Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: You're wrong on Ron Paul

Bart, I like your site, but I can't understand your opposition to Ron Paul.

Just to be clear - Ron Paul is a crazy man with some good ideas.

I have been supporting him for years, and I do understand most of his stances. 
I don't agree with everything he believes, but he makes more sense than anyone else
on either side of the aisle, imho. He has consistently refused to support any measure
which is unconstitutional for 3 decades.  If all congress critters voted like him we
would not be in the mess we are in now.

Regarding the misquote of Ron Paul: Ron Paul did not stammer, nor was he groping for an answer. 
He stated "no" in answer to the question about letting someone sans health insurance die. 
He then went on to explain the answer further. Here is the whole clip (with some other added stuff,
sorry, best I could find at short notice) for your review:


I saw it when it happened so I didn't watch your clip.
Also, if you find a web page that says "Ron Paul was right," that doesn't make him right.

The ONLY way you're right and I'm wrong is if YOU can explain RP's position on a man
with no insurance showing up at the ER better than RP can, because he totally failed.

That's why Chris matthews said "RP says let him die," because that's what his words meant.

When RP says, "You're free to not by insurance," he's either saying:
No problem, I or we will pay your ER bill OR
Die, sick bastard, because you stupidly chose NOT to waste money on insurance.

For your position to hold water, the Teabaggers would have to be eager to embrace
socialized medicine and we all know they'd rather watch their mother die than do that.

I would not be so rude as to call you a liar, but is it possible that someone
with an IQ of 64 may have misremembered the entirety of the exchange? ;-)

Thanks for the civility, but my guess, at this point, is you've drank the RP Kool aid.
As the vulgar Pigboy says, "Words mean things."

Why do you think the Teabaggers cheered when Paul got stuck on that debate question?
They cheered because FINALLY someone said what the Teabaggers think.

It's like if I told you, "Let's go hit some tequila bars, you don't need your wallet."

Now, if you said, "Bart said he'd pay for everything," that would technically
<>be a lie
because I didn't use those exact words,
<>but when I say "You don't need your wallet,"
I'm, in fact, saying I'll pay for everything.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is a very astute economist, and understands
well the vast layers of waste in health care and government.

Then he's a terrible public speaker because he said what he said.
Maybe he's just trying to fool the Baggers with some doublespeak,
but his position on "insurance freedom" is clearer than Lake Concha.

The main reason I will be caucusing for him this Jan 3 is his stance
on our wasteful military presence worldwide. 

That's a great example of a crazy man saying something intelligent.

It is sad that our media tends to reduce any position to a 2 second sound bite. 
Anyone with a sound understanding of any government policy cannot reduce it to a simple platitude. 
Reality is complex.

True, but his position on mandatory insurance isn't complex.
RP takes his constitutional positions to their most extreme.

If it was unconstitutional to save a baby about to be runover by a bus, Ron Paul would let him die.
Me, I'd break the law and save the baby.

As president, he will probably not be able to enact many of his goals, but as commander-in-chief,
he will absolutely be able to halt our sinful exuberant warmongering ways, and the resultant savings
in budget will be a welcome relief to the taxpayer.  Furthermore, he can use the power of the veto
to make any non-constitutional expenditures subject to a 2/3s override. That is why the corporate
media seeks to marginalize him at every turn.  The same men who control our mainstream media
also sit on the boards of the war profiteering military industrial complex, you betcha.

Anyway, I don't expect to agree with you on everything, but I think you are giving RP short shrift. 
Of course, if we had an actual Democrat president, this would be moot. :-)

 Tim in Iowa

I don't know much about Ron Paul because every four years we have marginal candidates who
can't possibly win and life is short, but my impression of Ron Paul is that he wants to take
a chainsaw
into the operating room when he actually needs a scalpal.

In closing, if you can make sense of his position on mandatory insurance,
I will apologize for misquoting him but I feel like I'm pretty safe.


Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to



Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to


Privacy Policy
. .