Pittsburgh City Paper Article

[rajibo]

Ron Paul: Libertarian Apostle (http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=35569)

[nullvalu]

great quote: "I'm joining their revolution," Paul says. "They're not joining mine."

[Stealth4]

wow thats long, didnt read it all yet.

its the front page of the website....how big is the circulation of this paper?

[Ridiculous]

It is the free City Paper that most big cities have that is available in a lot of bars, shops, restuarants and newspaper stands. You can't really get around Pittsburgh without running into it somewhere.

[Stealth4]

It is the free City Paper that most big cities have that is available in a lot of bars, shops, restuarants and newspaper stands. You can't really get around Pittsburgh without running into it somewhere.

SWEET!

[Ridiculous]

"Pittsburgh City Paper brings a fiesty perspective on local arts, music,
sports, news and politics to the Pittsburgh market every Wednesday.
Currently, 390,700+ people are informed via paper and website
every month with an extensive arts and entertainment section, local news
coverage and unique columns. Add in award-winning writers and visuals
and the area's most comprehensive event listings and you have
the area’s leading arts and entertainment weekly!
Pittsburgh City Paper delivers 75,000 papers per week to over 1,700
distribution points throughout Western Pennsylvania and is available in more
than 400 black & gold street boxes or at a select business near you."

It gets picked up by mostly younger people...

[Spike Kojima]

Towards the end it starts getting less positive .

[Ridiculous]

1,700 places to pick up a free paper in a city is pretty good. That is like several distribution points per city block.

[BW4Paul]

Hey, wow! As you read through the story, you'll come upon a picture of a "Ron Paul Is My Hero" sign. That's my sign! I had set it down to go and get Paul's autograph. I had no idea someone had taken a picture of it. :)

[Ridiculous]

Hey, wow! As you read through the story, you'll come upon a picture of a "Ron Paul Is My Hero" sign. That's my sign! I had set it down to go and get Paul's autograph. I had no idea someone had taken a picture of it. :)

Your sign is famous on the internets!

[BW4Paul]

Your sign is famous on the internets!

Lolcatz :p

[Brasil Branco]

It's a fair article, probally the most balanced I've read on Paul.

That does mean negatives, it highlights Ron Paul's weakest stance- Darfur. It's interesting, because all of the genocides in the past century- the United States cited non-intervention and national sovereignty as the reason for not being involved. So, in that regard- Paul's stance is severely lacking in making progress on that front.

[lapi7]

The article had some really positive points...

But what's with the "He can't win" statements both at the beginning and at the end of the article?

It's quite frustrating...to say the least :mad:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

why is there no milk man anymore? and whatever happened to the soda shops?

[Spirit of '76]

That Maria Fartalucci chick or whatever or her name is really sucks.

[Chibioz]

I thought the "of course, he can't win" statement was pretty obnoxious. The other negative stuff was overly critical and out of place in my opinion, but I'm biased.

On the other hand, some parts of the article were very positive and informative for the Ron Paul newbie.

[ThePieSwindler]

It's a fair article, probally the most balanced I've read on Paul.

That does mean negatives, it highlights Ron Paul's weakest stance- Darfur. It's interesting, because all of the genocides in the past century- the United States cited non-intervention and national sovereignty as the reason for not being involved. So, in that regard- Paul's stance is severely lacking in making progress on that front.

How exactly is darfur a weakness? He is treating it just like he would treat anything else - we shouldnt get involved in a civil war that is no threat to our national security. Private individuals can give aid to the red cross etc, but the president has no right to send troops on American taxpayer money into a civil war that doesn even have a clear-cut objective to meet. The darfur divestment act, i remember we debated that a few months back, and the consensus was that it would have harmed corporations that might not even have any direct ties to the Janjaweed AT ALL, and would really do nothing to mitigate the genocide.

[Brasil Branco]

How exactly is darfur a weakness? He is treating it just like he would treat anything else - we shouldnt get involved in a civil war that is no threat to our national security. Private individuals can give aid to the red cross etc, but the president has no right to send troops on American taxpayer money into a civil war that doesn even have a clear-cut objective to meet.

Yes, and the exact same line of thought has been US policy for the past century. That is why what happened in Turkey, Germany, Cambodia, East Timor, Iraq, Bosnia, and Rwanda were allowed to happen. You can support this position, as long as you understand the repercussions. There are limits to a non-interventionist foreign policy. The US really hasn't had one, all intervention in the past century was to expand US interests. It's used "non-intervention" whenever these trivial cases come along- genocidal cases which served no US interests other than humanitarian relief.

Heck, the US even wanted UN troops out of Rwanda.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yes, and the exact same line of thought has been US policy for the past century. That is why what happened in Turkey, Germany, Cambodia, East Timor, Iraq, Bosnia, and Rwanda were allowed to happen. You can support this position, as long as you understand the repercussions. There are limits to a non-interventionist foreign policy. The US really hasn't had one, all intervention in the past century was to expand US interests. It's used "non-intervention" whenever these trivial cases come along- genocidal cases which served no US interests other than humanitarian relief.

Heck, the US even wanted UN troops out of Rwanda.

again... you need the Congress...the president doesn't truly have the authority

[Brasil Branco]

again... you need the Congress...the president doesn't truly have the authority

I understand, but the President has influence. You just need to remember Rwanda where everyone in the administration were dancing around the word genocide.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I understand, but the President has influence. You just need to remember Rwanda where everyone in the administration were dancing around the word genocide.

The US is just a nation lol. why didn't the neighbors of Rwanda go in? Why is it always the responsibility of the US?

[SeanEdwards]

It's a fair article, probally the most balanced I've read on Paul.

That does mean negatives, it highlights Ron Paul's weakest stance- Darfur. It's interesting, because all of the genocides in the past century- the United States cited non-intervention and national sovereignty as the reason for not being involved. So, in that regard- Paul's stance is severely lacking in making progress on that front.

Why is the U.S. expected to be responsible for fixing Darfur?

We don't want to be world cop anymore. All it gets us a bunch of dead Americans, and a world that hates us.

You want to fix Darfur? Then go fix it, but leave us out.

[Ridiculous]

Darfur is NOT our responsibility. Why doesn't Sweden take care of it for once? How about the Chinese?

[Brasil Branco]

You're missing the point. The US isn't "expected", the US never has, but for the most powerful country in the world always takes a position of indifference towards genocide.

It doesn't have to do it, and it never has. In the end, the Khmer Rouge were outed by the South Vietnamese- the same people the United States fought so fiercely. Most of the time, other countries do take care of it.

[Ridiculous]

How much American blood and tax dollars are you willing to spend to police the world?

+ We can't afford to and do not have the resources to be everywhere. How is it fair that we help one country out and not another.

[Brasil Branco]

How much American blood and tax dollars are you willing to spend to police the world?

+ We can't afford to and do not have the resources to be everywhere. How is it fair that we help one country out and not another.

Where have you policed the world when it wasn't for your own interests?

[Ridiculous]

Where have you policed the world when it wasn't for your own interests?

I don't get what you are asking....

[abstrusezincate]

I'm somewhat unhappy about this. I was interviewed in this article (you'll see my name in there) and the news editor asked quite a bit about Darfur. I felt like I laid out a really strong argument for why non-interventionism made sense because otherwise we just ended up getting dragged into local conflicts and used examples from Somalia to bolster this case. It was a twenty minute interview where the part taken was probably the least interesting thing that I actually included in the discussion.

Still, it's much free press locally, and I appreciate the distribution. I do want to know who this blogger who is quoted so much is and why she was given such emphasis considering she has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul other than being the strident voice of opposition.

[V-rod]

The Ron Paul criticism toward the end of the article only strengthened my support for him. Some of the Libertarians quoted WANT open borders. No thanks! They would probably welcome the North American Union.

In regards to Darfur, why should the executive branch and Washington Think Tanks decide to send our men and women to the African desert when its the American people who should decide if we should help.
If Ron Paul was president, he would not veto any resolutions to help Darfur if many Americans asked their congressmen to support it, just for the sake of non-interventionism.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The Ron Paul criticism toward the end of the article only strengthened my support for him. Some of the Libertarians quoted WANT open borders. No thanks! They would probably welcome the North American Union.

In regards to Darfur, why should the executive branch and Washington Think Tanks decide to send our men and women to the African desert when its the American people who should decide if we should help.
If Ron Paul was president, he would not veto any resolutions to help Darfur if many Americans asked their congressmen to support it, just for the sake of non-interventionism.

No, libertarians want it like how it was in the 18 and 19th century.

[Nash]

I'm somewhat unhappy about this. I was interviewed in this article (you'll see my name in there) and the news editor asked quite a bit about Darfur. I felt like I laid out a really strong argument for why non-interventionism made sense because otherwise we just ended up getting dragged into local conflicts and used examples from Somalia to bolster this case. It was a twenty minute interview where the part taken was probably the least interesting thing that I actually included in the discussion.

You could make a hypothetical that we actually went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to overthrow an evil dictator oppressing his people. Now we can look at the unintended consequences that were a result.

FTFTA:


Nicholas Kyriazi, a registered Libertarian living on the city's North Side, acknowledges some reservations about Paul. "Where's the crime in open borders? Taking a job from someone else is not a crime," Kyriazi says. "With marriage, it's not the government's place to tell any two people they can't get married; their only purpose is to record the marriage." And he says that, while with a Libertarian Party candidate "you know how they stand on each and every issue, " Paul's GOP affiliation means "some people do have a problem with Ron Paul, because you don't necessarily know that.

" [T]hat being said, a lot of what he stands for is in line with the Libertarian Party principles," Kyriazi continues. "I would vote for him if he got the Republican nod. Quite honestly, as the primary draws near and it [looks] like Paul had a chance of getting the nod, I would change my party registration to Republican to help him get elected."

I totally don't understand people who think like this. Gee ya think maybe you should bother changing your registration to vote for him in the primaries? He's only 95% in line with the libertarian platform instead of 100%. Every other candidate running that isn't 3rd party matches up maybe 50% in their voting record. Why the hell wouldn't every single libertarian in this country vote for Ron Paul in the primaries? The "He's not libertarian enough" argument absolutely baffles me, especially when our economy is falling apart and we're involved in an imperialist war we can't afford.

[american.swan]

How exactly is darfur a weakness? He is treating it just like he would treat anything else - we shouldnt get involved in a civil war that is no threat to our national security. Private individuals can give aid to the red cross etc, but the president has no right to send troops on American taxpayer money into a civil war that doesn even have a clear-cut objective to meet. The darfur divestment act, i remember we debated that a few months back, and the consensus was that it would have harmed corporations that might not even have any direct ties to the Janjaweed AT ALL, and would really do nothing to mitigate the genocide.

Good post. Too bad it's in a middle of a long thread so most will miss it.