General Discussion

JNathanK

(185 posts)

25. I don't hold it against them if they're Ron Paul suppoters.

Thu Mar 1, 2012, 08:22 PM

Mar 2012

Hardly anyone in either party, democrat or otherwise, is staunchly anti-war. Obama voted for Patriot Act reauthorization as a senator and signed the NDAA into law as president, which has made my respect for him plummet. The Democrats seem saner than the Republicans, but in the end, I don't think it will really matter which party get elected.

I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot, but being anti-war and protecting the erosion of the constitution are rare positions from any other candidates. Sure, a lot of them give lip service, but Paul was one of the few legislators that actually voted against the Iraq war, the NDAA bill, the Patriot Act 1 or 2, etc, that I can understand why people support him. I have a lot of formerly registered democrat friends that have registered republican recently just so they could vote Ron Paul in the primaries because of his consistent anti-war stance and the fact there's hardly any representation of these issues.

If more Democrats were like Dennis Kusinich and less like Obama or Clinton, I don't think the democratic party would have this problem of liberals ambivalently supporting someone who wants to bust up unions and privatize everything.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Naomi Wolf: "U.S. is sleepwalking into becoming a police state ... the president can lock up anyone" [View all] Better Believe It Mar 2012 OP

If the response to this thread is any indication, I see what she means. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #1

Naomi Wolf NAILED IT. WE have to STOP this NOW Vincardog Mar 2012 #2

Holy crap! What do we do?? GreenPartyVoter Mar 2012 #3

Watch reality tv and go shopping! nt JNathanK Mar 2012 #23

Wait ProSense Mar 2012 #4

The statute is what it says. If Obama didn't believe he'd use the power, he wouldn't sign it. leveymg Mar 2012 #65

You'd be right, The Doctor. Mar 2012 #72

If he was unwilling to sign the Bill, it would be returned to Committee to strip out those sections leveymg Mar 2012 #73

And they'd send it back with even worse shit in it. The Doctor. Mar 2012 #74

No, Democratic Senate majority. Have you ever actually worked on Capitol Hill? leveymg Mar 2012 #75

So you're saying that what you described is *exactly* what would happen? The Doctor. Mar 2012 #79

What certain people believe and shouted since this came up. Justice wanted Mar 2012 #5

It's only a big deal if there is a (R) behind the presidents name. eom Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #6

Uh, one of the copy and pastes is from MineralMan Mar 2012 #7

I have a broken watch that is correct at 12:18 every day! What do you make of the main article? Dragonfli Mar 2012 #10

When I read editorial writing, I always look to see where the writer MineralMan Mar 2012 #12

What about writers that contribute to the FR, do you dismiss their input. bahrbearian Mar 2012 #39

I haven't read FR for years. MineralMan Mar 2012 #42

All good questions bahrbearian Mar 2012 #45

And oddly enough Bruce Fein was a hero to the Left when he came against Bush's anti-Constitutional sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #32

Here's the thing: I oppose parts of NDAA, too. I think it is a very MineralMan Mar 2012 #35

So a bad bill has a couple of parts that your Ok with, so lets pass it? bahrbearian Mar 2012 #47

A couple of parts? Have you seen the bill? MineralMan Mar 2012 #67

That doesn't address the point of the OP. Not to mention the fact that you could say Bush sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #58

And none of that addresses the point of the OP. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #62

Fantastic post. Yes! A passionate voice. Kaleko Mar 2012 #84

You're attacking the messenger, not refuting the message. Logical error. Fail. leveymg Mar 2012 #66

We put away the repubs socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #8

Can you imagine if all this was in place during Nixon? nc_gadfly Mar 2012 #9

Shouldn't it be a TOS violation to use a Reaganite Ron Paul advisor to attack Democrats?...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #11

You'd think so, wouldn't you. MineralMan Mar 2012 #13

I don't hold it against them if they're Ron Paul suppoters. JNathanK Mar 2012 #25

What ProSense Mar 2012 #26

Obama is a Hypocrite by your definition, bahrbearian Mar 2012 #48

Exactly bahrbearian Mar 2012 #49

Absolutely telling (and pathetic) that attacking the messenger is what you do Bonobo Mar 2012 #31

For ProSense Mar 2012 #36

Did you call Bruce Fein a tool when he went after Bush? Airc, Fein was a big hero sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #80

Indeed. woo me with science Mar 2012 #41

You want to censor someone who was a hero on DU for standing up against his own party sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #57

So Alert on it, Sid, and see if you get a majority of a DU jury to agree with you. leveymg Mar 2012 #68

+1 L0oniX Mar 2012 #83

Should be. Bobbie Jo Mar 2012 #78

Still stalking Better Believe It I see. Did you alert on it yet? My bet is that it will stand. L0oniX Mar 2012 #82

I'm no Paul supporter davidthegnome Mar 2012 #14

Naomi Wolf NOT Naomi Klein Quantess Mar 2012 #15

Too bad these are just voices in the wilderness. bvar22 Mar 2012 #16

I don't care if she is a Ron Paul supporter. I am too, only to the extent he doesn't want war... JNathanK Mar 2012 #24

+1 bahrbearian Mar 2012 #51

The Ron Paul freakout is a symptom of malignancy in the party. woo me with science Mar 2012 #61

Oh, that's OK. Obama will certainly veto any bill that includes indefinite detention. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #17

But the ACLU is always complaining about violations of the Constitution and stuff. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #18

I know. They're just professional leftist troublemakers who don't toe the party line. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #19

don't they realize this is an election year!!1 frylock Mar 2012 #28

I heard the ACLU was comprised of nothing but rabid Ron Paul supporters!!! Dragonfli Mar 2012 #64

The language is just too murky and even downright missleading. JNathanK Mar 2012 #55

K&R woo me with science Mar 2012 #20

This will not end well. n/t Moondog Mar 2012 #21

What begins poorly often ends poorly. MineralMan Mar 2012 #27

and president obama's signing statement won't mean jack shit to the next republican admin frylock Mar 2012 #29

Yes, that's true, but we have almost 5 years before that happens. MineralMan Mar 2012 #30

i think you're being delusional if you believe the republicans will never inhabit the white house.. frylock Mar 2012 #46

Is Obama's signing statement proof against further Presidents as well? nt Bonobo Mar 2012 #33

Of course not. But, the NDAA, which authorizes defense spending MineralMan Mar 2012 #38

Really? The REAL question is what am I doing, Mineral Man? Bonobo Mar 2012 #40

See the link below: MineralMan Mar 2012 #43

Nope, not interested. Bonobo Mar 2012 #44

Not many here have over 26,000 posts over there and call themselfs liberal bahrbearian Mar 2012 #50

Signing statements aren't binding not even on the signer TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #34

Nobody SHOULD be held without trial. MineralMan Mar 2012 #37

It sucks for the the POTUS Really? bahrbearian Mar 2012 #52

Killing People used to be limited by the Constitution, until when? bahrbearian Mar 2012 #53

Kick woo me with science Mar 2012 #22

k & friggin r! wildbilln864 Mar 2012 #54

I clicked on this thread, hoping against hope, MadHound Mar 2012 #56

Naomi Wolf "eloquently educated all of us on the perils of unchecked crony capitalism"?... SidDithers Mar 2012 #59

Yeah, ProSense Mar 2012 #70

Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Moore the list is long sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #60

+100000. nt riderinthestorm Mar 2012 #63

Kick woo me with science Mar 2012 #69

Over the top, sensationalistic, typical. The Doctor. Mar 2012 #71

I disagree.. I don't think people are "sleepwalking" SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #76

Bruce Fein is legit dreamnightwind Mar 2012 #77

Yes, it says something, not about him, but about anyone who would now try to sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #81