Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Super Secret Magic decoder Ring

Submitted by hipparchia on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 4:22pm

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In RonPaulLand, states rights means I want my KKK back and non-intervention means The Jews had it coming.

You're welcome.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by hipparchia on

i didn't forget, people do seem to be able to understand that ron paul is lousy on women's issues, even if they do think we should, yet again, put aside our obviously lesser issues and support their much more important issues. the problem is that otherwise intelligent and good-hearted people think that ron paul might be on their side on some things. he's not.

that said, anything natasha chart ever has to say on women's issues is always welcome in my book. thanks for that.

tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on

The incarceration and rape in prison of millions of men for the sin of smoking marijuana is obviously less important than the right to choice for millions of women, so I should put my concerns aside? Thanks for making that clear.

I don't know the answer to that. I certainly would never vote for Ron Paul. But no national Democrat is standing up against the drug war. So I'll have to work for the Socialists or the Greens or someone else.

Honestly, this feels like the scene in the Roman sewer in "The Life of Brian" where the various factions are fighting over who gets to kidnap Pilate's wife:

BRIAN: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!

FRANCIS: We are! Ohh.

BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!

EVERYONE: The Judean People's Front?!

BRIAN: No, no! The Romans!

And look how well that worked out for everyone. :-(

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

That perpetuates all form of oppression of women, from rape to forced pregnancy and sterilization, that comes from the fact that our basic bodily autonomy is treated as a lesser concern to the "real people"(read men) who always claim that when a woman chooses to priortize women's rights, we are making other causes "less important", that's something women should support?

Why is it always a zero sum game with some people? Why also is it, that everytime a woman points out that Ron Paul is no friend to justice and liberty, we are always accused of supporting the status quo and want (insert progressive hobbyhorse*) to continue? I hear from progressives who think Ron Paul is swell, the constant drumbeat of "civil rights, civil rights, civil rights. Sorry, but you can't support civil rights if you don't support civil rights for women. Or minorities. Which Paul doesn't.

*Brown people to die, brown people to be incarcerated, etc etc etc

Submitted by hipparchia on

The incarceration and rape in prison of millions of men for the sin of smoking marijuana is obviously less important than the right to choice for millions of women, so I should put my concerns aside?

nope.

but as your next paragraph makes clear, you are not a supporter of ron paul who is asking me to put aside any of my concerns and support yours instead.

I certainly would never vote for Ron Paul. But no national Democrat is standing up against the drug war. So I'll have to work for the Socialists or the Greens or someone else.

bravo! that's the kind of talk i want to hear [and read].

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

health issues. Yup, let's focus on what all candidates have in common but bash only one of them for it. And then, dismiss everything he has to say which is different but with which we agree - because....because...what happened to that 'lesser of evils' theory again?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Paul and his positions are no friend to justice and liberty. His positions are identical to Pat Buchanan. His positions are only superficially identical to leftist positions. He does not support civil rights, he supports individual liberties.

If you are a person facing systemic institutionalized oppression, you will be worse off under a Paul presidency, because only those with the privilege to enforce their own rights, will have rights.

Submitted by hipparchia on

he supports individual liberties for the right people.

fixed it for ya! ;)

Submitted by gob on

The presidential campaign is a sideshow, Ron Paul is a sideshow, in my admittedly limited blogulations I haven't seen anyone on "my side" actually advocate supporting RP. It saddens me to see people who have the same goals get all snarky on one another over RP. It would please me to see anti-interventionist and anti-prohibitionist ideas get some mainstream airtime, even if it were because of horrible RP, but that doesn't even seem to be happening.

Ron Paul is a sideshow. Occupy is the show.

Submitted by hipparchia on

totally agree.

but my point is that people think that ron paul means what he says. he does, but only if you know what he's really saying. he's not really an interventionist, for instance - he's really pandering to the conspiracy theorists who think that the jews invented banking just to steal from the rest of us, and that hitler did a good thing by killing off 6 million of them. ron paul is promising these people that if another hitler rises up and kills off millions more jews, he, as president, would refuse to step in and stop it.

the fact that his sanitized message of "non-intervention" also plays well with progressives/liberals/lefties/good-hearted people everywhere is just gravy for him.

Submitted by Alcuin on

I agree that the presidential campaigns are a sideshow. All of them. I, too, wish that anti-interventionist, anti-prohibitionist, and anti-police state issues would get some attention. It isn't happening. Why? That, I submit, is the crucial question. Is it because of a corporate controlled media or is it because, in our heart-of-hearts, we support intervention, drug laws, and surveillance? Not those of us on Corrente, but the very large percentage of Americans who do, by their apathetic support of the MOTU. If a substantial portion of the population supported the ideas of the Steins and the Andersons of the world, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Instead, we are reduced to stirring up shit by voting for Paul in Republican primaries and marching in the streets yelling about various and sundry items on our laundry list.

I get so damn depressed - a pox on every damn politician in the whole country!! And a pox on everyone who votes for the lesser evil! We have walked so long in the land of evil that the tiny fires of justice are dying out across the land. As Arthur Silber says, in his essay about the Marines pissing on dead bodies, it is O.K. to systematically destroy nations, murder millions of human beings and claim that the U.S government has a right to murder anyone in the world for whatever reason it chooses, but it is NOT O.K. to piss on dead bodies. The whole damn world is upside down. Shame on us.

Turlock