Ron Paul: President Obama Is Not A Socialist

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
Near the end of the third day of this year's Southern Republican Leadership Conference, it was time for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to take the stage. Paul, fresh off his victory in the CPAC straw poll, gave a characteristically fired-up speech that took on the views of the Republican party establishment.

"The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist," Paul said. "I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist."

"He's a corporatist," Paul continued. "And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country."

Paul said examples of President Obama's "corporatism" were evident in the heath care reform bill he signed into law last month. He said the mandate in the bill put the power over health care in the hands of corporations rather than private citizens. But he said the bill wasn't the only place where corporatism is creeping into Washington.

"We see it in the financial institutions, we see it in the military-industrial complex," he said. "And now we see it in the medical-industrial complex."

Despite his opposition to the bill, and despite Republican calls to repeal it, Paul said that when it comes to the landmark health care bill, "throwing it all out is probably not going to happen."

He said the only hope Republicans have is to change the bill for the better. Paul said he will introduce his own legislative fix when the Congress returns from recess next week.

"There's one piece of legislation that I'm going to introduce, it's going to be one page long," he said. "It will be to remove the mandate so you don't have to participate if you don't want to."

His speech, which touched on his oft-repeated calls to close down American military bases overseas and shift toward libertarian-style social policy, drew cheers from the Paul fans in the crowd and what sounded like boos from others in the room.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/ron-paul-president-obama-is-not-a-socialst.php
 
Paul is a corporatist too, he just has his wrapped in social Darwinism and Libertarianism. Unless dude has veered away from the idea of a completely unregulated "everything", he's a corporatist in sheep's clothing because the only "people" that will benefit from his policies are "corporate citizens". I've never heard Paul speak on any action being taken to remove this loophole from the 14th Amendment, but until he does, all of his policies benefit corporations pretty much exclusively. Only difference between him and your standard corporatist is that he does not believe in baillouts and wants nature to take its course with poorly run companies (which I can get with), but he feels people deserve to be treated pretty much the same way no matter what the circumstance. End result in Paul's world, corporations run rampant and average citizens are powerless against them (sounds familiar), but the average citizen can get high on whatever drug he chooses while getting fucked (might help keep folks in line).
 
Some socialism is just what this country needs. Maybe not politically, anarchy would be our best bet in politics, but socially. We need to go back to being shocked by the headlines, politics should be local, globalism should be a bad word. Listening to community leaders is better than listening to Ron Paul, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin or Barack Obama. The social fabric needs work and we are the only ones who can do it.
 
Get some knowledge: http://mises.org/

Paul doesn't have all the answers but he does have some shit right on the money. Did I say money--lets start with his view on the Fed and then we can negotiate about local leaders or whatever...
 
Some socialism is just what this country needs. Maybe not politically, anarchy would be our best bet in politics.

There is no fed in a anarchical govt or any need for demogogues.
 
Anarchy--sounds like you want to take us back to clans and tribes, or set us back to prehistoric times. We are on a path there but not by choice, with the fabric currently in place including how we rely on technology, have no ability to sustain ourselves without Wal-Mart bringing the food, and nations and groups able to procure and produce weapons of mass destruction, anarchy will be the end state that ultimately leads to our final demise.
 
Its 2010 and we are still being governed. That means someone else governs our lives. Anarchy is one way of getting them off our backs, making politics local again, restoring individual freedom. But I will admit we may have reached a point in history where there is no changing course.
 
I guess this means that Lammar is going to cease parroting the 'Obama is a socialist' talking point since his ruler says so. I don't think Obama is a corporatist. If he was, he wouldn't oppose the Citizens United ruling he despises so much the Supreme Court handed down recently. I do believe he puts faith in capitalism's ability to rejuvenate itself under any form it reincarnates itself.
 
I guess this means that Lammar is going to cease parroting the 'Obama is a socialist' talking point since his ruler says so.

hmmmmmm, I don't think I've ever referred to Obama as a Socialist. Now Dubya on the other hand, I'm probably the first to step on this board and called it like it was......Socialist.

my ruler? :smh:

I don't think Obama is a corporatist. If he was, he wouldn't oppose the Citizens United ruling he despises so much the Supreme Court handed down recently.

Dawg, look who financed his run for presidency! Goldman Sachs, GE, JP Morgan Chase, Google, Microsoft etc. You don't think a Dim can be a Corporatist? 95% of the politicians up there are sellin out to the highest bidder, R or D.

I do believe he puts faith in capitalism's ability to rejuvenate itself under any form it reincarnates itself.

get real, he don't believe in capitalism, if he did, he would allow these banks and all these other institutions to fail so new, more efficient business models can emerge. IMO, he believes in "central economic planning". And the history of the world is filled with plenty of examples of central economic planning that don't end pretty.
 
Hospitals are mandated to take care of people in the emergency room, should we get rid of that too? People should pay for their costs, if they have the income, that will occur down the road when they get older, instead of dumping on other people.

We can have hospitals running credit reports and denying you care based on your FICO score.
 
Back
Top