Quantcast

Ron Paul's flights: the same as everyone else's

Classical Liberal 2012/01/18 09:33:21
I'm sure that Paul supporters and haters alike have already heard about the Associated Press publishing an article about Paul taking first-class flights at taxpayer expense. In case you missed it, here's a link: Paul's Flights fly in the Face of his Cut Spending Theme

Lawrence O'Donell, a progressive not known for supporting anyone with small-government rhetoric on any issue, reports the truth:

Watch on Ron Paul Flix

Read More: http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01/ron-paul-exposed-fl...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Todd *RP 2012* 2012/01/21 03:15:45
    Todd *RP 2012*
    +1
    holy shiznit! MSNBC calling someone else out for not reporting the truth? wow!
    OK, let me check, I still have a pulse. wow!
  • Kiara 2012/01/19 16:49:55
    Kiara
    +1
    I wouldn't vote for any Democrat or Republican that runs for
    President or any other Political position. They have been
    destroying our Economy and Survival for years so it is
    time to find someone who might actually have our best
    interests in mind.
  • Classic... Kiara 2012/01/19 17:16:49
    Classical Liberal
    +2
    Ron Paul's a different breed, or at least seems that way. Give him a serious look.
  • Vipor_GG 2012/01/19 02:44:58
    Vipor_GG
    +1
    O'Donnell's honesty impressed me on this. I think I may watch him once in a while now.
  • Artist 2012/01/18 23:46:36
    Artist
    +1
    Sorry but anything coming from PMSNBC is suspect...
  • Bozette 2012/01/18 21:14:48
    Bozette
    +5
    They keep trying to jump on him for something, anything. It isn't working. LOL
  • Live Free Or Die 2012/01/18 21:09:17
    Live Free Or Die
    +3
    Good for O'Donnell, setting the record straight and telling the truth.
  • DennisSwanson 2012/01/18 20:17:53
  • \V/ DennisS... 2012/01/18 20:55:35
  • \V/ 2012/01/18 20:05:19
    \V/
    +3
    "Who does Ron Paul serve? I say he serves himself and the members of his class – the members of the 1%. I think the evidence thoroughly supports this position. He promotes racist, sexist, homophobic, environmentally destructive, anti-science, and anti-working class policies. It is impossible to separate some of his “positive” positions (his claims that he wants to end the drug war, end the wars in the Middle East) – of which there are few – from his negative ones. Indeed most of his “positive” positions would be negated if his negative positions passed. The contradiction between Paul saying he wants to ‘end the drug war’ and supporting the further militarisation of the border with Mexico is a prime example of this.

    All of Ron Paul’s policies ignore the reality of exploitation under capitalism. Exploitation, very simply, is the reality that workers create all of the wealth in society, yet have no control over what to do with it. This is true because workers don’t socially own and democratically control the means of producing wealth – those means (mills, factories, mines, land, stores, transportation systems, warehouses, ports, etc.) are owned and dictatorially controlled by the 1%. So when he says he’s against welfare, he really means he wants the 1% to get an even larger shar...



    "Who does Ron Paul serve? I say he serves himself and the members of his class – the members of the 1%. I think the evidence thoroughly supports this position. He promotes racist, sexist, homophobic, environmentally destructive, anti-science, and anti-working class policies. It is impossible to separate some of his “positive” positions (his claims that he wants to end the drug war, end the wars in the Middle East) – of which there are few – from his negative ones. Indeed most of his “positive” positions would be negated if his negative positions passed. The contradiction between Paul saying he wants to ‘end the drug war’ and supporting the further militarisation of the border with Mexico is a prime example of this.

    All of Ron Paul’s policies ignore the reality of exploitation under capitalism. Exploitation, very simply, is the reality that workers create all of the wealth in society, yet have no control over what to do with it. This is true because workers don’t socially own and democratically control the means of producing wealth – those means (mills, factories, mines, land, stores, transportation systems, warehouses, ports, etc.) are owned and dictatorially controlled by the 1%. So when he says he’s against welfare, he really means he wants the 1% to get an even larger share of the social pie even though they do no work. When he says he’s against a women’s right to choose, or same-sex marriage, or legislation banning segregation, we should understand that he is really saying that certain groups should be more oppressed than they already are (women, people of color, immigrants, LGBTI people) and that the working class must be so divided so that they cannot unite to overthrow him and his ilk.

    The social function of ideologues like Ron Paul within the capitalist system is to divide working people. If people weren’t divided in United States by ideologues like Paul, Bush, Obama, and institutions like the media, schools, etc. – if we actually talked to each other, discussed, debated, weren’t segregated by race, repressed sexually, etc. – then there would be no way that the imperialists could get us to support war and oppression. There’d be no way we’d submit to the exploitation of the 1% who do no work yet own and control all the wealth. That’s why they divide us, segregate us, teach us to hate each other over petty reasons, instead of recognising our common humanity: because unity is dangerous to the rich who benefit from all of our suffering. There are so many of us and so few of them – and they are scared of that.

    Ron Paul’s supposed “anti-imperialism” and “opposition to the war on drugs” is just a distraction from his *material support* for imperialism and anti-working class policies. His efforts are aimed at dividing and confusing people. He will never be president. But as a Congressperson and rightwing ideologue he is able to promote and vote for all the other policies that divide working people, support imperialism, and further oppression and exploitation."---Liam O'Ceallaigh
    (more)
  • DennisS... \V/ 2012/01/18 20:20:35
  • \V/ DennisS... 2012/01/18 20:50:09
  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/18 20:26:05 (edited)
    Classical Liberal
    +6
    your unreasonable hatred for a man you've probably never met is astounding, friend.

    I see you also have fundamental misunderstandings about Capitalism. Might I advise you to stop reading Marx? Marx saw a very different type of capitalism than what we had in this country up until the 1930s or so.
  • \V/ Classic... 2012/01/18 20:54:16
    \V/
    +2
    Your unreasonable dribble about what I said, including your stupid remarks about me reading Marx, is astounding.

    If you want to have a debate, you point out where you disagree or what I have said that is in error. Meanwhile you can take your idiotic advice and shove it.

  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/19 01:50:06
    Classical Liberal
    +2
    Competition between enterprises is what makes capitalism fair.

    The capitalist environments in Europe, and within our own country since the Great Depression, have not favored capitalism and in fact make it very difficult for a small business to be terrible successful.

    Have you ever wondered why 99% of big business was established before WWII? It's not that it takes half a century or more to get big (Apple and Microsoft both did it in like 15 years). It's that big business is given preferential treatment by our current capitalist system; either they are directly helped via subsidies and tax loopholes or are indirectly helped by regulatory favoritism (which is a HUGE problem in the U.S.).

    But no, progressive policies can't possibly be to blame. It's never the policies I hold dear, it's always the other guy.
  • \V/ Classic... 2012/01/19 02:40:19 (edited)
    \V/
    +2
    Its all those subsidies that were supposed to help the little guys now go to the big Corporations. Its Socialist predatory capitalism for the big Corporations like Wal*Mart, they get the tax breaks, loopholes and subsidies and the poor and middle class get a little food stamps and public education and libraries and now you "Libertarians" want to take even that away!

    Capitalists should not get subsidies because that is socialism. I want socialism for the poor and middle class, only, so now capitalism is EXTREMELY UNFAIR.

    I am from Ecuador and I know what Capitalism you Unitedstatesians have forced upon us. There is a North, Central and South America and we are part of America just like you are. Your part is called Gringolandia

  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/19 03:12:36 (edited)
    Classical Liberal
    +3
    which is why I advocate ending all subsidies. All it takes is a little corruption, and my and your tax dollars start getting funneled away from the businesses they were originally intended to kick-start and instead into giant and very profitable multi-nationals.
  • \V/ Classic... 2012/01/19 02:45:24
    \V/
    +3
    PS. What competition? Your anti trust laws are a bad joke. All your politicians and media are owned by the same monopolies.
  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/19 03:13:57 (edited)
    Classical Liberal
    +3
    Agreed, 99.99999% of the politicians and media pundits in this country are employees of multinational corporate interests.

    We don't have competition, we don't have free markets. I want free markets and you should too: http://rwer.wordpress.com/201...
  • \V/ Classic... 2012/01/19 16:20:47
    \V/
    +3
    I want regulations. Kinda like a ref at a ball game. Keeps the game fair for everyone. I totally agree with RP about the FED but thats a no brainer.
  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/19 17:17:55 (edited)
    Classical Liberal
    +2
    Apparently not -- have you been watching the GOP debates? Have you heard much of anybody on the left (Kucinich and the Green Party excepted) come out against it?

    As for regulations... society regulates itself pretty well. We don't need economic regulations any more than we need social regulations.
  • \V/ Classic... 2012/01/19 23:27:35
    \V/
    +1
    We dont need another great Depression either and the next one is going to be much worse.
  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/20 05:30:49
    Classical Liberal
    +1
    We might as well be in one now. This is the worst recovery since the depression.
  • 9th of 9 \V/ 2012/01/18 21:23:27
    9th of 9
    +2
    What is libertarianism?
    Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

    The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

    Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

    Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

    Liberty is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of free markets, civil liberties, and self-ownership.

    Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.
  • \V/ 9th of 9 2012/01/18 21:28:30
    \V/
    +3
    I was a Libertarian 20 years ago and actually was a paid staff worker for the Libertarian Party. That was until I discovered they wanted to privatize everything and trade Government tyranny for private tyranny.

    I'll take my chances with the Green Party.

    privatize trade government tyranny private tyranny ill chances green party
  • 9th of 9 \V/ 2012/01/18 22:01:30
    9th of 9
    +2
    That's not much of a stretch, and I mean that in a good way considering the ten values here. Decentralization would certainly give the left/right crowd something to think hard about. Tyranny in any form would not help this Federal Constitutional Republic.
  • \V/ 9th of 9 2012/01/18 22:07:21 (edited)
    \V/
    +1
    Yes. Why dont these friggin politicians state CLEARLY what their values are?

    I want to know exactly what Im voting for and so should you!
  • 9th of 9 \V/ 2012/01/18 22:33:53
    9th of 9
    +2
    Agreed.
  • Kiara \V/ 2012/01/19 16:46:44
    Kiara
    +1
    Those values sound incredible! I find it very hard for any Political Party
    to live up to such high standards.
  • Classic... Kiara 2012/01/19 17:19:23
    Classical Liberal
    especially since social justice doesn't exist x]
  • \V/ 9th of 9 2012/01/18 22:05:23
    \V/
    +2
    Aside from the fact that RP is a Libertarian disguised as Republican. He is not only for the 1%, against Reproductive Freedom and for Free Trade with Tyranny, WTO, NAFTA and the whole sucking sound thing. What a total mess! Vote for RP and get a free Chinese invasion!

    Chinese military
  • 9th of 9 \V/ 2012/01/18 22:33:32
    9th of 9
    +3
    His voting record says the exact opposite. China wouldn't want that anymore than we would.
  • \V/ 9th of 9 2012/01/18 23:23:16
    \V/
    +1
    China uses a huge amount of oil. Oil is getting to be a scarce resource despite what you hear from the RWNJs here.
    They will be wanting the oil, the same oil that we want, they will want. Then they will come for us cause they already own our greedy ass.
  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/19 01:52:55
    Classical Liberal
    +3
    which is why we need to STOP subsidizing oil NOW so we can start investing in ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.
  • \V/ Classic... 2012/01/19 02:48:14
    \V/
    +2
    Fossil fuels were obsolete 50 years ago

  • Classic... \V/ 2012/01/19 03:16:09 (edited)
    Classical Liberal
    +2
    I agree.
    We keep subsidizing the oil, and that makes oil-based industries profitable investments despite all the inefficiencies and environmental impact, and hurts investment on better alternatives. We need to end those subsidies and tax breaks.
  • \V/ Classic... 2012/01/19 16:21:47
    \V/
    Well we both agree on something! :-)
  • Kiara \V/ 2012/01/19 16:43:25
    Kiara
    +1
    Excellent video!!!
  • 9th of 9 \V/ 2012/01/19 12:18:21
    9th of 9
    +2
    I do my own research tyvm. China has had the same interests in the middle east for as long as we've had. Our problem is we think we need theirs. We don't. We have our own. The left is just as bad as the right in that respect, there will be no getting me to believe otherwise. We do not need Wars to have energy independence, all we need are leaders to understand that.
  • \V/ 9th of 9 2012/01/19 16:22:56
    \V/
    +2
    All we Greens understand that, its the Democrats that do not.

News & Politics

2013/06/20 06:43:19

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals