“But of course, Ron Paul must still be the most bigoted homophobe in the world.”
Exactly. That’s probably why he wants the state out of marriage. I don’t think he’s interested in ‘destroying traditional marriage in America’ as this inept conservative smear site suggests. Marriage never came from the state. I think Paul’s more worried about dummy establishment-conservatives attempting to ‘protect marriage’ by coming up with a federal constitutional marriage amendment which could lead to the liberal-establishment trying to redefine marriage and force Texas to recognize same sex marriage. It would certainly be possible in the future if there were a federal marriage amendment making marriage a federal matter. Paul probably supports some kind of common law marriage or ‘privatization of marriage’ or states rights marriage or whatever these ‘radical libertarian conservatives’ are up to these days. But regardless of Paul’s personal homophobia, it’s true that federal judges shouldn’t be able to step in and force one society to submit to the marriage licenses of another society. I mean, wouldn’t the basic libertarian position hold that states shouldn’t be telling us what marriage is all about, and that there should be no requirement to obtain a license to get married?
So let’s recap, yes Paul is more “progressive” on the issues of US Imperialism, drugs and capitalism than Obama but progressives should support Obama because he will enforce the civil rights agenda (which is really working out for American ethnic communities of course). *and most importantly, although we’re not going to say it, because he is “black” because that is still the main issue for us no matter how badly he has failed* . Paul’s campaign has proved one thing, however retarded “conservatism” is in the US American “progressivism” is even more so.
Yeah, that Greenwald piece is fantastic. I posted it on here earlier today. Here’s the money quote:
It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).
Paul’s candidacy forces those truths about the Democratic Party to be confronted. More important — way more important — is that, as vanden Heuvel pointed out, he forces into the mainstream political discourse vital ideas that are otherwise completely excluded given that they are at odds with the bipartisan consensus.
There are very few political priorities, if there are any, more imperative than having an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism; the suffocating secrecy of its government; the destruction of civil liberties which uniquely targets Muslims, including American Muslims; the corrupt role of the Fed; corporate control of government institutions by the nation’s oligarchs; its destructive blind support for Israel, and its failed and sadistic Drug War. More than anything, it’s crucial that choice be given to the electorate by subverting the two parties’ full-scale embrace of these hideous programs.
Has anyone seen this site yet? http://www.wrongonmarriage.com/ But of course, Ron Paul must still be the most bigoted homophobe in the world.
“But of course, Ron Paul must still be the most bigoted homophobe in the world.”
Exactly. That’s probably why he wants the state out of marriage. I don’t think he’s interested in ‘destroying traditional marriage in America’ as this inept conservative smear site suggests. Marriage never came from the state. I think Paul’s more worried about dummy establishment-conservatives attempting to ‘protect marriage’ by coming up with a federal constitutional marriage amendment which could lead to the liberal-establishment trying to redefine marriage and force Texas to recognize same sex marriage. It would certainly be possible in the future if there were a federal marriage amendment making marriage a federal matter. Paul probably supports some kind of common law marriage or ‘privatization of marriage’ or states rights marriage or whatever these ‘radical libertarian conservatives’ are up to these days. But regardless of Paul’s personal homophobia, it’s true that federal judges shouldn’t be able to step in and force one society to submit to the marriage licenses of another society. I mean, wouldn’t the basic libertarian position hold that states shouldn’t be telling us what marriage is all about, and that there should be no requirement to obtain a license to get married?
So let’s recap, yes Paul is more “progressive” on the issues of US Imperialism, drugs and capitalism than Obama but progressives should support Obama because he will enforce the civil rights agenda (which is really working out for American ethnic communities of course). *and most importantly, although we’re not going to say it, because he is “black” because that is still the main issue for us no matter how badly he has failed* . Paul’s campaign has proved one thing, however retarded “conservatism” is in the US American “progressivism” is even more so.
Great stuff from Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
Yeah, that Greenwald piece is fantastic. I posted it on here earlier today. Here’s the money quote:
It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).
Paul’s candidacy forces those truths about the Democratic Party to be confronted. More important — way more important — is that, as vanden Heuvel pointed out, he forces into the mainstream political discourse vital ideas that are otherwise completely excluded given that they are at odds with the bipartisan consensus.
There are very few political priorities, if there are any, more imperative than having an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism; the suffocating secrecy of its government; the destruction of civil liberties which uniquely targets Muslims, including American Muslims; the corrupt role of the Fed; corporate control of government institutions by the nation’s oligarchs; its destructive blind support for Israel, and its failed and sadistic Drug War. More than anything, it’s crucial that choice be given to the electorate by subverting the two parties’ full-scale embrace of these hideous programs.