Democrats are getting nervous!

[hard@work]

If Swanson is rebutting this early and trying scare tactics then they're getting very nervous about the disenfranchised dems leaving the party for the Paul camp!! This is really good news and a really good article to read about the up and coming attack tactics they will be using:

http://www.democrats.com/node/14167

[PennCustom4RP]

This article can cut both ways. Of course the author plays the the extremely liberal Democrat who wants to give amnesty, universal health care, basically give the country away, but it also can be read by the Moderate Democrat who is sick and tired of his/her country being given away. These are the Demos that will see the RP message and come to support him.
Interestingly he doesn't put in support for the mainstream Demos, Hillary, Obama or Edwards, he leans to Kicinich, and he doesn't equate RP to the rest of the GOP Bush followers.
If this is an often read Democrat site, he may have erred in this posting, as many Moderate Demos may realize that they are not really Democrats at all, but Libertarian or a Constitutional Republican as RP is. They will catch on, and defect.
To me this article makes David Swanson a sort of 'inside man', spreading the RP word on the Democrat front, whether he knows it or not.

[PennCustom4RP]

posting the text of the article so we can pick the paragraphs apart. My comments are in bold text

By David Swanson

If Ron Paul had been president for the past 6 years, a million more Iraqis would be alive, and another 4 million would not be refugees. The world would be a safer place, and Americans would have lost fewer freedoms.

+1 RP

But more Americans would lack decent health care. More American children would lack adequate education. More families in America would struggle in poverty. Immigrant families would face increased threats and abuse. Women would have lost rights. And a growing oligarchy would further dominate American politics, making reversal of any admirable Paul policies likely.

Swanson hasnt offered the RP solution for this issue to his readers, just trying to scare the extremely liberal Dem

Paul arrives at some admirable positions for some unexpected reasons. And his principles lead him to many reprehensible positions as well. He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.

+2 RP, this is the non interventionist position

Paul is brave enough to say what he thinks and stand by it. While there are Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee, who have that same quality, the Democratic Party as a whole has an established reputation of not standing and fighting for anything, and least of all peace.

+3 RP, Enough said

So, it's not completely surprising that a lot of opponents of the occupation of Iraq are looking to Paul as the best presidential candidate out there. Many Paul supporters really want peace and want it for the best reasons, but they detest the word "liberal" and loathe "big government." Others are not quite in that camp but consider the war such an overwhelmingly important issue that they don't much care what Paul's other positions are.

+4 RP

But Paul would end the occupation of Iraq and offer the Iraqi people not a dime to help rebuild the nation we've destroyed. In fact, he would cut the pittance we give in foreign aide around the world. But Paul has never, to my knowledge, said he would cut a single dollar from the biggest big government expense there is, much bigger than any war: the yearly budget of the Pentagon. And if he thinks he can keep funding that and NOT launch new wars, he hasn't thought about the workings of our government quite enough.

not true, RP continues with non interventionism and cuts in Defense will be because we are home in US, not policing the world



The rest of the article for you to chew through


So, a Paul government would be stingy, extravagant, war-prone despite itself, and in debt. Would Paul solve that problem be reinstating progressive taxation for the super wealthy and corporations? No, he'd cut taxes. Of course, taxes SHOULD be cut for most people. But unless they're raised for the wealthy and corporations, we will have even more debt (which Paul says he opposes) or we will have to make massive cuts in what's left of the non-military public sector. And that's exactly what Paul would like to see: "wasteful agencies" and "governments collecting foreign aid" are among his targets. Rather than increasing funding for public schools, his solution for education would be to cut more taxes (the thinking being that this would allow parents to teach their children at home). That works for parents who want to do that and don't have to work. But most parents don't want to do that and do have to work. And with a president Paul allowing the minimum wage to plummet, opposing living wage standards, and doing nothing to restore the right to unionize, parents' work hours would not be shrinking.

Of course parents who don't work, or don't work jobs with good benefits, tend to lack health insurance. Paul would offer these tens of millions of Americans and the even greater number with inadequate health insurance nothing more than a middle finger. Paul believes the greatest crisis in our health care is the imposition of vaccinations. Everything always comes back to his notion of personal "freedom," even if it's the freedom to die of a curable disease. The only solution that has been found to provide everyone decent health care – in fact it works in almost every industrialized nation in the world – would mean private medicine, allowing everyone to choose their own doctor, but would also mean replacing the health insurance companies with the government. This is the last thing Paul would ever stand for. Better that people suffer and die than that the government be involved in helping them.

Life would change dramatically for all Americans under this sort of right-wing rule, but much more so for immigrants. Paul would allow fewer legal immigrants, while denying any illegal immigrants a path to become citizens. An immigrant woman here without papers who was raped would be denied the right to an abortion. Her child, born in America, would be denied citizenship. Her family would be denied welfare, as well as health care, and education, not to mention any investment in public transportation. Undocumented workers would gain no workplace rights under a Paul government, and so the rights of all of us would continue to erode. In fact, immigrants would be scapegoated and associated with 9-11, and Paul's priority would be "securing borders."

Under a Paul administration there would be fewer immigrants for a good reason: he opposes the trade policies that destroy the economies of the nations they flee to come here. But Paul opposes those policies because they are international, not because they empower corporations and hurt workers. That's none of his concern. He's a "property rights" man, even if it's at the expense of those without property. He opposes NAFTA for the same reason he opposes the United Nations. He would erode international law far more swiftly than Bush, thereby endangering us all in the long run. International law is what works against wars of aggression.

But if Paul is as major an opponent of justice as I suggest, why then are so many advocates of peace and justice flocking to him? It depends in each case. Many passionately oppose the occupation of Iraq, but they don't call it an occupation. They call it a war. And their chief concern is not the million Iraqis dead, but the nearly four thousand Americans. And (this is key) they don't like the Democrats.

Paul is a man with principles, bizarre and twisted principles, but principles. Beside him, most of the Republicans look like charlatans, and the Democrats who are allowed on television and in the New York Times look like spineless cowards. They look like spineless cowards not because they favor peace (they don't), but because they refuse to stand up to Bush and Cheney. Paul stands up to Bush and Cheney. NOTHING is more powerful than that in today's politics, and he does it. Standing up to Bush and Cheney is what propelled Howard Dean's campaign so rapidly, and few paid close attention to what his positions were either.

Of course, there is a candidate in the 2008 presidential race who stands consistently and courageously on principle for both peace AND justice. And if we had the courage of our convictions we would put everything we have into backing him. Not only might he win, but our backing him now might force the Democrats in Congress to act like they believe in something, and force other candidates to improve their positions. His name is Dennis Kucinich.

________

[Trance Dance Master]

I'm cutting through the rest soon. At least I've caught up.

But more Americans would lack decent health care.
We would have more freedom to choose for ourselves what kind of health care qualifies as "decent".

More American children would lack adequate education.
Parents would have more freedom to decide how to best educate their children.

More families in America would struggle in poverty.
Removal of the Federal Reserve system would mean more wealth to the people through the free market system.

Immigrant families would face increased threats and abuse.
Immigrants would have to follow the rules of law for obtaining citizenship.

Women would have lost rights.
All individuals would have protection of their constitutional rights.

And a growing oligarchy would further dominate American politics, making reversal of any admirable Paul policies likely.
Protection of 1st Amendment rights guarantees everyone has a voice in American politics.

Paul arrives at some admirable positions for some unexpected reasons. And his principles lead him to many reprehensible positions as well. He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.
Unrestrained government is inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful. Ron Paul's primary concern is that a limited constitutional government isn't allowed to murderously "police the world" in the first place.

Paul is brave enough to say what he thinks and stand by it. While there are Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee, who have that same quality, the Democratic Party as a whole has an established reputation of not standing and fighting for anything, and least of all peace.
Ron Paul is a principled statesman, not an opportunistic panderer.

So, it's not completely surprising that a lot of opponents of the occupation of Iraq are looking to Paul as the best presidential candidate out there. Many Paul supporters really want peace and want it for the best reasons, but they detest the word "liberal" and loathe "big government." Others are not quite in that camp but consider the war such an overwhelmingly important issue that they don't much care what Paul's other positions are.
Ron Paul's platform of liberty appeals to a broad and diverse constituency.

But Paul would end the occupation of Iraq and offer the Iraqi people not a dime to help rebuild the nation we've destroyed. In fact, he would cut the pittance we give in foreign aide around the world. But Paul has never, to my knowledge, said he would cut a single dollar from the biggest big government expense there is, much bigger than any war: the yearly budget of the Pentagon. And if he thinks he can keep funding that and NOT launch new wars, he hasn't thought about the workings of our government quite enough.
Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy would downsize the federal government dramatically and remove our tax burden, especially that of the income tax and inflation tax.

[hard@work]

Swanson is a Dem activist, and he's very anti-establishment. He was recently arrested with Nancy Pelosi in John Conyers office for refusing to leave until he pushed for articles of impeachment against cheny/bush. What's great about this article is that even the real Democrats such as Conyers (vs. the neo-libs that have subverted the party) are worried that RP might take it. You can read some of his sympathy, a bit of his own temptation, and a lot of begrudging respect for Dr. Paul in that article. No matter how he tries to instill fear.

That's a healthy sign that we're making some real progress.

:)

[speciallyblend]

Me and my wife are now non democrats and registered republican only to vote for RON PAUL.

[ghemminger]

test

[Rick Williams]

Ron's message is getting through and the D's are as nervous as the R's.

[ThePieSwindler]

Just going to cherry pick one piece....


More American children would lack adequate education.

Do dems honestly think our current system is adequate? Seriously? They criticize bush for no child left behind but it was sponsored by ted kennedy! Had a democratic president implemented NCLB, and maybe implemented it in a different way, it would be seen as "justice" or whatever the author of this peace equates to justice. I find it funny that socialized european countries have a freer, less centralized education system than we do! And yet its the libertarians and conservatives who champion school choice, whilst the liberals champion... uh.. wait do they actually think schools are fine now? I mean i guess they want more government regulation in an attempt to "reform" the system, but other than that... do they HONESTLY think education is in a good position right now? They are delusional.


P.S. ever notice how dems like this also speak in platitudes but never actually use any evidence to back up their positions (like that Americans would not have health care, or women would lose rights, which he pulls completely out of his ass without qualifying that statement at all)

[Nash]

I find it funny that socialized european countries have a freer, less centralized education system than we do!


I'm ignorant of most of the education systems in Europe, aside from the fact that most of their universities are public and are considered inferior to the American University system (of which the top schools all happen to be private).

However, in France, their education system is completely centralized. They have an Education Czar (I don't think that's the term they use but anyway) who basically has complete and total control over what each and every public school student learns in their schools. He knows every single schedule, and every book that every grade reads at every time. He dictates every subject taught in every single school. He knows exactly what each student is learning across the country each and every day.

In the French public school system the itinerary for what students learn goes all the way to the top of the government. The teachers have very little control over what they teach their students. If the French education Czar decrees that every 4th grader in the country reads the "Little Prince" at 10 AM in the morning on a Tuesday then that's what they have to do in every public school across the country.

[JPFromTally]

I like this line...

An immigrant woman here without papers.... would be denied welfare, as well as health care, and education, not to mention any investment in public transportation.

[ThePieSwindler]

I'm ignorant of most of the education systems in Europe, aside from the fact that most of their universities are public and are considered inferior to the American University system (of which the top schools all happen to be private).

However, in France, their education system is completely centralized. They have an Education Czar (I don't think that's the term they use but anyway) who basically has complete and total control over what each and every public school student learns in their schools. He knows every single schedule, and every book that every grade reads at every time. He dictates every subject taught in every single school. He knows exactly what each student is learning across the country each and every day.

In the French public school system the itinerary for what students learn goes all the way to the top of the government. The teachers have very little control over what they teach their students. If the French education Czar decrees that every 4th grader in the country reads the "Little Prince" at 10 AM in the morning on a Tuesday then that's what they have to do in every public school across the country.

Oh ok but thats france. I think Britain is pretty centralized too. But eastern european countries like Estonia etc have alot more educational freedom. I was referencing those more than france. France is just fucked up in alot of ways, and no, not because Bush says they are bad because they didnt help with Iraq war. French politics are just, well, a scary mix of powerful centralized government and socialist economic planning.

[Hook]

Oh ok but thats france. I think Britain is pretty centralized too. But eastern european countries like Estonia etc have alot more educational freedom. I was referencing those more than france. France is just fucked up in alot of ways, and no, not because Bush says they are bad because they didnt help with Iraq war. French politics are just, well, a scary mix of powerful centralized government and socialist economic planning.

I think the French are starting to have a change of heart about central planning. They see everyone passing them by and want change.

[Trance Dance Master]

Next paragraph

So, a Paul government would be stingy, extravagant, war-prone despite itself, and in debt.
A return to constitutionally sound money would require all debts be paid in gold and silver. Once asset liquidation occurs, those Americans with enough foresight to save their hard assets will be rewarded for their fiscally sound policies.

Would Paul solve that problem be reinstating progressive taxation for the super wealthy and corporations? No, he'd cut taxes. Of course, taxes SHOULD be cut for most people. But unless they're raised for the wealthy and corporations, we will have even more debt (which Paul says he opposes) or we will have to make massive cuts in what's left of the non-military public sector.
Massive cuts are what's needed. Super wealthy and corporations deserve to keep the wealth they create and distribute it throughout society as they see fit. The cuts will be gradual enough to not be too much of a shock. The free market will provide superior alternatives faster than some might realize.

And that's exactly what Paul would like to see: "wasteful agencies" and "governments collecting foreign aid" are among his targets.
No more pandering for pork.

Rather than increasing funding for public schools, his solution for education would be to cut more taxes (the thinking being that this would allow parents to teach their children at home).
Government funded education has dumbed the population down. Free market education is far superior.

That works for parents who want to do that and don't have to work. But most parents don't want to do that and do have to work.
There are those within the free market who are willing to educate the children without charging the parents.

And with a president Paul allowing the minimum wage to plummet, opposing living wage standards, and doing nothing to restore the right to unionize, parents' work hours would not be shrinking.
Government never helped the unions. Ever. Educated active workers are the might of the labor unions. Minimum wages create unemployment.

[Richard in Austin]

Me and my wife are now non democrats and registered republican only to vote for RON PAUL.

Thank you, and WELCOME!

[Trance Dance Master]

Of course parents who don't work, or don't work jobs with good benefits, tend to lack health insurance. Paul would offer these tens of millions of Americans and the even greater number with inadequate health insurance nothing more than a middle finger. Paul believes the greatest crisis in our health care is the imposition of vaccinations. Everything always comes back to his notion of personal "freedom," even if it's the freedom to die of a curable disease. The only solution that has been found to provide everyone decent health care – in fact it works in almost every industrialized nation in the world – would mean private medicine, allowing everyone to choose their own doctor, but would also mean replacing the health insurance companies with the government. This is the last thing Paul would ever stand for. Better that people suffer and die than that the government be involved in helping them.
Denying people their freedom to choose their doctor and tyrannically forcing them all to submit to socialized health care only provides pork to doctors who don't have to do a good job because they're getting paid by the government anyway to do the job however poorly they're allowed. Free market charities help ease suffering and sickness far better than the government does.

[Trance Dance Master]

Life would change dramatically for all Americans under this sort of right-wing rule, but much more so for immigrants. Paul would allow fewer legal immigrants, while denying any illegal immigrants a path to become citizens. An immigrant woman here without papers who was raped would be denied the right to an abortion. Her child, born in America, would be denied citizenship. Her family would be denied welfare, as well as health care, and education, not to mention any investment in public transportation. Undocumented workers would gain no workplace rights under a Paul government, and so the rights of all of us would continue to erode. In fact, immigrants would be scapegoated and associated with 9-11, and Paul's priority would be "securing borders."
Paul will defend our national sovereignty. Anyone who wants to become a citizen will have to go through the proper legal channels and won't be rewarded for cutting in line and coming here illegally.

[Trance Dance Master]

Under a Paul administration there would be fewer immigrants for a good reason: he opposes the trade policies that destroy the economies of the nations they flee to come here. But Paul opposes those policies because they are international, not because they empower corporations and hurt workers. That's none of his concern. He's a "property rights" man, even if it's at the expense of those without property. He opposes NAFTA for the same reason he opposes the United Nations. He would erode international law far more swiftly than Bush, thereby endangering us all in the long run. International law is what works against wars of aggression.
"International" law is nothing more than an excuse for tyrannical enslavement and a denial of our constitutional government's right to mind our own business when it comes to the wars of other nations. It's not our job to "police the world". What we need to do is set a good example for the world to follow, rather than try to force peace on others through the barrel of a gun.

NAFTA does NOT help poor countries. What keeps these countries poor is having to trade with us based on a fiat currency Federal Reserve note dollar peg. Once international commerce is conducted in gold and silver, proper trade balance and the spreading of wealth and property will be realized.

[Trance Dance Master]

But if Paul is as major an opponent of justice as I suggest, why then are so many advocates of peace and justice flocking to him? It depends in each case. Many passionately oppose the occupation of Iraq, but they don't call it an occupation. They call it a war. And their chief concern is not the million Iraqis dead, but the nearly four thousand Americans. And (this is key) they don't like the Democrats.
Forcing our vision of peace and justice on other nations that pose no threat to us is tyrannical and results in blowback. It never solves the problems, it just creates new problems. Set a good example and they will see how well peace and justice works in America and they may imitate us.

[Trance Dance Master]

Paul is a man with principles, bizarre and twisted principles, but principles. Beside him, most of the Republicans look like charlatans, and the Democrats who are allowed on television and in the New York Times look like spineless cowards. They look like spineless cowards not because they favor peace (they don't), but because they refuse to stand up to Bush and Cheney. Paul stands up to Bush and Cheney. NOTHING is more powerful than that in today's politics, and he does it. Standing up to Bush and Cheney is what propelled Howard Dean's campaign so rapidly, and few paid close attention to what his positions were either.
More are paying attention to Ron Paul's positions than you realize. His record and message is one that you would expect from a statesman who understands, respects, and adheres to the rule of law in the United States: the constitution.

[Trance Dance Master]

Of course, there is a candidate in the 2008 presidential race who stands consistently and courageously on principle for both peace AND justice. And if we had the courage of our convictions we would put everything we have into backing him. Not only might he win, but our backing him now might force the Democrats in Congress to act like they believe in something, and force other candidates to improve their positions. His name is Dennis Kucinich.
Kucinich panders to pork barrel lobbyists. Ron Paul defends our national sovereignty and constitutional liberty.

[Trance Dance Master]

How's that for a rebuttal to the Democrats? They know Ron Paul is getting the nomination now, and have begun their smears. This is how we win them over to our side.

[redpillguy]

Re: educational system, and the Dem/Rep farce, read my blog below.

[hard@work]

How's that for a rebuttal to the Democrats? They know Ron Paul is getting the nomination now, and have begun their smears. This is how we win them over to our side.

I think in the case of democrats.com there is general concern in pushing forward the progressive cause. Great resource for an honest set of viewpoints from them. Democrats.com is hardly an establishment blog like kos.

:)

I can't wait to see the debate between the "two parties" get back on track. Prayin for Ron Paul to make it happen. Won't happen with Kucinich so far behind billary.