EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ron Paul, Tea Party Godfather, Says ‘Occupy’ All About ‘Handouts'
CARROLL, Iowa -- Ron Paul outlined what he believed was the difference between “Occupy Wall Street” and the “Tea Party.”
Rightwinger Ron Paul on the Occupy Wall Street protesters: "They’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts." “Some are demonstrating, because they’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts,” Paul said yesterday. “And the other half are demonstrating, because they’re sick and tired of paying for it. I’m on the side of sick and tired of paying for it.”
Paul's popularity has risen since 2008 largely because of the Tea Party. He doesn't lead in polling in any state, but he is routinely in the top three in states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
277 Comments so far
Show AllI hope this finally shuts up those incredibly misguided, infantile "leftists for Ron Paul".
Ron Paul's popularity is testament to how much worse the other Dims and GOP candidates are by comparison.
At least Paul is anti-war and questions the value of the Federal Reserve.
The problem with his Fed Reserve ideas is that he simply replaces the Fed cartel with another private corporate run monetary cartel - RP does not trust the American People to run their own monetary policy.
Because I oppose war, and oppose Israel's control of US foreign policy, and oppose unConstitutional processes and destruction of rule-of-law in the USA, for those reasons I sometimes like Ron Paul. As a Congressman, he has to file a disclosure statement of his investments. They are all in precious metals companies - gold mines. So, to your question? Ron Paul does not invest in the 63 militarism companies you list.
To be fair to Paul, a lot of gold mining does not involve slaves. It involves toxic chemicals dumped into rivers. And a lot of gold doesn't go into military hardware, it goes into trinkets for the 1%. ;)
Pretty smart investment, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gold_price_in_USD.png
"And you are probably a rich-man who rather likes the Capitalist system, aren't you Mr. DelCamino?"
pjd412: ......Are you familiar with Martin Armstrong, Doug Casey, Jim Rickards, Chris Martenson and many others who understand global monetary policy better than most of us? ......If not, you might want to hear their arguments for owning some physical gold.
I don't know where you get your information from pal. I think it's terrible misguided. Can you show ANY proof of your claim that he is FOR war (other than for national defense), and invests in any of these companies?
And you are probably a rich-man who rather likes the Capitalist system, aren't you Mr. DelCamino?
Don't know how you drew those conclusions from Ray's comment. It's just testament to how far beyond scraping bottom the 2 parties are that individuals would consider supporting Paul.
I worked for Gravel last election cycle. Any attempts at uniting the outsider candidates (Kucinich, Gravel, Paul) were shot down by the sheer arrogance, ignorance, and naivete of the Paul folks. As I said then, Paul is good on half the issues (not necessarily for the right logic), and severely deranged on the rest. Though that 50/50 ratio is probably off. Civil Liberties, War, and the Monetary System. But again, the logic that informs Paul on these positions is not something I would trust beyond a bullet-pointed policy position..
Civil liberties do not exist in a truly 'free market' just as ron pauls son has argued - a free market to these guys means the right to discriminate against anyone you care to -
Money and Property trump People - hence RP wold strengthen Predator Corporations - the only recourse you would have is the Court system - but then RP limits fines and penalties in the name of Tort Reform -
RP would also limit Class Action lawsuits and Monetary damages - all of which end up creating a Court System of, by and for the Wealthy only.
Hence RP is a danger to Civil Liberties and people's rights to limit CorporatenPowers over our lives.
Meaning in the final analysis Ron Paul is nothing more than a Fascist.
The truth hurts RP fans.
Well stated. The devil's in the details.
Thanks for spelling that out. Exactly. To Paul, Property Rights trump Human Rights. Like I said, his logic is verrry twisted.
Although I do appreciate the posters who let readers know the details of Paul's War and Fed positions, thanks for clarifying the purpose of my post, Peace Czar.
Anybody who has followed my CD posts for the past decade knows that I promote and vote extreme left in hope that the US may get back to the center since it has gone so far to the right.
If Dr. Paul is so concerned about "handouts" he should be focusing on corporations that pay no tax yet get corporate welfare handouts in amounts millions of times greater than the "handouts" that us working folk allegedly were entitled to after funding our "handouts" and corporate welfare for 40 to 50 years of our lives.
Right. All class action suits do is transfer wealth from corporations to lawyers. Have you ever seen the amount that the plaintiffs actually receive in a class action suit? Usually pennies... or a coupon good for another one of whatever they were injured by. The only people who benefit from class action suits are the lawyers who bring them.
Yes, but absent an activist government, class action and other citizen's litigation still provides the only mechanism in the USA for punishing corporate malfeasance. And something makes me think that Ron Paul is unlikely to propose tough new regulations on dangerous corporate behavior in place of restricting litigation by citizens against corporations.
Well not always. Depends on the size of the class and the amount of damage done.
They also have a deterence effect on bad corporate behavior because they effect the bottom line.
Class Action suits, for whatever flaws, are one of the few progressive elements of the tort system.
Do a search for Ron Paul and the John Birch Society, and it will tell you all you need to know
"At least Mussolini made the trains run on time...". Vote Green if you don't like the Dims and GOP.
Paul's position on war is isolationism. Is this what you call an intelligent view of the modern world?
Just the fact that so many jump on the Paul bandwagon without any serious or in depth study of exactly how harmful a Paul Presidency and Libertarian ideas and ideals are to this nation makes his candidacy so dangerous.
And the ideas of other parties and candidates are sound and just? I have no candidate and any candidate that doesn't support OWS and understand the what the people are trying to tell the government....well....adios amigos. I refuse to vote for them. Which probably leaves me with no candidate to vote for, given all the other policy disagreements I have across the board with the whole blamed bunch of govies in Washington.
check out:
www.jillstein.org
If you do not exercise your rights and obligations as a citizen, and that includes voting, then you not only give more weight to the votes of those you claim you oppose, but also have no right to complain about the results of election in which you refuse to participate.
Amen! As if substituting the 21st century Scrooge for the latest pseudo-warrior would make matters better for the 99%...
Then the same voices in favor of Ron Paul will turn around and say it's the voters fault that WE get whom we get as prez. Sure.
Political Fantasy Land 101.... (its motive: Blame the victims for a choice pool unnaturally limited by the contours of big $ and big militarism!)
Alright, I'll concede. I had high hopes for him in terms of pushing for an end to the wars AND the Imperial foreign policy, which I still think are the number one issue. So yeah, I will no longer have such hopes, and he has lost any respect I once had for him.
_____________________________________________________________-
However, what I said - which some people here didnt seem to "hear" for some reason, is that I was considering voting for him in the Republican primary as a way of forcing an anti-imperial, anti-war, anti-drugwar national conversation. In other words, it was a tactical move. I NEVER said I would vote for him in the general election.
______________________________________________________________
Also, a point I have made to you is that monetary reform is also a progressive issue with progressive solutions. I think the Fed should be nationalized, with the government issuing debt-free currency, state banks like the one in N Dakota should be encouraged and I am in favor of the creation of local currencies.
_____________________________________________________________
Hey, I'd LOVE to see Kucinich back total marijuana decriminalization and the legalization of industrial hemp. Paul has also protested the government interference with our right to buy health foods. If progressives cede these issues to libertarians, dont blame me. So I will remember that you called me "infantile", but I will forgive you because I see no point in getting into an argument. Excuse me for at least trying to think outside the box. Just like Kucinich and Nader.
KITAJ: Did I call YOU infantile? I may have made a general reference to Ron Paul supporters in sum. I applaud anyone with the courage to change their mind when faced with evidence warranting the need to do so. And I certainly honored one of your recent posts that I thought was marvelous. (I can't recall the thread, but the topic related to the requirement for mankind's collective consciousness to transcend its current niche.) Ultimately, MANY of us would like to see an end to the make-war state, principled candidates given air time, an end to the criminalization of recreational/medical marijuana use, and STATE banks, as opposed to an entity as infinitely corrupt as the Fed. One great thing about the OWS movement is that some of these issues which heretofore remained UNDER the radar, are emerging into public view... and dialog. Too bad the media always finds ways to frame truth as an inconvenience best avoided, lest one wish to spoil their day.
SR, I posted under and was replying to pjd412. I think his use of the term "infantile" in this particular case is a total mischaracterization. As I explain below, again under pjd412. Also further below, is a continuation of the post you reference.
I didn't call you infantile. I called the ideas of a leftist supporting Ron Paul infantile. Don't take it personally.
And again, I think youre wrong, there was nothing "infantile" about it. It was an attempt to draw attention to the ONLY visible national candidate who was anti-imperialist. I also reject the idea that morality had nothing to do with his stance.
__________________________________________________________
Listen, it comes down to this. Big Business and Big Government are a partnership. The difference between progressives and libertarians is that progressives - and I am in this camp - believe Big Business is the SENIOR partner and libertarians believe the opposite.
______________________________________________________________
For example, libertarians are opposed to regulation BECAUSE then the regulator is open to REGULATORY CAPTURE by special interests, INCLUDING CORPORATIONS, not because they are evil people who hate working people (most libertarians work). Libertarians therefore believe that if there was no Big Government to "capture" then there wouldnt be any CRONY CAPITALISM. I disagree on the grounds that the plutocracy would find a way to create the government that they want, or any other means of achieving their domination. So disagree with the libertarians if you want to - I do - but it behooves you and others to at least present their position accurately minus the demonization.
_____________________________________________________________
The same misreading of history forces almost all libertarians to believe the gold standard is the solution to the monetary problem, whereas, if you consult Ellen Brown and Bill Still, you will see an opposite reading of history that - to me - yields the correct solution.
______________________________________________________________
I repeat, if you dont change the monetary system, you change nothing. We have a monetary system that generates INFINITE DEBT. It is this factor that creates need for an Infinte Growth Paradigm, and on a finite planet, this is disasterous. And yes, dude, the Federal Reseve System IS a system of perpetual debt slavery, and I am not going to continue to discuss this with you or anyone else if you arent going to at least take the time to check out the PROGRESSIVE analysis of this. It is a moral and spiritual issue also, because it is so destructive of human culture. You seem forget that the whole issue of usury and who benefits is one of the main debates of civilization, going on now for thousands of years.
You make a lot of good sense.
Thanks.
Agreed. Thanks Kitaj.
It seems to me you all are spilling a lot of ink over an article so brief as to be purposefully misleading, whose real intention is divide-and-conquer. That is, prevent those of the right and left from making common cause on such extremely important subjects as the neverending wars and the role of finance in them and in the destruction of our economy. That way no one will ever unite against the MIC/Wall Street duopoly. I consider myself a far-leftist and I would definitely vote for Ron Paul over Obama.
This article is simply part of the ongoing MSM campaign to smear and minimize Paul, and all you CD lefty liberals have fallen into the trap without a second thought.
You are free to call yourself whatever you wish. Anyone who would vote for Ron Paul is certainly not a "far-leftist", though he/she may be "far out" in space politically speaking.
Who you trying to kid?
Are you saying you would vote for Obama? And why didn't you respond to the other points made in Chicklets' post?
OMG, clovis, is two and two now five? My critique of libertarian politics and Paul in particular translates in your mind to support for Obama?
What can one say to such crap? Why only what I have already noted. Please return after you have given some real thought to things.
Oh one thing further...what points did that poster make other than the subliminal one that he/she is no leftist?
These mean-spirited and misguided comments by Ron Paul help to explain why his son turned out to be such an asshole.
Yes!
I've looked at RP with a jaundiced eye ever since his son came on the scene. How could a supposed mensch raise such an asshole? Hint: fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
Are there leftists for Ron Paul? Goodness.
Even Republicans think this guy is nutty. He makes your average Libertarian look like an Anarchist.
Surely pjd412 is wrong, No one but the extreme right could think this guy would be good for the country? The extremes are disasters for the country when they gain control, left or right.
We've had a few far rightwingers but never a far leftwinger. So i'm not sure how you can know a far leftwinger wold be bad for America.
Simply because historically every time an extreme sector gains power in a country it has been a disaster.
Most Americans would say a Christian based government would be OK, but how many would like the Inquisition or Cromwell's England. Democracy is usually good, but look what happened when the French got rid of their King. When the Russians got rid of the Tsar. And on and on. I would no more want the far left in control than the Limburgers of the world.
How does "Pay you Bills and die, Custer." gel in your mind with "It's always best to forgive."?
Beyond anything else, shouldn't you have forgiven the actual Custer by now? ;)
So you aren't going to answer the question then?
Well then, here's another one:
Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
'Cause it seems like you don't. ;)
"Was I doing something "Wrong" according to You and Custer, or anyone else here by living with a Hopi family on their Rez, and enjoying life with the Hopi people in general?"
Yes.
Yes you were.
That was exactly my point.
I am against people "living with a Hopi family on their Rez", and I am especially against anyone "enjoying life with the Hopi people in general.".
Can't stand it.
Clever of you to catch that in my post wondering if you read the posts you respond to because you always veer way away from them and often fail to respond to them directly at all. ;)
Me thinks ShadowDancer smoked that peace-pipe one too many times.
And yes, I pay ALL my bills, and I WILL die. But that isn't anyone's business on here but mine and it also moot to any point about the USA, politics and govt... but you knew that already.
ShadowDancer,
Here, Here!!! I so totally agree with you. I've been saying this for years. "In the last days, even the very elect shall be deceived."
Every time you post I come away with clear notions and the clear rhythmic closing: Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive.....I've lost count of how many times a smile has arisen. Thanks, always, for this.
And conditions were just hunky-dory under the Louis XIV to XVI? I'd say that the far more poor people were saved from dying of starvation by the French Revolution than rich people died because if it.
And the average poor Russian was vastly better off after 1917 than under the war-mongering feudal Czar. Don't blame the Bolshevics in the fall of 1917 for Stalin.
Your account of history is the one of the wealthy elites.
But I agree that Cromwell's England was bad (especially for the down-trodden Irish), but few of those head-slicing, drawing and quartering kings and queens of jolly old England were very admirable either.
Thanks for saving me the trouble on that one, Superficial and negative analyses of the legacy of the French and Russian revolutions have been making the rounds here on CD.
It should also be noted that the French cherish their revolutionary heritage and in no way see it as a negative event.
It seems that when the chips are down some posters here don't trust the People and fear revolution.
Lenin and the Central Executive Committee weren't exactly nice guys, themselves. ;)
And "October 1917" was more coup d'etat than the popular Revolution shown in the films.
Folks across the board suffered a bad time in 1918-1921 for defying the Bolsheviks hold on power during the Civil War. And the proto-KGB NKVD was active by 1918 as well.
I give the Bolsheviks as a whole about 50% responsibility for Stalin's reign. They set up the conditions and he was one of them.
But the Bolsheviks must be given credit for stopping the war at least. The hugeness of that for the average Russian of the time may be a bit hard for USAns today to grasp.