Watching this well-reasoned, eloquent speech just emphasizes what a damn shame it is that Ron Paul’s goldbuggery led him to chair the subcommittee in charge of regulating the Fed instead of a defense, intelligence or justice committee.
Regrettable
by @heymistermix.com| 119 Comments
This post is in: Good News For Conservatives
El Cid
On the other hand, if Paul can actually carry out his views on auditing the Fed’s actions, it could help.
[The sections of this] speech against [the lies, hidden and otherwise, leading to] the Iraq war, however, fails to note that since the SURGE and Our New Counter-insurgency Strategy, that situation is pretty much fixed.
But there is new cause to assassinate Julian Assange for having accepted secret cables given to WikiLeaks by someone else and releasing 1300 or so via the editing of major newspapers:
All good points.
Who should give a shit about a mini-state intervening to protect sexual molesters and pedophiles when diplomatic cables relating to such have been released by a non-governmental agency?
SiubhanDuinne
Every one of Ron Paul’s points about WikiLeaks is spot on.
Where the hell are the progressive voices making these same points?
Oh.
Cat Lady
And the MSM says “la la la la la can’t hear you la la la la”
El Cid
@SiubhanDuinne:
You mean elected ones? Because pretty much every pundit and media source I’d guess I’d consider “progressive” (liberal, left, leftish, etc) are making exactly those points. They may have not mentioned the faked Gulf of Tonkin, but the arguments are the same.
Ija
Would the Republican want him anywhere near defense or intelligence? They would have blocked that, surely.
WyldPirate
@El Cid:
Fix’t.
El Cid
@WyldPirate: I get it, but I was specifically referencing the Vatican’s eager defense of sexual molesters and pedophiles.
Violet
I really love Ron Paul. I know he’s got his faults, but he’s so good on so many things. He’s the only one speaking the truth sometimes.
@SiubhanDuinne:
In Congress? Har har. Good one.
arguingwithsignposts
@Violet:
I have to strenuously disagree. He’s a fuckwad privileged asshole who *happens* to be right about some things. Among his faults are desires to abolish the Dept. of Education. And Rand Paul.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@arguingwithsignposts:
I agree. He also had a racist newsletter that he used to put out. Sorry, he might be right on this but a stopped clock and all that…
I am sure that David Duke has a position or two that many of us would agree with. Same kind of thing.
WyldPirate
@El Cid:
Oh, I know what you were referring to, El Cid. I was just stuck by the irony.
One tiny group–who claims to have the moral standing to protect the weak–protecting their own who directly defiled and destroyed the weak vs a huge entity protecting a man who indirectly destroyed and damaged the lives of hundreds of thousands over a pack of lies he perpetrated.
IT would be nice to see the powerful not get special protection from the consequence of their crimes by the powerful–just for once.
Violet
@arguingwithsignposts:
Why is he privileged? He didn’t grow up like the Bushes, did he?
Like I said, I don’t agree with a lot of the things he says, but he speaks truth about things that others won’t and I find it refreshing. I loved his appearance on MTP with Tim Russert during the 2008 primaries. He just wasn’t talking the usual political-speak that Russert was used to and at some points Tim didn’t quite know how to respond. It was hilariously refreshing.
Rand Paul though. Ugh. But just like I don’t like to blame kids for their parents, I also don’t like to completely blame parents for their kids. At some point the kids make their own decisions.
SiubhanDuinne
@El Cid #4:
Yes, thanks, I wasn’t clear (my excuse is that I’m still precaffeinated). Elected officials.
Or, what @Violet #8 said:
arguingwithsignposts
@Violet:
He didn’t have to grow up like the Bushes to be privileged. Per wiki:
He’s a Randroid, to boot.
He may be entertaining, and he’s probably a nice guy in person, but I do not like partnering with goldbug Randroid assholes, no matter what they think of war.
El Cid
This is an interesting bit of news on the proposed tax bill:
D. Mason
To the best of my knowledge he is the only rep who even mentions ideas like not policing the world or minding our own domestic policy before we get involved in that of other nations. Ron Paul may (or may not) be wrong headed about his ideas regarding the fed but at least he has some. Everyone else seems to think the status quo is just fine there and obviously the status quo isn’t maintaining stability for the dollar.
Violet
@arguingwithsignposts:
Sounds like his family was kind of working class:
He went to the local public high school. I don’t know how he went to college. Maybe his family was relatively well off or maybe he got a scholarship. He was in the military, so perhaps he did some sort of ROTC or something to pay for med school and/or college.
I realize he wasn’t living in a shelter and just by the luck of being a white male in a two parent family who had an income he was way better off than a lot of people, but his background doesn’t strike me as privileged in the same way that a Bush’s or Kennedy’s does.
mad the swine
Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist with a profound suspicion of all organized authority above the state level. Ron Paul is also an isolationist who believes that the United States should cease all ‘entanglements’ with foreign nations. Julian Assange is a nihilistic anarchist who believes that complete transparency (e.g. as promoted by Wikileaks) will eliminate the ability of governments to function. The reason he chose to leak diplomatic cables is, explicitly, to make it more difficult for the United States to engage in diplomacy. No wonder Paul loves him.
For all of you who are such big fans of Assange’s foolish, dangerous, and destructive agenda: when you’re sitting at home, watching this video, nodding along to the rantings of an anarchist who wants, literally, to disband the federal government, perhaps you should think more carefully about whether or not leaking diplomatic cables is really a good idea. Paul’s views are not random or irrational. He has a vision for the United States which is diametrically opposed to progressive ideals. If Paul supports Assange, it is because Assange’s work supports that vision. That should be a warning to look at Assange with extreme skepticism.
arguingwithsignposts
@Violet:
well, privileged is a broad category. I agree, it’s not Bush or Kennedy privilege. But they did *own* the dairy operation.
Like I said, he may be a nice guy I’d have a beer with, but doesn’t mean I have to agree with him championing my cause.
Omnes Omnibus
@arguingwithsignposts: He wants to abolish his son? Wow. Understandable, but still, wow.
me
@mad the swine: Way to guilt by association.
arguingwithsignposts
@Omnes Omnibus:
golf clap.
D. Mason
@mad the swine:
I think you have a flawed understanding of the words isolationist, nihilistic, anarchist and diplomacy because your rant reads like the collected crayola scriblings of the special-ed class down at the local elementary school. How can one be a nihilistic anarchist who believes in transparency and how can one be an elected representative who is also an anarchist? Just asking.
Poopyman
@arguingwithsignposts:
Wait, his mother was Margaret Dumont? She was a Marxist!
Violet
@arguingwithsignposts:
But in the context of him being a politician, if there was some sort of bill that came up that 99% of Republicans disagreed with and most Democrats wanted to pass and Ron Paul also agreed with it and was going to vote for it, meaning it would pass, would that not be okay? I’m not sure that would happen in the end, but he’s been known to cast very different votes from the rest of the Republicans, so who knows. Would his vote not be good enough because of his beliefs?
In some ways it’s sort of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and ‘politics makes strange bedfellows.’ I strenuously disagree with a lot of things Ron Paul says and I also am glad he is willing to speak up on other things. I like the speech in the post above and wish more members of Congress had the courage to say such things. Our country would be much better off if a majority of our elected representatives saw this issue the way he does, imho.
Ella in New Mexico
@arguingwithsignposts:
Not to be pissy but…being personally familiar with these schools and institutions, I REALLY disagree with your characterization of Paul as “privileged”.
Regardless of what you think of Ron Paul, that resume does NOT indicate that he somehow got to slide through life based on his parent’s standing in the world. He’s just a 1950’s middle-class kid who was a good student, worked hard, got into good schools, then worked hard some more. He’s earned his way to what ever wealth or privilege he has now.
This has nothing to do with legitimate criticisms of his more noxious political positions, it’s just keeping things real.
D. Mason
@Ella in New Mexico:
But Ella, he’s the enemy around these parts, no need to be honest when it comes to someone like him.
Violet
@Ella in New Mexico:
That’s the impression I got from his background. He seems like an average middle class kid who worked hard and did well. Just be being middle class he was better off than a lot of people, but in the context of the US, being middle class kind of puts you squarely in…the middle.
arguingwithsignposts
@Ella in New Mexico:
Having visited Duke and known some people from there, whatever.
There’s a lot more to privilege (IMHO) than the upper class status of your parents. YMMV.
Ella in New Mexico
@Violet:
I totally agree with you on this. I have admired him for a long time, even when I disagree with him, because he does seem to be one of the few people in Congress who is a decent person, has a set of principles he works from, and sticks to his convictions, even if they are unpopular. He’s good for the country, even if he’s wrong.
My guess about Rand? HE’S the privileged one, the George W. to George H.W who watched his father remain a Congressman for decades now wants to do everything he thinks his dad did wrong, keeping him a mere Congressman. And to prove he’s smarter and master that whole Oedipus thingy.
arguingwithsignposts
I guess Ron is a maker and we are all takers. whatever. He’s still a dick, and would destroy everything progressives hold dear if he had a chance. He’s a nicer Tom Coburn. And for that, I want nothing to do with him.
arguingwithsignposts
@Ella in New Mexico:
I am sorry but I cannot agree with this at all.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico:
I was just a 1980s middle-class kid who was a good student, etc.; I went to a liberal arts college that is quite similar to Gettysburg. I wasn’t privileged compared to the son of the number 2 guy at Citibank who was the president of my fraternity when I joined nor was I privileged compared to the daughter of the owner of an NHL team who dated one of my best friends, but those were the people with whom I lived and socialized. My college, in addition to its main campus, owns a thousand acre or so chunk of Door County, WI with a huge lodge that it used for science and ecological education, as well as continuing ed. vacations for alumni. It also leases its own facility in London and runs a continuous program there. Compared to kids working their way through community college and a state school, I was as privileged as can be.
Violet
@arguingwithsignposts:
So if the poor, underprivileged kid gets a scholarship to Duke, or even somewhere more privileged like Harvard, should they not take it? Would you accuse them of being privileged just because they were smart, worked very hard, and were lucky enough to get the scholarship and acceptance to the impressive university? Or is it just the privilege of going there that you are talking about? Unless we know how Ron Paul got to go to go to Duke it seems a bit wrong to somehow decide that he got a free ride from his rich family, if that is indeed what you are implying.
@Ella in New Mexico:
Totally agree. Rand Paul seems like an insecure, not-that-bright d-bag with Daddy issues. Ron Paul has principles and follows them. Even when I strenuously disagree with those principles I can respect that he chooses to follow his.
Suffern ACE
@Poopyman: I think she was very involved with the Marx brothers.
arguingwithsignposts
@Violet:
Which is the problem there. I’m not implying that at all. but Ron Paul wasn’t your “poor underprivileged kid.”
Ija
@Violet:
But has he been anything but a lock step Republican when it comes to votes in the Senate? I don’t really remember him bucking the party when it comes to voting. He talks a good talk, but is he voting according to his speeches?
Ija
@Ija:
Sorry, not Senate. I’m an idiot.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ija: Edited to remove unnecessarily dickish and pedantic comment.
Ella in New Mexico
@arguingwithsignposts:
You’re right, of course. Some would argue that the mere blessing of being born into the world with an IQ one standard deviation or more above the mean could be considered “privileged”.
But then, that would make you, me and most of the other folks here at BJ frigging aristocracy. ;-)
As for expending energy hatin’ on Ron Paul, really, save it for Inohofe, Coburn and McConnell. And Michelle Bachmann–really save it for her. Oh and that asshat Attorney General in Virginia that thinks he’s gonna sue the entire world back to 1860.
Ija
Why am I replying to myself? Duh. I’m too conflicted about Ron Paul to have anything intelligent to say, really. I’ll shut up now.
Punchy
Bernie Madoff’s kid just offed himself. Can’t figure out if this makes me sad or not.
Violet
@Omnes Omnibus:
And compared to kids who can’t even afford to go to community college or a state school because they have to work to take care of their family, those community college/state school kids are privileged. And compared to some kid growing up in a favela in Rio or a slum in Nairobi, pretty much most kids in the US are privileged. In fact, most of us here in the US are privileged compared to the majority of the rest of the world.
I’m trying to look at it in the context of the US in the era in which Ron Paul was born. He started off way better than a lot of kids because he was born white, had a solid family and the family had an income. But his family seems to have been kind of an average middle class family. They worked, he worked. He wasn’t born rich with tons of family connections, as far as I can tell.
Violet
@arguingwithsignposts:
But neither was he a rich, well-connected kid with a family who could buy him a spot at Yale. He’s somewhere in the middle. So…a middle class kid. Does that make him privileged? To me that makes him kind of average.
Michael D.
@arguingwithsignposts:
Wow. You have a very broad definition of privilege. It now includes, “anyone who works hard enough to buy a business that makes me envious of them.”
My neighbor makes a very decent living in her business selling natural dog food. That makes here a privileged asshole?
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico: Two comments. First, compared to a lot of people in the country, most of us commenting here are in the upper echelons of the country in many ways. Some in more ways than others. Second, hating on Ron Paul is happening in this thread because the thread is directly related to him. Hating on the others you mentioned is an equally worthy use of time. Give us a thread on them and watch what happens.
Kryptik
On a Semi-OT note here….Bernie Goldberg decides it’s high time that we make a monument honoring the rich, perhaps a giant bronze statue of a man in a suit holding hundred dollar bills to the sky.
I could not make this up if I wanted to, this is what he literally advocates.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@mad the swine: Sheep! Lapdog! Statist! …
Hold on, let me look through my Big Book of Anarchist and Libertarian Insults. It even has pictures! Aha! Bootlicker!
pat
Whatever Ron Paul’s background, etc., let’s not concentrate so hard on the messenger that we ignore the message.
I think that the questions he raised are important to talk about, regardless of how you ultimately answer them.
I wish some of that speech had been given by someone else more to my political liking, but that’s no grounds for me to attack the speaker and ignore the substance.
Violet
@Ija:
I know you meant in the House. He does sometimes. He was one of only six Republicans to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, for instance.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Michael D.: No, but it stills make them privileged next to a good chunk of your fellow Americans.
Hell, I’m white, comfortable, and son of a working-class family, and even I know I’m privileged.
arguingwithsignposts
@Michael D.:
If she’s a Randian who spent the last 30+ years in Congress living off the public teet, yes.
Michael D.
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: There is a difference between “successful” or “self-made” and “privileged.”
Violet
@pat:
Exactly. It’s like when the stupid MSM gets caught up in the political horse race or the latest shiny object dangled in front of them. So Ron Paul gave the speech and you don’t like him. At least he said it. Not many are. He made a lot of good points. Let’s talk about those.
D. Mason
@Michael D.:
Look Michael, You just don’t get it man. Ron Paul is an ELECTED REPUBLICAN who went to DUKE. Of course he is a child of privilege who has looked down his nose at others before he could even say his name. The Man’s a doctor for fucks sake, how does it get any more elite than that ? Why can’t you people understand that being a child of privilege has nothing to do with the actual amount of privileges you had growing up, only that you were a child and are now a
Republicannot Democrat. It’s really just simple math.arguingwithsignposts
@Omnes Omnibus:
I could be down with a hate on Bachmann, Inhofe, Coburn, etc. thread.
SiubhanDuinne
@mad the swine #18:
That may or may not be the case, but it’s irrelevant. There’s not one of the questions Ron Paul posed, according to the transcript at the link mistermix provided (I’m not able to watch the clip), that isn’t appropropriate and important to be asked. I’m glad someone in Congress is asking them, even if his and Assange’s motives or preferred answers don’t align perfectly with mine.
I’m not defending Ron Paul in general. I mostly don’t like him or his politics. But if I had read that list of questions without knowing who posed them, I would have said “Right on!” and pumped my fist. Yeah, it would have been nice if someone in the House or Senate from our side of the aisle had got there first (or too) but that seems not to be the case.
Omnes Omnibus
@arguingwithsignposts: It would probably be a good thing after all the circular firing squad, obot v. firebagger crap that has been going around.
arguingwithsignposts
@D. Mason:
The man’s an idiot who happens to be right on occasion. Doesn’t mean I have to love him. His political philosophy would destroy progressivism. What’s so hard to get about that? He’s no better in that respect than Grover Norquist.
Omnes Omnibus
@D. Mason: Ah yes, someone incapable of reading comprehension. How nice of you to drop by this morning.
ETA a preposition
SiubhanDuinne
At the risk of being flamed, I would add that Bob Barr is another libertarian in the Ron Paul mode who is (IMO) wrong on a metric shit ton of issues, but absolutely right on First Amendment and civil liberties issues.
arguingwithsignposts
@SiubhanDuinne:
Splitter!
Omnes Omnibus
@Omnes Omnibus: FYWP you giant fucking asshole. I try to edit my fucking comment because, of course, when I snark at someone about reading comprehension, I have a typo. The fucking edit function announces that it is saving my edit with 2 minutes and 25 seconds remaining in the allowed edit time. The clock rolls to zero; the edit is not saved. WP, you are an ass.
Svensker
@Violet:
He argued against torture, against spying on American citizens, and for closing Guantanamo. He also voted against the Patriot Act. There’s a reason he and Kucinich frequently find themselves on the same side and acting together.
Svensker
@SiubhanDuinne:
Yes and you bet.
pat
I’ll follow my own suggestion, and talk about a couple of Paul’s questions:
Who, if anyone, should be prosecuted in this case? Should the newspapers who printed the cables be charged along with Wikileaks? Same role, different media, IMHO). What about First Amendment rights?
How did a private get access to all of these cables? Is our government doing a good enough job of protecting (and classifying) secret information?
John S.
Ron Paul loves anything that lets him point a finger at the Joos. Like a stopped clock, he is correct every so often. But like WyldPirate, he gets no props for accidentally getting it right when he starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards from it.
SiubhanDuinne
@arguingwithsignposts:
Call me a splitter, will you? Okay, bub, that’s gonna cost you big time. You can pay me in Lady Smudge pictures (because I *know* she’s on my side here).
Ella in New Mexico
@D. Mason:
You obviously don’t know the doctors I work with. They’re pretty much broke, exhausted, caffeine addicts who never see their families and have lab values off the charts for physiological stress. Maybe their car or house or bank account is better than mine, but I promise, they use their brains and bodies to work, and work HARD, for a living. That is not “elite.”
El Cid
@Kryptik:
I guess them having their own skyscrapers doesn’t count.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico:
What, in your definition, is elite? My guess is you are defining it far more narrowly than most people here.
arguingwithsignposts
@SiubhanDuinne:
She seems nonplussed. :)
arguingwithsignposts
@Ella in New Mexico: maybe they should run for congress.
Ella in New Mexico
@Omnes Omnibus:
“Elite”, IMHO, should be a term reserved for those who had doors opened to them that most do not, do not have to work to pay their bills, who, in general, “play” for a living (in other words, what they do is easy, fun and self-gratifying, whether they are paid or not), and who are (or have become) so far detached from the real day-to-day of normal human life that they literally are “above it all”, legally, financially and personally–and in general hold a level of disdain for those not in their circle.
So, yes, I probably have a more sharply drawn line in regards to who I see as elite.
arguingwithsignposts
@Ella in New Mexico:
I’m guessing Ron Paul is in the 2% of top earners atm, in part thanks to his congressional salary. Not sure what his parents made back in the day.
ETA: “in general hold a level of disdain for those not in their circle.” Did I mention that Ron Paul is a Randroid?
Violet
@pat:
I think the person who took the cables should probably be prosecuted because he broke laws. The newspapers and Wikileaks, imho, should not be prosecuted. The First Amendment is tenuous enough as it is. Prosecuting them for exercising it is just wrong and sets a terrifying precedent for freedom of speech. Or non-freedom.
The weak leak is always in the “who has access” area. I’ve seen a couple of security experts express astonishment that there doesn’t seem to be any sort of sign-in/sign-out procedure when accessing secret information so that there is a record of who has handled it. That seems like a reasonable fix right there. And excessively stupid that it isn’t in place already.
I’ve got mixed feelings on Assange and Wikileaks. On the one hand I like that they’re showing us what our government is doing in our names and I’m kind of anti-authoritarian by nature so things along those lines kind of make me happy. On the other hand I get that complete exposure of our diplomatic communications can put our government in a very difficult place when trying to work in the global community. So I’m not sure that the leaks are necessarily a good thing.
I do think in the long run governments may be forced to be more transparent, which I think can only be for the good. However, they are not set up to work that way. That means there could likely be a very challenging period where the governments have to shift or the internet is clamped down upon very hard. Either of those will produce big challenges and anger and we could be in for some very interesting and possibly difficult times.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico: By that definition, few in Congress would qualify. Lawyers, doctors, and (most) bankers would not qualify. You are talking about hedge fundies, upper level I-bankers, and the inheritors of large fortunes only. I think that your definition is unduly narrow.
SiubhanDuinne
O/T special envoy Richard Holbrooke is in critical condition following aortal surgery.
Ella in New Mexico
@Omnes Omnibus:
“Elite”, IMHO, should be a term reserved for those who do not have to work to pay their bills, who, in general, “play” for a living (in other words, what they do is easy, fun and self-gratifying (whether they are paid or not), and who are (or have become) so far detached from the real day-to-day of normal human life that they literally are “above it all”, legally, financially and personally–and in general hold a level of disdain for those not in their circle.
So, yes, I probably have a more sharply drawn line in regards to who I see as elite.
@arguingwithsignposts:
Actually, one of them did in the last election (for state house) and won, and although he is a Republican, I actually like the guy. He’s open about the fact that he made a lot of personal mistakes as a recovering alcoholic, he treats his patient’s with compassion and respect, regardless of their ability to pay, and he devotes his free time to his wife, kids and church. His parents were PWT from Texas, too. Go figure as to why he’s an R other than the business aspect (he’s got a pretty successful practice he built on his own).
Omnes Omnibus
@Violet: I think you have it about right.
SiubhanDuinne
@aws: Nonplussed? I think she looks plussed as all get out.
(Thanks.)
Omnes Omnibus
@SiubhanDuinne: The blog is clearly filled to the brim with cat obsessed freaks. I mean this in the nicest possible way.
burnspbesq
Ron Paul has never been right about anything. Missing the point about Julian Assange doesn’t change that.
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq: I tend to agree with this. Even when he gets to the correct answer, it is often as a result of messed up principles. If he is an ally on an issue, I would always want to make sure that he is not defining the terms of the debate; if he does, it may not go where one wants.
Ella in New Mexico
@SiubhanDuinne:
Whoa, that’s really, really bad. The news states he got surgery for a “rupture” as opposed to a “dissection”—he’s in big health trouble if happened emergently.
arguingwithsignposts
@Ella in New Mexico:
not being pissy or anything, but what is a PWT?
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Punchy:
That’s very sad to hear. It would be much better if the Masters of the Universe who created the economic mess we are in would have the honor to do the same to themselves.
Of course, they have no honor. They’re crooks.
Ella in New Mexico
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well, no, not necessarily. The minute their financial freedom or power or access allows them to live in a world of entitled detachment from the rest of us, they become elite, again IMHO.
Oh, lets get off this very serious track and talk about pets. Kitteys and puppies and rabbits rule!!!! :-)
Ella in New Mexico
@arguingwithsignposts:
Poor White Trash
(which–after talking to him about it one day I decided probably made him the alcoholic–dealing with their dysfunctions would’a made ME a drunk…)
Omnes Omnibus
@Ella in New Mexico: By that definition, Ron Paul qualifies. I am dog person.
arguingwithsignposts
@Omnes Omnibus:
Splitter!
mclaren
Ron Paul is still a wack job. The guy denies evolution, he advocates abolishing the IRS, he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve bank…do I need to go on?
Wow. Just imagine what things would be like if, during the financial meltdown of 2008, there were no Federal Reserve to act as lender of last resort. That’s Ron Paul’s idea of a great way to run the economy.
For every sensible word that comes out of Ron Paul’s mouth two bizarre claims spew out. Intelligent design, young earth, abortion made illegal again, no government action to counteract depressions, he opposes federal regulation of the markets, and he even opposes FDIC deposit insurance for banks and the SEC to prevent fraud in the stock market… I mean, seriously.
C’mon, people.
Seriously.
SiubhanDuinne
@omnes omnibus
:: pssst! Hey, omom, you can get a picture of Lady Smudge out of aws if you play yer cards right ::
DPirate
Ron Paul is one of the best we’ve got. This appointment (?) is what he was made for, and now we’ll see just what he’s made of. This makes me somewhat optimistic. I’m amazed.
arguingwithsignposts
@Ella in New Mexico:
Thank you for the explanation. my mom worked in health care with a bunch of cardiologists, fwiw. most were assholes, but there were a few who weren’t. I hope you don’t think i was painting all M.D.s with a single brush.
eemom
@John S.:
you know, I think you’re on to something there.
What this blog needs is a “Broken Clocks” tag. Or I guess “Stopped Clocks,” if ya wanna get technical.
SiubhanDuinne
O/T again but does anyone know whether the memorial service for Elizabeth Edwards is being televised? I’m not finding it and thought it was supposed to begin at 11:30 EST.
arguingwithsignposts
@SiubhanDuinne: I had heard it was 1 or so EST.
bemused
@Kryptik:
Hideous. If I read that without any identifying info, I’d think it was the Onion or Andy Borowitz. The comments are beyond belief. “Why are you poor? This is America and you don’t have to be if you choose not to be”.
During the evolution of humans, something went terribly wrong somewhere along the line.
Ella in New Mexico
@mclaren:
Ok, I give up.
RON PAUL IS A KNUCKLE DRAGGING, CLIMATE CHANGE DENYING, ANTI-CHOICE UBER-LIBERTARIAN LOONEY TOON!
Just can’t define him as elitist. ;-)
Roy G
@Violet
This is a seemingly common sense argument, and i’m not trying to pick on you, but ‘work with the global community’ is just so pollyanna-ish that I have to comment. Looking at what has been leaked so far, we can see that ‘work with the global community’ involves, for example, interfering with the sovereignty of Spain by coercing them into not prosecuting BushCo officials for war crimes.
This is the ‘common sense’ fallacy, and its what a lot of Americans are biting on to oppose WikiLeaks. In fact, diplomacy does not require wholesale secrecy, and the US govt has abused its privilege in classifying documents.
Contra anybody who wants to make this argument, I’d point to Steve Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard, and a leading foreign policy realist; he argues that the secrecy is excessive, and that, as a practical matter, there are very few things that need to be kept secret. He correctly hits the nail on the head when he says that a more transparent system would be beneficial, because less dirty deals would get done in the dark, for fear of being exposed.
SiubhanDuinne
@aws: Oh, thanks. Like Rick, who went to Casablanca for the waters, I was misinformed.
Omnes Omnibus
@Roy G: Common sense isn’t a fallacy; it’s a myth.
AhabTRuler
@Roy G: Yeah, but everyone knows that Walt is an anti-Semite.
</hasbara>
Roy G
@Omnes Omnibus – word. And it’s Groundhog Day again.
Here’s another example of US secret diplomacy: WikiLeaks revealed that, in Lebanon, the Chrisitian Minister of Defense, Elias Murr, told US officials that the Lebanese Army would stand down if Israel attacked only the Hizbullah areas of Lebanon. Obviously, he thought he was playing private politics, but in reality, he was acting as a traitor towards his country. The Lebanese are understandably outraged at this double-dealing.
Here, in contrast, is the official US government characterization:
Feltman and his crew of dirty tricks diplomats are being exposed, and it couldn’t happen to a better bunch of scumbags. They have been acting for years to destabilize Lebanon, so they can subvert its government to their ends. A violation of international law, according to the ‘quaint’ UN.
This is in our name, people; do you really think it’s in ‘our’ best interests? Or is it better to just keep our Two Monkeys approach to the world? (See No Evil and Hear No Evil)
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
Hmm.
Uh huh.
I ain’t making this shit up:
In order to protect the system. Get it? Hee hee.
I could go on and on. The point is, this man is a gddammed lunatic when it comes to general policy and a model of government. This country cannot be what it is, and needs to be, under the policies advocated by this man. He is literally a crazy outlier.
So yeah, let’s SING HIS FUCKING PRAISES FOR MAKING A COOL SPEECH.
Quotes are all from Wikipedia.
sukabi
@DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: as bugfuck as he is on most everything, if he can pry open the lid on the Fed and their activities over the last several years he’ll be doing the country a great service… who knows, maybe we’ll get some coherent fiscal reforms that don’t all benefit the uberwealthy.
SectarianSofa
Paul is not just a goldbug, he’s bug-fuck-crazy. Even an squorked cuckoo clock sounds right twice or more daily if you just listen for the squawks. Yes, in comparison to his republican fellow-caucuseers, he does sound eloquent and inspired. He’s got the courage of his crazy.
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
@sukabi:
He will do the country a great service by retiring from politics and becoming a pundit, or professor, where he can proselytize and charm the easily fooled.
Meanwhile we need people who understand the realities of the country and the world running our government. The Paul duo now on the Hill is just part of the busload of crazy trying to fuck everything up.
SectarianSofa
@Violet:
Agreed on this.
Triassic Sands
So, it’s possible for a lunatic to be right about something.
If Paul spoke for 6 hours on a variety of topics, this might be the only rational five minutes in that entire time.
Triassic Sands
PS Given another 18 hours, it’s possible Paul might come up with another five minutes of sanity…but I wouldn’t bet on it.
PeakVT
Leaving the source aside, it was a good speech. I’d like some answers to Paul’s questions. (Breath, not holding, yadda, yadda.)
bluemeanies
Ron Paul is the very image of a 1920’s isolationist, pro-capital Republican. Him and Henry Cabot Lodge might have gotten along just fine (Lodge was the major anti-Versailles, League of nations Senator vs Wilson correct?). He is a living fossil like a coelacanth.
If you are a peacenik, civil libertarian Democrat you appreciate that there are others out there who are against the chickenhawks and pro-torture executive branch fetishists that dominate the right, such as when the 2008 Republican presidential nomination debates had him as the anti-torture, blowback recognizing voice of sanity as opposed to the ‘more, more torture’, ‘bomb Iran’ insanity around him.
If you are a union, trust-busting Democrat with Keynesian instincts, who appreciates the accomplishments of Teddy Roosevelt (let alone the accomplishments of FDR or Lyndon Johnson), he is a batshit menace to society.
If you are an oldfashioned anti-factionite who doesn’t like lockstep political parties, his idiosychronous approach vs the normal Republican Borg is refreshing even when in service to the batshit.
He is truly one of a kind, and gets a schizophrenic responce from the left, and thats fine.
bluemeanies
And yes, if I had to give him a committee I’d put him somewhere where he can go over the defence budget or CIA operations with a fine toothed comb. Monetary policy is just a scary place for him.
DPirate
I don’t think he is loony, but I also don’t know exactly what he sees. One thing I do believe is that he has principles and acts accordingly, hence he has character, as opposed to just being a character, of which we have way too many.
Nic108
Corporate Dems are a committed to murderous empire, endless wars and creeping police statism as corporate Repubs are. Paul is one of the few elected pols to challenge the Borg and that makes him honorable.
henqiguai
@SiubhanDuinne (#97):
Yeah, but way way too late to view live, it was being carried on C-SPAN. Can probably view a replay on C-SPAN 1.
Nic108 #117 Seriously, that level of stupid can be fatal.
Andrew
@Ija:
Actually, yes, he’s often the only dissenting vote out of the Republicans.