Paul: US inching toward 'soft fascism'

PressTV ^

[Jeff Gordon]

softer fascism

Try Viagra.

[alarm rider]

“Ron Paul barreling towards insanity”.

He was on the Laura show this morning, trust me, he’s already there....

[SamuraiScot]

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was an ignorant liberal?

Correct. Great general. We'd consider him comparatively conservative today. But he wasted breath on the Pentagon-industrial culture and glossed over the problem of domestic Communism and let it fester. He didn't make common cause with conservatives here that I've ever read. We paid for it in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s . . .

[JimSEA]

The bigger a corporation becomes, the more like a government bureaucracy and the more wed to the government it is.

I can't remember the name of the 1950's politician who said this, but is is an accurate description of many multinational corporations.

[Wallace T.]

It would be interesting to search old archives of National Review and Human Events from that time, or the reactions of such conservatives as Barry Goldwater or William Knowland to that portion of Eisenhower’s address. Eisenhower was, of course, a career soldier, but one who was not comfortable with the “hard right” faction in the military represented by such men as MacArthur and Patton, who were idolized by conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s. There was a book written several years ago documenting the rightist sentiments and frequently anti-Semitic attitudes of many senior officers from World War I to the Cold War era. I cannot help but think that Eisenhower’s remarks were in part based on the danger he perceived from such people were they to gain greater political control.

[Milhous]

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was an ignorant liberal?

Eisenhower gets portrayed as a RINO in David Halberstam's account of (Time publisher) Luce's terrible betrayal of conservatism during the 1952 presidential election. This half century old story of betrayal seems to still ring true to today.

Luce felt it was of prime urgency that the Republicans win, in order to save the party, and thus in effect save the Union. ... The real decision, the real hard and difficult choice, had been the decision to destroy an old friend like Bob Taft. ... Taft was an old friend, a Yale man, a Bones man. ... More than anything else, Taft epitomized the kind of rectitude - there was no other word - that Luce demanded and so rarely found in politicians. Taft was intelligent, serious, honorable, conservative, moral, principled. Precisely the kind of man that Time normally would have sponsored. Taft had been denied the nomination in 1948, now by all rights it was his. He could be defeated only if Eisenhower were invented as a candidate. To desert Taft now, to betray him at this late date at the very pinnacle of his career, was a terrible deed for Luce to commit, and yet this was precisely what he did. Luce in 1951 and 1952 went all out to find and sponsor a more liberal Republican who could beat Bob Taft. Perhaps more than anyone else he worked to persuade Ike to run and, with a few other key people, he organized and arranged Ike's early campaign before the General could return from SHAEF. In the truest sense he was Ike's sponsor. In his later years Luce took personal credit for gaining Eisenhower the nomination.

[lormand]

"So you have the military-industrial complex, you have the medical-industrial..."

Notice how Paul-hommed always targets the military first?

This lunatic believes that we only need one submarine for defense. Paul makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.

[swain_forkbeard]

I sure don’t know more about the beliefs of your in-laws.

But the idea that lobbyists for corporations and other interest groups influence government and that the extent and nature of this influence is generally not revealed to the public is not entirely without basis, I think.

[lormand]

"The closest thing I've seen to fascism lately is Paul's supporters chasing Sean Hannity down the street as he was going to dinner. They looked and sounded like brownshirts."

They are anarchists doing what anarchist do best, which is annoy the hell out of everyone until it gets too dangerous to tolerate.

[lormand]

"The closest thing I've seen to fascism lately is Paul's supporters chasing Sean Hannity down the street as he was going to dinner. They looked and sounded like brownshirts."

They are anarchists doing what anarchist do best, which is annoy the hell out of everyone until it gets too dangerous to tolerate.

[lormand]

"I'd say it was the aresnal of democracy."

Best line of the thread....

[Moose4]

Typical Paul. He takes a good point, and proceeds to wrap it in a shroud of lunacy, paranoia, and conspiracy theory.

Probably the most succinct and accurate opinion I've seen yet on Paul and many of the Paulestinians.

}:-)4

[rineaux]

It’s not the Military being referenced as the Military Industrial Complex in Eisenhower’s speech. It’s the industries that supply the arms.

They have a lot of power and influence in Washington and make heavy donations to get policies/projects made.

Currently, our girls on the left are getting more money this election year from them.

[SuziQ]

Any time someone brings up the “Military Industrial Complex”, that means he is a ignorant liberal.

GMTA! I had the very same thought!

[elhombrelibre]

Honesty requires me to admit that that’s what FDR called it in WWII. So if we’re fighting fascist Liberals know what it is. If we’re fighting commies or Islamist fascist, they want to call it the Military Industrial Complex implying it’s all about the money.

[lormand]

"And you don’t think that? Ever hear of K street?"

It is no wonder why Paul supporting ignoramuses harbor other wild and "creative" conspiracies regarding our Government.

One can rightfully decry the influence of corporations, lobbyist and others in the process, but Paultardism implies that the Republic is dead, and Representation no longer exists.

[ravinson]

Yes, we have a military. Yes, we have telecommunications companies. Yes, we have news media. Yes, we have drug companies. Yes, we have financial institutions. What was his point? That somehow he can create a world where these things don't exist?

No, the point is that by paying off politicians, big corporations get special subsidies, protections, and favors that individuals and small businesses do not. China is moving from Communism toward corporate cronyism and the USA is moving from free markets toward corporate cronyism. The only solution is pure libertarianism, where even the military will have to raise their money voluntarily and all individuals will be compelled to take full responsibility for their mistakes and get full credit for their successes.

[Milhous]

Eisenhower was, of course, a career soldier, but one who was not comfortable with the “hard right” faction in the military represented by such men as MacArthur

Rumor has it that when Eisenhower said, "I studied dramatics under [MacArthur] for seven years!" MacArthur retorted that Eisenhower was the "Best clerk he ever had".

Eisenhower's contribution to the political calculus to discern whether MacArthur would best serve his country by becoming the martyr of Corregidor remains unknown.

[marktwain]

“Funny how liberals decry giving up rights yet they argue against out RKBA all the time.”

That is true, but to give credit where it is due, Ron Paul is a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter.

[ohioman]

“I always find it interesting who different groups and people see as the enemy. My inlaws say the same thing. They think Cheney is worse than Osama (who they think is a tool of the US) and that he is running a shadow government controlled by corporations...”

I feel for you. My brother has idiot Northeastern inlaws that he has to deal with.

I bet the kid playing the banjo on the front porch in the Deliverance movie has more common sense than that.