Posted on 08/29/2011 5:45:07 PM PDT by mnehring
Trend forecaster Gerald Celente may have been right when he predicted more than a year ago a future alliance between progressives and libertarians. On Fox News' Freedom Watch, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader appeared together to highlight many of the points of agreements between Tea Party activists and progressives on the left. Nader explained how Tea party Congresspeople are different from other Republicans in Congress,
to the extent that they are genuine libertarian conservatives and not corporatists. Corporatists believe in corporate government. They are great allies with many liberals and progressives, to challenge the bloated military budgets, to challenge undeclared wars overseas, to challenge hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, to challenge the invasiveness of our civil liberties and civil rights by the notorious Patriot Act, to challenge the sovereignty shredding, job destroying NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements... and to allow government employees to ethically blow the whistle on corporate rapaciousness and contracts and government misdeeds. Just think of that agenda for a dynamic political force.
Ron Paul echoed Nader's sentiment, citing outstanding debt and foreign wars as issues where both libertarians and progressives have agreed in the past. "We should come together and work together, and I think we can."
As the presidential race of 2012 nears, this alliance may foreshadow some of the unexpected surprises we might witness in future news cycles as the Tea Party continues to reshape the American political spectrum.
It certainly stinks that’s all I know. Ralph Nader is someone he shouldn’t be caught dead with..
This isn’t the first time. Paul endorsed Nader and Cynthia McKinney in 2008. People really don’t realize what kind of guy Palio Fraudie is.
The democrat party has always had a libertarian/progressive alliance.
In the days of the Confederate democrats it was a libertarian/populist alliance. The Confederate democrats were never a conservative party but more so dominated by libertarians and there was also a strong undercurrent of populists in the South as well that formed what was called the Peoples Party and then merged with the democrats.
These two factions later more strongly aligned together with the election of the progressive Woodrow Wilson.
It is no suprise that the pervert Paul is aligning with a populist like Nadar. Both old school democrats.
To 24. Paul endorsed Mc Kinney in 2008?! That’s stunning.
Does he believe in UFO’s or is that just Kucinich?
He talks a good game, at least domestically. I’ve been on the fence with him for a while now I’m completely done.
RON PAUL has endorsed everybody. Everybody, that is, but John McCain and Barack Obama. At a press conference today, he urged his supporters to vote for one of four third-party candidates: Ralph Nader (independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) or Cynthia McKinney (Green).
Sep 10th 2008, 18:41 by The Economist | NEW YORK
I still think he's a kook, but remembering how much it turned my stomach to vote for McCain he has a point.
MCKINNEY? Oh, come on! The only congressperson as goofy as she is would be Hank Johnson who is just worried sick that Guam might sink!
McKinney and Hank Johnson are certainly notable but there are several contenders for the prize of “goofiest congressperson.”
Sheila Jackson Lee
Cold Cash Jefferson
James Traficant
Barney Frank
Dennis Kusinich
Ron Paul
Anthony Weiner
etc.
etc.
etc.
You forgot Robert KKK Byrd.
Byrd had the most internal promotions within the democrat party then anyone else in history. The democrats called him a great Constitutionalist (just as Paul is called by his followers) and the ‘consciense of the Senate’.
He was simply another old school democrat similiar to the mindset of a Ron Paul or a Ralph Nadar in that they all harken back to older democrat party movements.
Byrd used to go on crazy rants in the Senate. Reciting poetry even. A total goofball.
Well said. Nader is as statist as they come. Paul has a few screws loose if he thinks they have much in common other than their contempt for Israel.
bipartisanship is so much fun!
/s
>>>LOL - what unites these two is their anti-Semitism. <<<
You are a slanderous POS. When is the last time you told the truth?
>>>Let’s all agree to blame the Jews and what our paranoid brains think are their proxies<<<
Paul’s ideology is strongly influenced by Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, both Jews. How can one be both anti-semitic and an admirer of Jews at the same time?
Forget it. You are too stupid to know the answer to that.
How many election cycles must we see where American Jews vote for people like Bill Clinton and Barak Obozo, as well as other liberals who are no friends to Israel? R-U-N Paul is another idiot who is no friend to Israel - or the United States for that matter.
>>>How many election cycles must we see where American Jews vote for people like Bill Clinton and Barak Obozo, as well as other liberals who are no friends to Israel? R-U-N Paul is another idiot who is no friend to Israel - or the United States for that matter.<<<
You forgot George W. Bush who wanted a Palestinian state. What a horror show that would be.
I am Jewish, and I like Ron Paul’s position on Israel, which is:
“Israel is rich, and they have hundreds of nukes. They can take care of themselves.”
I'm curious as to what motivated you to bring GWB into the conversation? I'm also wondering how you plan to provide your bonafides regarding your claim to be Jewish. And, if you are being honest, you should be ashamed turning your back on your homeland.
>>>[Ron] Paul has no idea about appropriate foriegn policy, and every time he opens his mouth and sticks his foot in he demonstrates just how little consideration for POTUS he should garner.<<<
A few examples would not hurt. While you are at it, tell me what you think about his other positions.
>>>I’m curious as to what motivated you to bring GWB into the conversation? And, if you are being honest, you should be ashamed turning your back on your homeland.<<<
I thought I turned my back on the homeland when I voted for G.W. Bush. After all he gave us Obama with a filbuster proof congress, another stinking entitlement, and an economy in the tank. He did well going after Al Qaeda. But he would have done well to stick to his campaign promise of no nation building.
>>>I’m also wondering how you plan to provide your bonafides regarding your claim to be Jewish. <<<
You want a DNA test, or something? Jeesh! Anyway, Ron Paul’s position on Israel is far superior to any by an American president that I can remember.
George W. Bush wanted a Palestinian state (just like Obama). What a nightmare that would be. In any case, Israel cannot take a crap without permission from the U.S.. Everytime Hamas or Hezballoh attacks Israel, and Israel retaliates, the U.S. stops them short of elminating the threat, guaranteeing the same type of attacks in the future.
Paul’s position is simply: “Israel is rich, and they have hundreds of nukes. They can take care of themselves.” I’ll leave it to you to tell us what is wrong with that position.
You are really funny. When you run out of ammunition against Ron Paul, you just make crap up!
In the 2008 election, Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constituion Party for President, not John McCain, not Cynthia McKinney, not Ralph Nader. But keep it up and don't let the truth get in your way. It's somewhat entertaining to see someone so blind with rage that they abandon all reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.