, however the public counsel of the U.S. and the affected states did sue the companies involved. This happened not because of legislation passed instructing them to do so, but because they were fulfilling the sole role of a government, which is to force respect of property rights (the gulf belongs to the states, the federal government, and other countries as well).

Dr. Paul is not socially liberal, but he believes that liberal or conservative should not be a stance that the federal government takes on social issues because government shouldn't be in the game of influencing behavior, since that's society's role.

Two thumbs up!

Very well put!

Unfortunately the writer failed to do his due diligence.

What happend to the media that did fact checking before publishing an article?

If there are any errors in what I wrote...

...I challenge you to point them out. I'll be waiting.

You should really do comedy.

You should really do comedy. Ron Paul is the most pro-choice for freedom and liberty candidate running. You could care less about errors really. You go lalala I don't like your choice cause you are anti-choice.

If he is "pro-choice"...

...why is he running anti-abortion ads in Iowa?

No problem...

I only had to get to the 3rd sentence before I quit reading because obviously you are either: A) misinformed on Paul's stance on abortion, or B) deliberately misrepresented information to promote your own agenda.

As people have commented already, he is anti-abortion on a personal level. But instead of inflicting his own personal morals on every man, woman, and child on America, he wants to leave it up to the PEOPLE to decide on a state-by-state basis. He doesn't personally condone abortion, but on the other hand he recognizes the value of letting states decide for themselves how they want to handle moral dilemmas. This is a massive country with many different cultures within, and not everybody has the same standard of morality. This pertains to not only abortion but also both the issue of gay marriage and the issue of illegal drugs. Who cares what he thinks on a personal level when he's willing to fight for your right to respectfully disagree with him?

Letting the people decide for themselves what's right or wrong on a state-by-state basis... does that sound like a "dangerous enemy of freedom?"

This article is propaganda at it's finest, misinforming anybody who reads it by only telling half of the facts. Shame on you, Weinberg. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You are a disgrace to journalism, America, and your own mother.

Paul's "stance on abortion"..., to use the most charitable explanation, two-faced—telling libertarian/liberals one thing, and conservative Iowans another.

Yes, leaving fundamental rights up to a "state-by-state basis" does sound like a "dangerous enemy of freedom"!


OK, I'm still waiting to hear from all you anti-war and pro-cannabis Paul supporters. How does it feel to be in bed with the anti-choice right? Well?

You're already talking to

You're already talking to someone who is both anti-war and pro-cannabis. And, to put it in your terms, it feels great "to be in bed with the anti-choice right" Because I, too, disagree with abortion on a personal level. But all that means is that I would be pissed off if a woman ever aborted my child. On the other hand, I recognize the fact that not everybody has that same opinion. If someone else I know has an abortion, who am I to judge them for it? Everybody has their own idea of what is right or wrong. Abortion is a gray area subject to interpretation.

Paul isn't telling libertarians one thing and conservative Iowans another. I think the message is pretty damn clear on each side-- He doesn't condone it and doesn't actively fight for it, but he's willing to let people have a say in what they would prefer in their local area. What the hell is wrong with that??

Giving power back to the states equals giving power back to the people. For those who care about abortion enough to make it a top issue, simply vote for it at the state level-- you have much more of a say than you would voting at the federal level. If your state decides the other way, maybe it's time to consider moving to another state if it's that important to you.

Personally, on the list of the top most important issues we need to be worrying about, i think abortion is probably 10 down from the top anyway. There's so much more important things to discuss, why are you hung up on a woman's right to kill her unborn fetus? Most of the time a woman willingly has sex knowing the consequences of her actions. If she accidentally gets pregnant having unprotected sex, well... sorry, but I really don't have much sympathy to give to her.

if you like paul on all but Foriegn affaris please watch this

take about 10 minutes to verify your logic or check it -

I would spend some time to refute the authors ridicoulous charges but there are so many doing so seems unecessary. Someone this ignroant of reality is either trolling, had part of his brain removed for some reason, or is a shill for the status quo - his words are really all the rufutation that are needed.

It's like Cain shooting up in the polls. He was in the stratossphere of 30% or more.. then he started having press conferences and meetins in Iowa - the more people saw him speak the lower his polls went - the affairs were just extra. The same happens with all of them except Paul.

The more people who are exposed to his actual positions and stances - not the lies and distortions here based on false premises or out right lies - the more support he has - na na na na nana.

What about Kevin Bacon?

You almost tied Ron Paul to Kevin Bacon! I'm sure you can do it if you try a little harder. However, I don't think it would mean any more than citing his associations with people that and organizations that you have already mentioned.

Paul's campaign is about a message of constitutional government, individual liberty, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is plenty of opportunity for honest disagreement, discussion, and debate over these clearly-articulated positions without resorting to personal attacks and cheap "guilt by association" canards.

We will not fix the problems that plague this country until we have an honest, intellectual discussion of the causes and vetting of potential remedies. Resorting to rhetorical sleight of hand and character assassination will only galvanize the status quo, who want nothing more than to be left in control.

Thanks for contributing to the dialog.

"Guilt by association"?

It isn't like he shared a beer with some Birchers. He spoke at their damn convention and said he shared their political goals! Wake up!

Funny, the first thing I

Funny, the first thing I looked at was the author's last name, it all made sense after that.

Just so you know Mr. Weinberg, in the long term, the best thing for Israel is peace with Palestine, and self sufficiency in the region without American aid. We all know this. We all also know that American civil rights have come to a record low because of a war invented by a few people/organizations who make billions of dollars off the death of our troops, the false fear in our hearts and all the money being printed and spend on the military industrial complex.


Anti-Semitic card again

Just keep digging. Let's see how deep you can make that hole...

Anti-Semitic? C'mon Author

Anti-Semitic? Stop playing the victim. You openly attack every other group, but if someone points out the fact that you might be biased towards Israel, you start crying. The fact is, you should start listening to Israel's own Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu. He has said that Ron Paul is the only Zionist of the candidates including Obama, and that he doesn't want Foreign Aid money from the USA. This foreign aid money is a form of bribery to make Israel our puppet. Ron Paul has been saying this for decades. Favoring Israel undermines their sovereignty and our security. Why stir up a conflict that doesn't have anything to do with us? If only some American Jews would listen to their brothers in Israel, they might start to understand the situation.

Yes, anti-Semitism

Don't start changing the subject by bringing up Israel. It has nothing to do with Israel. You said that my last name explains my political positions. Anti-Semitism. Textbook case.

Go away, Jew-baiter.


I have few words in response to this article. First the important ones...

We are all too busy for this BS story.

You obviously have no idea how to manage your own household, your own city, or your own state. Since you obviously believe you couldn't handle the freedom to do any of those things.

Freedom is good for people who can handle it. Good freedom is provided by good peole.

People who can't handle freedom, well they need and want welfare and socialism.

Lastly, your facts are all wrong. But what should we expect since you are either on fire, or getting paid to put out false facts and interpretations?

Note to readers: before you believe anything the author has written, do your country and yourself a favor and watch Ron Paul videos for a while. He is a Congressman and there are PLENTY OF VIDEOS of him from the past 20+ years he has been in office.

The author is hoping you are dumb enough to believe his words. Don't rip your country off again. Learn about the candidates.


Too busy? I should be so lucky.

If you're too busy, why are you posting here? Your silence would be most welcome. Fact-free spewing is tiresome to read. Everything I wrote is linked and documented. Open-minded readers will judge for themselves.

You are the real enemy of freedom

Mr Weinberg, people like you who fail to do basic research and demagogue issues make my blood boil.

1. Ron Paul personally is against abortion but he says the states will decide on the issue. You can easily change your state and go to a pro-choice one. The issue is too divisive to settle at the federal level. I also disagree with him on the abortion issue since I believe in property rights to your body and this is probably the only place where you can logically corner him but his solution of leaving it to the states is flawless and better than the others who want to impose it at the federal level.

2. Gay marriage: ditto as above.

3. Religion: He does not believe in imposing anything religious on anyone using government so your argument on this is BS.

4. Civil Rights Act (CRA): He was not against it per se but against the provision in the act that legalized affirmative. In your own argument on abortion, you attack him for being "pseudo-libertarian", obviously because of property rights but you then contradict yourself by supporting the full CRA which contains affirmative action, which is a violation of property rights.

5. Environmental problems can easily be solved by property rights. You pollute, someone will sue you. Did you know that BP is protected from a class-action law suit because of EPA regulations? Guess who writes the enviromental laws?

6. Guilt by association is a stupid dishonest tactic.

Mr Weinberg, you are either woefully ignorant or totally dishonest or another media hack, probably bought by the same corporations behind the Fed. Take your pick. And yet you attempt to pass yourself as an intellectual when you are not. Try to answer my points if you can.

More Paultard hallucinations

BP is protected from a class action suit by EPA regulations? Then how odd that there is a class action suit against BP.

Do you like just making shit up instead of doing research?

BP class action

they help set limits for the settlements dumb nuts

Documentation please

I provide links and sources for all my assertions. You just call me names.

Who is arguing seriously here?

Just for the record...

...the oil spill liability limits were set by Congress in the Oil Pollution Act passed in the wake of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Not by EPA regs.

If you oppose the liability limits—great, so do we. But don't use it to besmirch the concept of public oversight. Thank you.

Thank you for responding to

Thank you for responding to my post Mr Weinberg. I have not yet checked all your sources, but assuming you are right, I can concede the point about BP and EPA, though it still does not change the argument that you do not need government regulations that are mostly written by corrupt crony corporations for the environment.

Who do you think benefits from all the legislation against carbon emissions that is based on consensus-driven pseudo-science backed by a political / greenpeace agenda? The free market can take care of pollution through private watchdogs and class-actions suits. Read up on the EPA's record after Katrina (John Stossel did a report on this issue) and then come and give a rational argument supporting the EPA.

What is quite telling however, is that you have completely ignored all the other points I made which are far more fundamental. You instead choose to major on a minor. All the arguments I presented can easily be verified by watching plenty of interviews Dr Paul has given and by reading his articles and positions on his website.

If you are really intellectually honest (like me), are you going to concede the points I made or else issue a rational rebuttal?

A climate change denier, it appears?

OK, anti-war Paultards, how does it feel to be in bed with such elements?

Let the states decide on matters of fundamental rights like abortion? No thanks.

Also incorrect that affirmative action was established by the Civil Rights Act.

Like most people today, you think that the only definition of "libertarian" is that used by the free-market right. I am of the libertarian left, and I view private property as a means of authoritarian control no less than state power.

Intellectual Dishonesty on full display

"OK, anti-war Paultards..."

Argumentum ad hominem.

"Let the states decide on matters of fundamental rights like abortion? No thanks."

So who decides then? The federal govt? What if they take a position against what you believe? Or pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion?

"Also incorrect that affirmative action was established by the Civil Rights Act."

Strawman argument. I said the CRA contained affirmative action provisions. I never said affirmative action was "established" by the CRA.

" think that the only definition of "libertarian" is that used by the free-market right."

Another strawman argument.

"I am of the libertarian left, and I view private property as a means of authoritarian control no less than state power."

I believe in full liberty at every level. Economic, Social and Foreign policy. You are a Collectivist and a Statist. Once you nullify property rights at any level, you endorse slavery. In laissez-faire (free market) capitalism, no one is forced to deal with anyone. What we have in America is Crony Capitalism and therefore cannot be used as an argument against private property or free markets.

As for climate change, I do not deny that there is global warming but I reject the idea that it is caused by human activity or that anything needs to be done about it by forced regulations on people. Watch this documentary and then we can talk.

Go away, idiot

After all the name calling you guys have done, you accuse me of ad hominem arguments? Stop. The difference is that I use my epithets to spice up a reasoned and documented case. You fools use 'em instead of that. Get it?

If we oppose banning abortion at the state level, of course we'd oppose it at the federal level. Talk about strawmen.

The hair you are splitting over the CRA is non-existent. There's no difference between "established by" and "provisions for."

But you aren't invited to post here. I won't censor you, but this website is for progressives, not reactionaries. I am trying to educate my allies who are in danger of being taken in by the likes of you, my enemies.

So listen, anti-war Paultards, how does it feel to be in bed with the deniers of anthropogenic climate change? No really, I want to know.

More Fallacies

At what point did I call you names? I have been polite and just because some other people in here insulted you does not mean you can lump me with them.

And who made you the spokesman for everyone on abortion? There are millions of Americans that are against it and you have evaded my question about how exactly you would handle the issue.

CRA: Again majoring on minors. The important point is that it forces private businesses not to discriminate and imposes quotas for minorities in educational institutions. If you have any understanding of property rights, you would not support those specific provisions in the act. Since you support violations of property rights, you are the real pseudo-libertarian.

Your position on Climate Change is just another argumentum ad populum.

Finally, until you can be rational and honest in your arguments, further discussion is pointless. I wish you luck in promoting your endless fallacies. The rest of us are too smart to buy into them.

Wow, big man knows Latin phrases

I did answer your question on abortion, and I wasn't making any argument at all re. climate change. I don't waste my time arguing with climate change deniers. I wasn't even talking to you. Go away.

Bwaah hah hah hah hah hah!

"Anthropogenic climate change?"

Wait... Shouldn't we all be underwater soon?

Seriously though, did you not receive the memo, or has Gore now resorting to sifting through High Times' employment files for shills who still believe in his fairytale?


This is the most rediculous article I've seen in a long time regarding any topic. There is misinformation literally in every line of text. The article relies heavily on biased attacks i.e. wackjob, leading any rational reader to understand that the author isn't presenting much of a real argument. To this end, I would recommend the author to use a dictionary when choosing such attacks, as a "gadfly" is harmless, whereas you are claiming that Ron Paul is a "dangerous" enemy of freedom.
That line in itself (the title) is included purely to attract traffic to your page. The points that follow are simply false.
Ron Paul relegates abortion rights to the states. This is different than saying he will end abortion in the states. States that favor abortion will keep abortion legal. This is pure Constitutionalism.
The "revolution" coined by his supporters was started before both #OWS and the Tea Party, circa 2008. Both movements are deeply rooted in his stances, particularly with regard to the Federal Reserve and Corporatism/Crony Capitalism. The racist comments were not his - you can youtube every clip of him there is and you will never find him using bigoted/racist language. I challenge you...there are thousands of clips of him available. What you will find is that he is consistent in everything he says spanning 4 decades. And what he is consistent is fighting for liberty (i.e.) individual freedom. The smallest minority is the individual and he understands this. He argues to limit the reach of centralized government, which from a historical standpoint deteriorates individual freedoms and dissolves into tyranny EVERY time. With that, I must congratulate you for wasting half an hour of my life. I believe this was the real reason for you to write this article so from that perspective, you have actually succeeded. Kudos.

This is BY FAR one of the

This is BY FAR one of the most idiotic and irresponsible articles I have ever seen!

"Relegating abortion right to the states"....

Means overturn of Roe v. Wade. If you support this, do not pretend you are pro-choice.

OWS is definitely not "deeply rooted" in laissez-faire capitalism! WTF??!!?

naive progressives?

i'm a paleoconservative and I resent your categorization of myself or any of his supporters as naive progressives.

YOU are the one with NO UNDERSTANDING of history or POLITICAL REALISM as a foreign policy. Intervention into the internal affairs of foreign nations breeds contempt from anyone who is not in power in that foreign country, and without a declaration of war by the CONGRESS per Art 1 SEC 8 of the Constitution is ILLEGAL.

Excuse me, I wasn't talking to you

You seem to be the Real McCoy, a genuine peleocon. This post isn't addressed to you. It is addressed to the naive progressives. The type who hand out Ron Paul propaganda at Occupy Wall Street.

a little bit about freedom

I have few words in response to this article. First the important ones...

We are all too busy for this BS story.

You obviously have no idea how to manage your own household, your own city, or your own state. Since you obviously believe you couldn't handle the freedom you SHOULD get to do any of those things. Your own house? Don't like to be free?

Freedom is good for people who can handle it. Good freedom is provided by good peole.

People who can't handle freedom, well they need and want welfare and socialism.

Lastly, your facts are all wrong. But what should we expect since you are either on fire, or getting paid to put out false facts and interpretations?

Note to readers: before you believe anything the author has written, do your country and yourself a favor and watch Ron Paul videos for a while. He is a Congressman and there are PLENTY OF VIDEOS of him from the past 20+ years he has been in office.

The author is hoping you are dumb enough to believe his words. Don't rip your country off again. Learn about the candidates.

"Too busy"?

Fine, get off my website, reactionary enemy of freedom.

Ya okay

I won't waste my time arguing your lies.
Just want to say RON PAUL 2012!

Bill Weinberg there's no easy way to say it. You are a whackjob.

Does anybody really believe Ron Paul is an enemy of freedom? No. That is ALL he talks about. The title alone is enough to discredit EVERYTHING ELSE. I tried to start reading the whole thing but couldn't even really get past the first paragraphy with accusing progressives as being dupped by Paul.

Look, if your going to do a hit job at least try not to make it sound so much like a hit job from a 5 year old. I couldn't help thinking of better titles you could have used for this article to get some credibility.

Fatal gullibility

Hitler talked about "freedom" too. All demagogues talk about "freedom." What does that prove?

You're confused

You've confused people who believe in freedom with Hitler. Now that gets a Convoluted Logic Award. Of course you don't really believe it, but it helps your ridiculous hatchet job on the good Dr.

"believe in freedom"?

What freedom is that? The freedom of a woman to control her own reproductive system? The freedom of kids to go to public school? The freedom of the poor to have access to healthcare?

Get outta here.


This is going to seem like a stupid question, but can you possibly be any more vague ?

Obama talks about freedom and transparency too. A joke of course. What's your point about Freedom? Are you saying that people who use the word Freedom are liars?

In Obama's case and in Bush's case, yes. You are correct. We have set the people of Iraq free. And now we are free to make a 50/50 partnership with them by sitting on their heads and squatting on their sovereign soil.

Does that sound like Paul to you? Or does it sound more like the buttwipes you are probably supporting?

Freedom for Iraq does not mean invade them and take 50% of their output in an unwilling partnership.


Again, Mr W, this is going to seem like a stupid question, but can you possibly be any more vague ?

Can you guys read?

No, not everyone who talks about freedom is a liar, but all lying demagogues talk about freedom. Practically without exception.

He really just compared

He really just compared Hitler to Ron Paul..... But guys he cited his "Facts" with links, If it's on the internet it must be true. Do us all a favor and suck on an exhaust pipe Mr. Whineberg. Someone really needs to take away your internet privileges.

Argumentum ad Hitlerium =

Argumentum ad Hitlerium = logical fallacy.

Hitler was also a vegetarian, tardbag, but that doesn't make vegetarians evil, now does it?

Somebody should try to get this cretin fired...

Nice of you to throw the

Nice of you to throw the Hitler card after conflating non interventionism with anti_semitism. You r clown shoes. Unreasoned article not worth reasoned responses.

None of you can argue honestly

1. I didn't "compare" Paul to Hitler. I only brought up Hitler to demonstrate that not everyone who talks about freedom believes in freedom. Every despot in history has claimed to be protecting "freedom."

2. Hitler was not a vegetarian, but this question is irrelevant.

3. I did not conflate "non-interventionism" with anti-Semitism. I called out the Jew-baiting directed against me as anti-Semitism. No more, no less.

I never thought I'd write this, but...

Bill Weinberg is, without any doubt, head and shoulders above any of the responders so far.
This is the worst trolling and flaming I've read anywhere in a long time.
You had all better hope that a candidate is NOT known be his supporters because you are the most disreputable bunch I've come across.

A few points - although I don't know why I bother:

The states were NEVER independent.
They went from being British colonies to the Articles of Confederation to ratifying the constitution without a bit of independence.

The constitution, like the bible, has to be interpreted.
Like the bible, the constitution simply doesn't have enough information in it to form a workable system of government for all occasions.
The constitution had many fathers and as many interpretations.
It is deliberately vague and contradictory because the various faction could not agree on much other than the protection of property.
Foolish interpretations such as Borkism, where the Bill of Rights is held to apply only to the state governments and not to the people, probably wouldn't have had the support of most of the Founding fathers.
It certainly wouldn't have the support either of the current political elite or the majority of the people.

Most of us don't want 50 separate countries, each with its own distinct customs and laws.
We don't want a Mormon state, several S. Baptist states, Episcopal states, atheist states, and so on.
We don't want states where one can be whipped through the streets for interracial dating by the local sheriff in the same country as states with fellatio being performed in public parades.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian in any sense besides that of the silly collection cultists who squat on that name in America.
He is an old fashioned right winger; someone whose ideas are IOO years too late and entirely impractical.
Just like Cain and Sarah Palin, once the mass public gets a good look and listen to him, he'll be regarded as silly and unpopular.

The states were NEVER independent.

Except, briefly, Vermont and Texas. And Hawaii, before the imperialists grabbed it.

Transparently yours,

"Bill Weinberg is, without any doubt, head and shoulders above any of the responders so far."

That's laughable, and if I were Romney, I'd put that $10,000 on you and Bill being one and the same.

Read the following posts and then tell me I haven't handed him (you?) his (your?) hat in all three instances.

"RE: principled approach to freedom?"

"You Lose."

"Didn't I make clear that you've already lost?"

File under "unintentional irony"

I am not Ray, but you are certainly transparent.

Christ, abortion is such a

Christ, abortion is such a red herring issue. Can't everyone agree the real issue is defining when life begins? If you believe it begins at conception then of course you're "pro life" since liberty does not allow you to negatively affect others. You don't get to choose to kill someone else. However, if you don't believe in life at conception then of course It's an issue of liberty and choice and rightly so.

Abortion a "red herring"?

Like Ron Paul, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

RE: Ron Paul: dangerous enemy of freedom

To the author of this article and the Anti-Ron Paul Crowd:

Realistically – no one cares about politics. They know it's all a sham.
And without Ron Paul, that number of people who are paying attention would be even less.

The typical "voter" as exemplified here by the author of this article (and the Anti-Paul Crowd) would much rather live in a failed economy as long as they get a leader who appears strong.

These voters are the typical "scared little kids" who need a strong "father figure" in the house – even if he's a drunk abuser. So, what do these "Abused" little children do? They attack anyone who challenges the Abuser and his ways.

These voters cannot stand living in a healthy household, even with a "traditional" father figure. (Ron Paul)

These voters have been ABUSED and are acclimated to the abuse to the point to where they cannot understand a society or an economy that is healthy. Thus, they join the abuser mindset.

Ron Paul is too INDEPENDENT for their psyches to handle. They would rather a Romney/Newt/Obama who exemplify the strong father leader who makes "everything (appear) okay" by shoveling more sh*t under the rug. They defend the "Abusers" and their ways who will teach these little children to Abuse society and make it more and more sickly.

It's all perception as usual.

The INDEPENDENT intellects perceive Ron Paul to be a good leader.
The DEPENDENT children perceive Romney/Newt/Obama to be a good leader.


people who are truly "INDEPENDENT intellectuals" don't want to be led by anyone.

not ron paul, not obama, fucking no-one.

people who want to be led by members of what they perceive to be a 'new' form of politics that challenges the 'old, are just as much "DEPENDENT children" as those who want to be led by members of the 'old' politics

Are you a former Scientologist, sir?

Or perhaps a graduate of the Objectivist cult?
Father figures?
These sound like code words from some psychological treatment program or movement.

I wonder if you Ron Paul fans realize how weird you sound?
I'm no Leftist, but beside you, Bill W. seems like Sokrates himself.

You really should try to realize that most of the rest of America doesn't live anywhere near this tree house you Libertarians have constructed in cuckoo land.
In our world Abe Lincoln and F.D.R. are not traitors and authoritarians who sold out a great, constitutional gov't inherited from Saints, but the best presidents this country ever had.
We simply don't go around fuming that our currency is no longer backed by gold or that we have to pay income taxes rather than poll taxes.
We don't worry that some unqualified Colored person my get ahead of us in line for a place at a university, but we worry, rather, how we will pay the tuition?
We don't regard Murry Rothbard or Ludvig von Mises as the visionaries or a new order among us (in fact, most of us have never heard of them), nor do we regard Ayn Rand as the Virgin Mary of a new vision of life and society.

The more you write, the more clear you make it to the rest of us that you are cranks and that your candidate is too far out of the mainstream to take seriously.
I don't see any serious political figure to compare to Ron Paul since Goldwater and you remember what happened to him, right?
In fact, Goldwater seems a font of reason and sober practicality compared to Paul.

The most good I can say about Paul is that he seems to truly believe what he says and he's willing to stand by his convictions.
In that he stands out strongly among the Republican field.
He can join Dennis Kucinich as the most sincere candidate in a generation when the race is over.

You can Keep your liars, I'll take the good Dr.

What a POS hatchet job by the Author. Was it something the Dr said about Israel that got your undies in a bunch?
I'll take the honest Dr over your lying opportunists in power.

Yes, it was something the doctor said.

Like when he said he shared the goals of the John Birch Society. Weren't you paying attention?



You seem to be confused on many of the issues, but the fact that you are most confused about is that our government: through their actions, policies, and regulations among others, is destroying the greatness of the USA. You are proof of this, Sir. It bewilders me that an American citizen who is not getting his/her pockets padded by the corruption, is gullible enough to fall into the propoganda.

Do you own a home? Do you have any assets? Your precious one party system has been depleting everything you own. Ron Paul is trying to defend your rights and you are too confused to realize it.

Ron Paul is our last hope. For the sake of the children of the future, please do some more research.

My "precious one party system"

You are paying no attention whatsoever. I have said nothing in defense of the Republicans or Democrats. You are cheering on a Republican! A little ironic.

Paul's Abortion Reasoning

You say Ron Paul is contradicting his libertarian principles by personally being anti-abortion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, your logic is that by taking away a women's choice you're also taking away her liberty in the matter.

Do you also agree that everyone has the right to liberty as long as it doesn't take away from another individual's liberty like in regards to rape and murder?
Ron Paul and the constitution agrees with this idea.

So Ron Paul's logic is that allowing a women to abort a baby is taking away that baby's rights and liberty. Specifically it's right to life. That's how it is still libertarian in principle. The women's choice to abort takes away the baby's right to life.

The grey area is the question of when is a fetus an individual? Nobody can answer this question without it being littered with personal opinions.

Please note that I'm pro choice however I understand Ron Paul's reasoning and I respect it.
Read his book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" he tells a terrible story about when he was a doctor and his co-workers aborted a 6 month or so baby. It can out crying and moderately healthy so they just placed it in the corner to die. If I was in that situation and delivered babies for a living I would probably be anti abortion too.



Welcome to the club, Bill Weinberg!

But don't feel too bad, Angry Buddy... Every other pseudo intellectual out there just like you who decided to mess with the wrong guy has been made to look a fool and hasn't been able to keep up a bit, either.


The Revolution

You guys got pwned, not me

Your post is 100% fact-free. Most ironic word: "intellectually."

a gay for ron paul

i'm 30 years old, gay, i advocate reproductive freedom, and i am fiercely loyal to ron paul, despite differing opinions on what i consider to be secondary points of policy when viewed with consideration of the larger issues that affect all americans regardless of creed, orientation, color, class, etc.

obama lied when he stated that the first thing he would do is bring home our troops. now we are involved in even more military exploits, costing the lives of us troops and innocent civilians in foreign countries- i think we're up to 5 now. so obama has really entangled us in more expensive, needless wars. not the change i voted for. ron paul is the ONLY candidate who wants to save the lives of us troops and innocent civilians. nothing too radical about that, so long as your perception of "normal" does not include imperialistic military exploits that waste money, life, and only succeed in garnering world-wide resentment and criticism. i put the lives of fellow americans and innocent people above gay marriage, above reproductive freedom, above almost anything. and ron paul has more support form the military than obama and all the other republican candidates. the troops want to come home. ron paul has constently voted against our wars. he is the only one who wants to bring all of our troops home.

obama has continued the fine w. bush tradition of handing taxpayer dollars hand-over-fist to wall street. the economy is worse off, and nothing is being done to bring justice on bhalf of the american people. we're headed for hyperinflation by any real assessment of our current economic policy. ron paul is the only one addressing this issue at its core, and the imminent threat of widespread starvation or food riots is more important to me than gay rights or reproductive freedom. what good is being married for anyone, gay or straight, if it comes down to eating your spouse? anyone who doesn't think they are smart enough to understand economics or the way money is handled in our policy as been tricked. it's quite easy to understand, and it affects us all. ron paul is the only candidate who has accurately predicted the various bubbles and bursts, along with economists from all over the world, who all have been right up to now and are predicting the same outcome if the us does not change our economic policy. ron paul is the only candidate who has consistently worked to audit the federal reserve bank, end crony capitalism, he has always voted against a pay raise, and he has never voted to raise taxes. look up his voting record. it's consistent, and always in the best interest of the economy, not bankers and corporations.

and now, what may be the most important thing here, which should be the most important thing on everyone's mind right now. the NDAA, or s.1867. hopefully everyone here knows about it and has contact their government officials to voice their misgivings and objections. that said, no republicans but ron paul have consistently voted against the patriot act and other legislation that blatantly infringes on the civil liberties of all americans. now, pending veto or white house approval, american citizens will be subject to indefinite military detention based on being "suspicious." no due process, no habeus corpus. obama's office has already threatened to veto any bill that does not grant him enough power to fight the war on terror, with which its broad and vague definition could include people who active voice disagreement with government policies. ron paul is the only one who addresses the fact that we do not need to give up our civil liberties to be safe. if we give up freedom in exchange for security, we deserve neither. a government that doesn't respect my right to privacy isn't going to respect my relationship, regardless of how they dress it for the window of public opinion.

say all of the worst scenarios that could unfold actually do. if we're in another world war, and our economy collapses and there is a massive run on food, and the government has the right to enforce martial law at will, then we're all much worse off collectively than if we had all agreed to meet in the middle on the candidate who, while not the ideal candidate of many, is the only one standing up for the basic rights and civil liberties of all americans. it is our basic rights that are under attack, and gay rights and abortion rights etc are just used to play the right against the left to distract and polarize us. we need to put all these differences aside and address the severity of our current situation. it's kind of an emergency, and we need to save the whole forest before we can worry about individual trees.

also, ron paul voted for the repeal of DADT. his stance on gay marriage has gotten to be what i've always kind of wanted. any two willing persons can enter into any sort of legal contract they want, and the government will recognize the validity of that contract for all legal purposes. marriage itself is a religious institution, and the religions i am into have been marrying gay folks for decades. i have the right to get married, but that is not what i or most gay people probably want. it's the legal frills that have nothing to do with religious institutions that make gay folks rightfully feel kind of squished upon. if you're a biblebeating gay person who wants a religious wedding, your congregation will probably not be cool with it. and that is their right. but it is your right to find a religious institution that is based in love and recognizes love in favor of fear mongering its constituents into bigotry and arrogance. the government should have nothing to do with that aspect of marriage. i am never in favor of forcing people to accept my views or lifestyle. i will defend the right of the nastiest bigot to be as nasty as they want. it sucks, but it is their right to think what they do. but you change people through positive social interaction, not through government intervention. and it sucked growing up gay, for sure, and kids have a right not to be bullied, and there should be more glbt resources available at schools for these kids. i'm not saying all that. it's obvious that our current political climate is hostile towards gay folks and uses the emotionally charged issue of their rights or lack thereof to sway voters. but that's all it is- it's just a show meant to distract us from the fundamental problems that affect all americans alike.

Hitler card / not a "Zionist"

This is absolute drek.

Look up the Hitler Card and maybe other guilt by association fallacies, first off.

Secondly, Weinberg, I suspect the real problem is Paul doesn't kiss the ass of the Israel lobby and threatens the disproportionately* Jewish mega banks.


*Sure, employing facts makes you a racist if the facts allude to Jewish power. Sure - that's right.

Anti-Semitism card again

Right, because my name is Weinberg, you assume I support the "Israel Lobby."

Take a hike, racist.

LOL - Bill Weinberg = Fail

This article is a perfect example of failed journalism and why writers like Bill Weinberg should be held accountable and charged with Slander...

Ron Paul has voted in line with our CONSTITUTION... There's no need to continue to explain to Bill Weinberg over and over again on why it's paramount for a congressman (and president for that matter) that take the OATH to abide and uphold the Constitution, to DO JUST THAT!

It seems to me that Bill Weinberg has alternative motives and is just trying to slander Ron Paul... If anyone is that ignorant not to research for themselves on WHY Ron Paul voted in a certain manner, than they're probably going to just vote for whomever the main stream media or some pundit tells them to vote for...

I have faith in my fellow Americans that they will do their due diligence and come to their own conclusions.

Please, charge me with slander

You will lose, because everything I wrote is true. Actually, it would never even get to court, which is too bad, because I could use the publicity.

Bill Weinberg is insane

lets start with your heading bill. do you know what freedom means? are you happy with our current situation and where our country is heading? are you ready for the military draft???

im 55yrs old. the first president i recognized was president kennedy. i was 6yrs old when he was assisinated. i have been watching my gov because i knew that the warren commission was not being honest with their investigation.

our current gov in my view is fake. the kennedy assisination was a cup de etat, in that time we, americans lost our freedom. viet nam war was a false flag operation that cost us thousands of american lives. people i knew came home in pieces over a lie created by lbj and his crony pals.

i have waited a life time for a person to run for president that has the balls to tell it the way it is. Dr. Paul is that person. the truth these days can get you killed and because of Dr. Paul's honesty in bringing out the horrible facts of our governments involvement in illegal activities around the globe, he has my respect and my vote.

bill you should be ashamed of writing such a negative piece on a man who has fought for your independance and liberty for the past three decades +. i suggest you try something other than writing hit pieces on honorable people, like drinking heavily and then take a drive..

I'm not insane, but you can't read

If you think this website is produced by someone who is "happy with our current situation and where our country is heading," you aren't paying any attention whatsoever. Stop wasting my time.

What an intelligent author...

The individual who wrote this is as intelligent as they come. What knowledge of history and insight this person has given us in his/her refutation of Ron Paul’s ideas. The great debate table is once again open to people who bring logic and reason together in open session. Kudos to this author, who provides notable evidence of even a fraction of fact to the debate table in why Ron Paul is a dangerous enemy to freedom. END SARCASM.

the paulites are out in force...

wow bill. it always amazes me how many people just search for things to read about their favorite obsessions, in this case , ron paul. do you think they ever absorb information that doesn't meet their standards for (T)ruth, or do you think they just call the author names and then block it in order to avoid cognitive dissonance? and how many of these people do you think have ever come to this site before?

as a response to a common theme -

yea, ron paul claims that his personal views on things like abortion and gay marriage won't influence what he does and he won't force people to do what he wants. but you all seem to be missing the basic premise of 'libertarianism', in both it's original and it's corrupted modern forms. the point of only relying on the 'sovereign self' is that you can't trust other people with power over you. anyone who tells you that they want power but won't push their methods upon you is probably going do do so whether they meant to or not, because power corrupts, period. and what is this nonsense about giving the states power being such a better option? little states, just like little dictators, grow into big states or dictators at the first chance given, that is the imperative of any institution.

ron paul used to claim that he didn't really care about winning the presidency, he just wanted to disseminate 'libertarian' ideas and running was an efficient way of doing so. this is no longer true. to someone who has been watching 'the good doctor' shift around since the 90's, this is obvious. as an easy example, he never used to run attack ads, now he's playing that game too. his slippery slope began years ago, the more it looks to his backers like he has a chance of winning, the more his ideals will be compromised, as it happens to absolutely every 'idealist' approaching power. if you're going to be a libertarian, stop being half-assed about it and don't support even the concept of anyone or anything having any power over you.


If the confederates only would have won, would have kept all decisions on the states voters, and the fed would have been small. We would be much better off, the president would mean squat. And slavery still would have disappeared. We would be more of a powerful country. Its about states rights, not the fed telling us what to do.

Confederacy-nostalgia, knew that one was coming

OK, I'm still waiting to hear from all you anti-war and pro-cannabis Paul supporters. How does it feel to be in bed with Confederacy-nostalgists? Well?


it seems that my point about how any "state" is inherently an expansive and violent entity that will always subsume the local population for it's own needs went right above your head.

Ron Paul

Well of course the fact that Ron Paul puts the USA first (as opposed to Israel) may offend some people.
The question is who are those people?

Both anti-Semitism and messianism

The "ONLY HOPE," eh? in the upper case, no less.

Salmonella poisining is

Salmonella poisining is better than war every day of the week

This Article Is A Joke!

Bill Weinberg is a left-wing anarchist demagogue with a nauseating Marxist agenda. His assertions are patently false, race wars? LOL. Can't you come up with anything better than trying to incite racial strife and propoganda? Ron Paul is hardly a racist and he believes that it is better for all races to come together as "Americans" rather than isolating themselves in to groups. He doesn't "diss" gay marriage and supports states where their citizens collectively support it. I think I'll give this article a big fat "F"!

I laughed quite audibly when

I laughed quite audibly when I read the title to this article


Wow how can one person collect so much stupid. You sir need to sit down, put a nice 1911 in your mouth and chew on a 240 grain cookie.


"reproductive freedoms" big lol. You mean, the murder of children. We have laws to protect a fetus from drunk drivers. Rightly there should be laws to protect a fetus from its own murderous mother and father. Ron Paul 2012!!!

How does it feel, Paul supporters?

How does it feel to be in bed with enemies of reproductive freedom and deniers of anthropogenic climate change? Well? C'mon, tell us. The silence is deafening, guys...

Ron Paul doo wop medley

"da doo Ron Paul Paul da doo Ron Paul ..."

"Ron Paulllll, you saw me standing ... alonnnne
without a dream in heart
without a Fed of my own ....
When suddenly appeared before me
a currency entirely backed by gold ..."

Austrian economics is the "flat earth" theory of economic "science". Even by the debased standards of the field it has been entirely discredited by results. Paul's economic ideas aren't so much dangerous as illiterate. Like the truthers, young earthers and other various wackos Paulites (Paulistas?) have already decided, actual history and reality are secondary to TYPING IN CAPITALS.

But ... while you're here pick up a copy of 9-11 AND THE NEW PEARL HARBOR - it's a perfect stocking stuffer for the UFO nut at the comic book store.

GOP Monetary Madness

Speaking of which, see Paul Krugman in today's New York Times.

Problematic reason...

Of all the things in this posting that I can point out as being strangely irrational, the idea that Ron Paul believes gay marriage is a bad thing is the big ticket for me. Ron Paul thinks marriage, by proxy of government, is a bad thing. He thinks the IRS is a bad thing that needs to be abolished. Granted the IRS is gone, what use would the government have for enforcing norms in marriage? Zilch. Your argument is truly bizarre. Gay marriage = social engineering by the same token heterosexual marriage (currently) = social engineering.

Get the damn government out of marriage. End the Federal Reserve. End the IRS. End of story.

Paul's stance on gay marriage

What disingenuous bunk. Paul has never called heterosexual marriage "social engineering." I'm not buying that one till you produce chapter and verse.

"End of story"? Always beware of those who put forth simplistic solutions.

Personally, I think overthrowing capitalism is the "solution," but I would never be so glib about it.

What's the difference?

You could have very well wrote the same article about "Obama: Dangerous Enemy of Freedom." As an anarchist against capitalism, I agree about as much with Paul as I do with Obama. I think when someone from the left may state some support for Paul, it isn't any more dangerous than voicing support for Obama. I don't see why you would be so outraged for voicing support for Paul versus the many "radicals" who constantly shill for the Democrats. I mean, you didn't see the Zapatistas stumping for the PRD. There are areas of vague agreement I have with both politicians. For me, I viscerally turn away from the Obama of today because of his violent and imperialist foreign policy. So when I hear Paul on foreign policy, I can't help but be somewhat sympathetic. The violence and destruction this country has unleashed on the world trumps quite a lot of other issues for me personally. Don't get me wrong, I am very much against capitalism. The domestic economy is a huge concern of mine, especially as someone going through hard times myself. I also am a volunteer organizer with a union, hoping to fight in the coming months and win. At the same time, looking at what passes for "progressive" legislation, I can't help but see the capitalist class manipulating the system to ensure a stable profit flow. I don't particularly understand the incessant need to defend social democracy and lionize the regulatory state. Some good social democracy did for Europeans. The riots in France of so many years ago and the crisis today shows just how limiting social democracy can be. Being in a defensive posture and protecting the state is the last thing we should be doing. I'm reminded of reading Colin Ward's introduction to Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, he said:

I often wonder how we reached the situation when honourable words like 'enterprise', 'initiative' and 'self-help' are automatically associated with the political right and the defence of capitalism, while it is assumed that the political left stands for a big brother state with a responsibility to provide a pauper's income for all and an inflation proof income for its own functionaries.

Ninety years ago people's mental image of a socialist was a radical self-employed cobbler, sitting in his shop with a copy of William Morris's Useful Work versus Useless Toil on the workbench, his hammer in his hand and his lips full of brass tacks. His mind was full of notions of liberating his fellow workers from industrial serfdom in a dark satanic mill. No doubt the current mental picture is of a university lecturer with a copy of The Inevitable Crisis of Capitalism in one hand and a banner labelled 'fight the Cuts' in the other, while his mind is full of strategies for unseating the sitting Labour candidate in the local pocket borough.

Great quote from Colin Ward

He is nostalgic for a time when "libertarian left" was not an oxymoron. And so am I.

But... As long as capitalism obtains, any moves to dismantle the regulatory regime (FDA, EPA, OSHA, labor standards, rent control laws, etc.) are dangerous steps backwards. Unless you buy into the worse-is-better thinking of the 19th century nihilists. And I meant what I said about Paul bringing troops back from Afghanistan to wage a race war in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Houston. He might restrain the empire's overseas military reach (or, he might not, just as Obama promised to close Gitmo but hasn't managed to pull it off), but on the domestic police state tip he'd be far worse than Obama—even if this time the repression would be in the name of protecting "property rights" rather than the war on drugs. There is a difference between a domesticated liberal (Obama) and a fascistic demagogue (Paul).


Who is Bill Weinberg and why is he out of the ward? Im going to go out on a limb here and say he's the son of some mentally ill disgraced NeoCon Trotskyite in DC. Hence the infatuation with Weed and Anarchism.

Did you graduate from Wikipedia? and who the hell says 'Patently illogical' other then neo bolshevik intellectual wannabee dweebs?

I think we all knew a guy like this in high school. You know, that loner weirdo who always looked like he was going to stab random women. Turns out it was only Bill Weinberg. Your name alone creates laughter.

Lets hope you get a ice pick to the back of your head... like your leader Trotsky in Mexico did.

You parasites desperation is getting more and more entertaining by the month.

Thank you for writing this pathetic hitpiece on Paul though... i think it won a few thousand more people over to his side. You freaks are SO yesterday, and SO out of touch. I love watching you whine, Weinberg.

Soviet commissar disses Weinberg

Too funny. You're the one who is emulating the Soviet commissars by labeling your political opponents as mentally ill! Maybe I should be dragged off to a re-educaiton facility and shot full of thorazine, eh?

Lovely Jew-hating website you've got there, BTW. You're a great advertisement for "libertarian" values. Way to go.