My Photo

Welcome to Mannionville

  • Politics, art, movies, television, books, parenting, home repair, caffeine addiction---you name it, we blog it. Since 2004. Call for free estimate.

The Tip Jar

  • Please help keep this blog running strong with your donation

Help Save the Post Office: My snail mail address

  • Lance Mannion
    109 Third St.
    Wallkill, NY 12589

Save a Blogger From Begging...Buy Stuff

The one, the only

Sister Site

« Ron Paul on War | Main | The Essential Ron Paul »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


All I have to do is look at his views on women's right to bodily autonomy - that is, they have no such right in his eyes, it being up to the discretion of the state whether they must reproduce against their will - to know that his views are full of shit. His record on the environment is equally crap. Since it's these issues that drive my political voting decisions, I'm not conflicted at all, either. His defense of the individual stops when the individual is someone like me (a woman of reproductive age) and I'm not about to vote against my interests that way. That he chooses a weird political philosophy to justify his actions rather than the Bible doesn't matter.

Ralph H.

Meanwhile, President Santorum would keep busy establishing new federal agencies to enforce his vision of "how things ought to be" -- i.e., controlling people's sexual behavior. No homosexuality (of course!), no abortion under any circumstances, no contraception, no sex outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage, & within those bounds strictly for the purpose of procreation. There's probably more, but I'd have to check with the College of Cardinals.


What Rana said. As long as Ron Paul doesn't think I have just as much autonomy as he does, the only challenge he presents is to his own conscience, since that stance seems to conflict with the rest of his philosophy.


Ron Paul:Liberalism::Bull Connor:Civil Rights

Ron Paul:Libertarianism::Clifford Irving:Facts


Is there really any discernible difference between Paulism and scientology? I mean, both are pernicious cults, to which vulnerable and greedy people subscribe. Both have world-class kooks as founders, both have texts written by the founder that embarrass even their useful idiots, both are obsessed with money, both appear to be populated by people with a particular look of pop-eyed lunacy, and both really would prefer not to deal with African Americans. Oddly enough, Tom Cruise recently slithered forth to praise Ron Paul's witlessly antediluvian views on mental health issues. Coincidence? I think not.


Without seeing the Greenwald and Sullivan posts, I have to agree, I'm mystified; as a liberal, Ron Paul doesn't particularly upset me in any way. He won't be President, and libertarianism, with or without him, makes for entertaining philosophical debates, but little more.

I did ask my mom, who does seem to get a little more perturbed about him, and she said it's mainly his comments on race and stuff... but again, nothing that would cause some crisis of her liberal ideals or principles.

The idea that "Ron Paul makes us nervous" is amusing, almost as amusing as the rest of Ron Paul's derailing of the GOP nominating process... but beyond that, why bother?

Clay X

The President can't change the laws without Congress or the judicial branch, true. But a President can stop enforcing the laws any time he wants. Obama did the same thing this just this year with DOMA. President Paul could, for instance, stop the DEA raids on medical marijuana facilities overnight. And I think he would.

Do you know anything about how the federal government works?

Jane Ignatowski

Obama has most certainly NOT "stopped enforcing DOMA". Under his administration, the Department of Justice is not presently arguing in favor of DOMA in court challenges, but that's a very different thing. The law itself remains in full effect. Perhaps Clay is confusing DOMA with DADT, but DADT was repealed by an act of Congress in December 2010, it remained in effect until September 2011, and while President Obama had the option to use an executive order to stop enforcing it, he never implemented any such order.

As to the thread topic, Ron Paul also has a nasty little habit of including a clause in much of his proposed legislation that restricts/removes filing a challenge in federal court when states pass discriminatory and otherwise blatantly unconstitutional laws. See, for example, the odious We The People Act. That and his beloved Sanctity of Life Act would both bring the hammer down on the rights and freedoms of women and GLBTQ folks in a major way.


Greenwald is a civil libertarian. And a very good one at that. All Americans, liberal and conservative, should be good civil libertarians. His point is not that "liberals" should vote for Ron Paul, but that we are presented with a sad state of affairs when the only candidate addressing issues such as permanent war, unbridled executive power indistinguishable from that of Bush the Lesser, indefinite detention, unthinking and unblinking support for Israel is one Ron Paul. And only Ron Paul. That's all.

As for Andrew Sullivan, he loosed Charles Murray and his bell curve on the world while serving as Marty Peretz's puppet. Nothing he has said or done since then has come close to atoning for that. Much like Hitchens, the only reason anyone pays him the slightest attention is his accent. Would that he take his Anglo-Catholic schtick back where it started. Or did it start at the New Republic?


You make some excellent points, here, and anyone who has been paying attention to Ron Paul for the past decade (or longer), knows that he has some conflicting issues with someone like Glenn Greenwald, especially the fact that Dr. Paul is a conspiracy theorist of the first order. Now, I love me a good conspiracy, but Dr. Paul is promoted by deluxe tin-foil-hatters like Alex Jones. Paul's underground newspaper (back in the day) encouraged food hoarding, guns and ammo collecting, fear mongering of non-white races, and other tactics that conform with the view that his isolationism is more than a pragmatic way to take care of one's country - it's an extreme lifestyle that says - I got mine, I'm gonna keep mine, and I'm gonna shoot ya if you try to take mine!

I wish Greenwald, whom I admire a lot and support, would look back at Paul and his followers of the 90s and early 2000s, because those folks are not fresh-faced idealistic kids. They're like Timothy McVeigh.


Totally missing the point. GG has prefaced his discussion of this issue ad nauseam with caveats that he ain't asking anyone to vote for Ron Paul, he's just glad that someone, anyone is talking about issues involving civil liberties and war that no one else on the national level (including Obama) want to talk about. I'm not voting for him either, but I'm also glad these things get talked about. I agree that he's awful on an impressive number of diferent levels, but I also think it's a sad place we've come to when it's a wingnut who rightly calls our attention to things that good "progressives" (psst: liberals embarrassed to be called that) would rather ignore.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Data Analysis

  • Data Analysis


April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Movies, Music, Books, Kindles, and more

For All Your Laundry Needs

In Case of Typepad Emergency Break Glass

Be Smart, Buy Books

Blog powered by Typepad