[lbo-talk] Why not Paul

[Carl G. Estabrook]

Well put.  And all the candidates of the two business parties - with  
the exception of Paul - are in favor of the US government's continuing  
to commit what Nuremberg called "the supreme international crime,  
differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself  
the accumulated evil of the whole" - i.e., aggressive war, hence worse  
than terrorism.

But this view is outside the limits of allowable debate in the US, so  
Paul is labelled an "isolationist" by the liberals.  It's not hard to  
choose him over them (although you'd think they'd have some shame,  
after Obama). --CGE

On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Shane Mage wrote:


>
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Andy wrote:
>
>> Relax, I don't need the convincing.
>
> It's obvious that Ron Paul is no Huey Long or Robert LaFollette.
>
> But...
>
> If you were to make a list (a short one, to be sure) of everything  
> sensible said in the past year by any of the Official candidates  
> (Obama + the GOPers) you will find that a hefty majority will be  
> sourced to...
>
> Ron Paul.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
> that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying  
> attention to"
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk