Given what's going on these days, I have to revise my previous answer and note that Paul's views are now ordinary and pedestrian if you're a raving wingnut. Odd times we live in, no?
I believe the word you're looking for is "irrelevant" not "fringe." He's labeled as crazy because he's not in the power structure simple as that. Paul's right about the majority of **** that he says but the entire point of being a politician isn't to weave polemics but to have chips in the system and get things done. Lyndon Johnson sat in Richard Russell's Southern Caucus for decades to get the chance to be President and pass Civil Rights reform. They think he's crazy because he doesn't compromise which is the most basic skill for politicians. If he wants to make speeches and point out (rightly) how everyone is hypocritical he should be a preacher or an activist. As a Congressman he'll always be irrelevant.
more from that fringe wacko ron paul... The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars - Essay by Ron Paul for August 2, 2010 Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration’s disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That’s why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal. Many are saying that the Wikileaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, immoral and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don’t even know about them. We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty. The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people – the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about. Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?...3&blogId=537826860&swapped=true#ixzz0ve7CCllN
once again, paul is spot on - to all those democrats who say ron paul is a racist...contrast his statements on islam and the mosque w/ some of your own leadership. http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20100820005843&newsLang=en Ron Paul: Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam “Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery? “It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.” “The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque. “Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.” “Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom? “In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it. “They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice. “The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems. “The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11. “Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction. “This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible. “There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred? “If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable. “The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer. “Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses. “Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam--the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. “It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty. “The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars. “The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam. “This is all about hate and Islamaphobia. “We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended. “Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.”
I really liked this one by Paul. I disagree with a lot of what he stands for, but I have to give him credit for speaking the truth about military matters.
ive seen many democrats say ron paul is racist...some in this very thread. personally, im not going out of my way to defend rand paul, but i will say that if he gets elected he would shake up the status quo and i think that would be a good thing.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might be the only people in Washington that are TRULY 100% interested in serving the people and upholding what's right, no matter what people are going to call them. I have mad respect for the two. Consistency and disregard for the public's approval of your opinions are beautiful things. Although I disgaree on a couple of issues with Dr. Paul, I still believe that what he believes the words he says and he genuinely thinks that they are for better of this country. Dr. Paul is a sincere, excellent human being. I <3 Dr. Paul.
more crazy-talk from that fringe wacko ron paul... http://www.digitalmeetingcenter.com/ron-pauls-shocking-message-to-the-tea-party/851883/ Ron Paul’s Shocking Message To The Tea Party August 28, 2010 at 6:30 pm. Ron Paul has some surprising news for the Tea Party: You’re being taken for a ride. At least this is what many libertarians like Ron Paul believe when they see someone like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin trying to lead the Tea Party at the “restoring honor” rally this weekend. In fact, Ron Paul believes, if you’re looking for real freedom, you should really go back to the core of the constitution and the bill of rights, which Beck and Palin do not fully endorse when you really look at their beliefs. Whether it be Palin’s support for starting more wars or Beck’s beliefs on paying the private Federal Reserve MORE interest on our money by means of a VAT tax. Ron Paul believes in neither of the above. Here was Ron Paul’s message to the Tea Party via The New York Times just the other day: “As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.” While the Tea Party will be out supporting Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin this weekend, you wonder how many of them will be in full support of more wars and paying more interest to a group of untouchable and unauditable private bankers otherwise known as the FED? This is precisely what Ron Paul is asking the American public to consider when looking at the Tea Party leaders and see if they really stand for what they believe in. Ron Paul believes the Tea Party is not about “left” or “right” like a lot of political pundits make it out to be. It’s about the constitution, and limited government.
That may be how it started, but that's certainly not what it's been about since Obama became President.
true - fox news and the neocons did a very effective job of hijacking and taking over the movement after obama got elected.
Stopped reading when you typed "Anarchism/Libertarianism." The fact that you put those two terms together like that shows a lack of understanding for either ideology. Anarchists do not want a government. Libertarians DO want a government, one that stays within the confines of its written Constitution (basically one that follows the laws). Two different ideologies that start with completely different bases.
I'm going to bet that I've read quite a bit more anarchist thought than you. If you think libertarians like government in any way, shape or form, you need to spend some more time reading the literature put out by some of the Texas Libertarian Party candidates for Railroad Commissioner, or Ag. Commissioner. They both hate governments. But libertarians somehow prevent their distrust of big government from spilling over into their pathological trust of big business, whom they appear to trust implicitly. Libertarians preserve their scorn more for trade unions and the like. Generally, you are correct that people come to those positions from different places. But in practical terms they are more alike than either group would ever admit. Ron Paul is absolutely as radical and impractical as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ever was.
seems to me like it is republicans and democrats who have a pathological trust of big business. they can run their companies into the ground and do it in a totally criminal and unethical manner and leaders of both parties will be there to bail them out - if that isnt implicit trust i dont know what is. if libertarians were running things the corporate welfare they enjoy under both parties would quickly dry up. and is it libertarians allowing goldman-sachs stooges and tax cheats to run our economy?
Ron Paul is considered fringe to anyone who's brain is fed by the media. Otherwise, he's a very principled, consistent dude.
The Tea Party was started by the libertarian/conservative Kock brothers and their organizations and grantees like Dick Armey. It was designed to use the confusion and suffering of those hurting in the recession to oppose Obama and to continue the status quo wrt to tax cuts and weakening regulations on wealthy and especailly business owners like the Kochs and Murdoch. It was never hijacked.
Blinded by the light, revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night Blinded by the light, revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night Blinded by the light, revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night
