Ron Paul On The Record

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
But the point is, none of us, even the most ardent freedom lovers should ever put aside their own good sense to support any political candidate.[/quote]

What you don’t understand is that it isn’t just the candidate we are necessarily supporting–it is also the message. The support Paul is managing to receive is not because he is some flawless do-good politician (though that is part of his appeal) it is because of the message.

If the same message were being given by someone other than Paul who were as consistent as he is I would probably be supporting that person instead. The problem is there isn’t anyone bringing the ideas that Paul is to the debate. If all I wanted was a do-good politician I would vote for someone like Kucinich–or even Huckabee (they are both likable individuals).

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I fully understand this, but the over blown zeal still makes the Paulies look like nut jobs.
[/quote]
uhhh…some of them are. I don’t include myself in that camp.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
But the point is, none of us, even the most ardent freedom lovers should ever put aside their own good sense to support any political candidate.[/quote]

I’m not sure if I can agree with this, it depends a little bit on what you mean.

People, individually, should vote for who they would like to vote for. It’s damned easy to jump on the bandwagon and vote for the most popular person, but I don’t think it is really doing the country any good.

Anyhow, another reason for the MSM to ignore Ron Pual is that he is clearly no friend of the establishment. I’m sure his message makes an incredible amount of rich and powerful people very concerned about a potential shakeup to their very profitable business as usual.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m sure his message makes an incredible amount of rich and powerful people very concerned about a potential shakeup to their very profitable business as usual.[/quote]

Ron Paul is for small, non-interventionist government. Less taxes, less spending, less meddling laws. How is any of that bad for business, unless you depend on government contracts for most of it?

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
I’m sure his message makes an incredible amount of rich and powerful people very concerned about a potential shakeup to their very profitable business as usual.

Ron Paul is for small, non-interventionist government. Less taxes, less spending, less meddling laws. How is any of that bad for business, unless you depend on government contracts for most of it?
[/quote]

It is not bad for business per se, it is bad for people who grew up thinking than running a business means lobbying in Washington.

This is true for Oil, Defense, Pharma and Agriculture companies plus all the other companies receiving subsidies in any way, shape or form.

All the banks that get bailed out by the Feds right now…

You would not want them to face the consequences of their bad decisions, would you?

Big Business does not want free markets, they wanted government guaranteed profits.

I’m just thinking out loud here - but if a bunch of conservatives were having the political orgasms over a promising republican like you guys are displaying over this Ron Paul guy - you’d laugh us off the forum.

I think Ron Paul has some very, very good ideas. But I’m not creamin’ my jeans over the guy.

What gives?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m just thinking out loud here - but if a bunch of conservatives were having the political orgasms over a promising republican like you guys are displaying over this Ron Paul guy - you’d laugh us off the forum.

I think Ron Paul has some very, very good ideas. But I’m not creamin’ my jeans over the guy.

What gives? [/quote]

He is a promising Republican.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m just thinking out loud here - but if a bunch of conservatives were having the political orgasms over a promising republican like you guys are displaying over this Ron Paul guy - you’d laugh us off the forum.

I think Ron Paul has some very, very good ideas. But I’m not creamin’ my jeans over the guy.

What gives? [/quote]

The implications of his policy changes are simply enormous, staggering.

Don’t you agree, in a hypothetical sense, that if a libertarian were to become President, this country, and the entire world, would never be the same?

Ron Paul wants to dismantle the very financial structure that powers the modern, global economy. That’s not hyperbole, that’s as accurate a description of his policy suggestions as you can get. Isn’t that as radical an undertaking as anyone could possibly hope to accomplish?

By the very nature of his proposals, those who understand and agree with them are radicals almost by necessity.

Things would be so different under a gold standard, under a truly free market economy. What we have now is a product of a century’s worth of statism.

The standard of living could be raised to new heights. Death and disease could be overcome with technological advances. Humanity could enter a new age of prosperity. All of this could result from capitalism, if we let it.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nommy and Lev seem to be a fairly good representation of the Paul fanatics.

Keep up the good work guys your fellow loons are quite proud I’m sure.[/quote]

Crazy people don’t exist. The so-called lunatic fringe is a figment of your imagination.

I’m not close minded enough to call anybody “crazy” because I have seen that the essence of nature is near-infinite diversity.

“Crazy”, to me, is an utterly meaningless epithet used to stereotype anyone whose thinking happens to fall outside of social norms.

Everything that is done, thought, and said by individuals on a daily basis is so utterly trivial in a cosmic, or even a global, context.

The entire universe is full of extremes, full of violence, full of power. How can you gaze at the stars at night and then belittle someone for taking a passionate view of something?

You’re a highly toxic person, a close-minded zombie. You hide under the mantle of science and reason, but your methods are neither scientific nor reasoned.

A real scientist considers the entire world his laboratory and does not shut himself off from all that surrounds him.

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’m just thinking out loud here - but if a bunch of conservatives were having the political orgasms over a promising republican like you guys are displaying over this Ron Paul guy - you’d laugh us off the forum.

I think Ron Paul has some very, very good ideas. But I’m not creamin’ my jeans over the guy.

What gives?

He is a promising Republican.
[/quote]

SO you guys are republican if they are promising?

You are a socialist, no?

Why are you so excited over a man that will strip government of all the frills, and future frills?

Welfare?

Healthcare?

How do you reconcile this?

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The implications of his policy changes are simply enormous, staggering.

Don’t you agree, in a hypothetical sense, that if a libertarian were to become President, this country, and the entire world, would never be the same?

Ron Paul wants to dismantle the very financial structure that powers the modern, global economy. That’s not hyperbole, that’s as accurate a description of his policy suggestions as you can get. Isn’t that as radical an undertaking as anyone could possibly hope to accomplish?

By the very nature of his proposals, those who understand and agree with them are radicals almost by necessity.

Things would be so different under a gold standard, under a truly free market economy. What we have now is a product of a century’s worth of statism.

The standard of living could be raised to new heights. Death and disease could be overcome with technological advances. Humanity could enter a new age of prosperity. All of this could result from capitalism, if we let it. [/quote]

I understand that his ideas are radical.

You gave me another orgasm.

Specifically, why are those of you that - for the last 4 years - are decidedly liberal, big government program supporters now supporting a guy that wants to strip the size of government down to a bare minimum?

It don’t add up.

[quote]orion wrote:
It is not bad for business per se, it is bad for people who grew up thinking than running a business means lobbying in Washington.

This is true for Oil, Defense, Pharma and Agriculture companies plus all the other companies receiving subsidies in any way, shape or form.

All the banks that get bailed out by the Feds right now…

You would not want them to face the consequences of their bad decisions, would you?

Big Business does not want free markets, they wanted government guaranteed profits.[/quote]

But by doing so, you’re creating artificial market conditions. Eventually, reality will catch up and you’ll get a catastrophic correction. The more you try to interfere with market forces, the more you’ll get punished eventually. I guess it’s the “eventually” that encourages people to do it anyway, they hope it’s another generation that’ll deal with the blowback.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Things would be so different under a gold standard, under a truly free market economy. What we have now is a product of a century’s worth of statism.

The standard of living could be raised to new heights. Death and disease could be overcome with technological advances. Humanity could enter a new age of prosperity. All of this could result from capitalism, if we let it. [/quote]

Dude, you know I’ve been trying to be pretty reasonable in my criticism of Ron Paul and his believers.

However, when you start trumpeting the salvation of humankind and the world because of the policies Ron Paul is talking about you sound bat-shit crazy!

It doesn’t matter who is elected, the world is not going to turn into freaking Shangri-la. Sorry.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Specifically, why are those of you that - for the last 4 years - are decidedly liberal, big government program supporters now supporting a guy that wants to strip the size of government down to a bare minimum?

It don’t add up. [/quote]

I know I risk life and limb responding to your post, but hell, I can’t avoid it.

Just because someone is liberal does not mean that they are in favor of big government. Libertarian ideas speak well to those that are fiscally conservative while being socially liberal.

Hell, even supporting various programs does not mean one wants large government, entitlement, or whatever.

If Ron Paul wasn’t so dead set on dismantling every single thing, such that he was a more moderate libertarian, he’d be better than anything else the political system had to offer. As it is, were stuck with turdballs on the left, turdballs on the right, and a guy who’s followers want to usher in a new era for humanity.

Sigh. Fire away.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
The implications of his policy changes are simply enormous, staggering.

Don’t you agree, in a hypothetical sense, that if a libertarian were to become President, this country, and the entire world, would never be the same?

Ron Paul wants to dismantle the very financial structure that powers the modern, global economy. That’s not hyperbole, that’s as accurate a description of his policy suggestions as you can get. Isn’t that as radical an undertaking as anyone could possibly hope to accomplish?

By the very nature of his proposals, those who understand and agree with them are radicals almost by necessity.

Things would be so different under a gold standard, under a truly free market economy. What we have now is a product of a century’s worth of statism.

The standard of living could be raised to new heights. Death and disease could be overcome with technological advances. Humanity could enter a new age of prosperity. All of this could result from capitalism, if we let it.

I understand that his ideas are radical.

You gave me another orgasm.

Specifically, why are those of you that - for the last 4 years - are decidedly liberal, big government program supporters now supporting a guy that wants to strip the size of government down to a bare minimum?

It don’t add up. [/quote]

Yeah, I suppose you’re right. I can’t answer the question from a personal point of view because I’ve always been a conservative. But I, too, do not fully understand why so many liberals are digging Ron Paul.

The best explanation I have is that campaign politics are all show and very little substance. I really don’t think the majority of his supporters (especially the recent converts) are aware of his academic positions on the more formal issues.

That’s just the way it works. You’re never going to have a popular movement centered around an academic issue such as the gold standard or fractional reserve banking.

Ron Paul’s outward appearance is that of a steadfast, principled conservative in the old tradition. His integrity and candor is what’s responsible for drawing people from all over the political spectrum. I know for a fact that lots of people were stunned to hear a Republican candidate voice a non-interventionist view in the debates. Obviously, these individuals are entirely unaware of the libertarian/paleo-conservative faction of the right.

If you think that all Republicans are and always have been neocons, then I can see why Ron Paul would be a shock to your system.

I’d love to hear him speak about economics more often, but I know that’s not going to happen so long as he’s running a grassroots campaign. It was quite telling to hear him start off his speech at Ames on the issue of abortion. He does adjust his message to the audience he’s giving it to. For example, listen to the speech he gave at Google HQ. Definitely left-leaning.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Just because someone is liberal does not mean that they are in favor of big government. Libertarian ideas speak well to those that are fiscally conservative while being socially liberal.[/quote]

Not in the current climate. Liberal is one that favors entitlements and big government programs. That is why I asked the question. Please don’t assume I don’t know what I am talking about.

You can’t have big programs without big government. It doesn’t work that way. Government healthcare? That is about 20% of our economy. No way in hell you have an entitlement such as that without going against just about everything Paul stands for.

[quote]If Ron Paul wasn’t so dead set on dismantling every single thing, such that he was a more moderate libertarian, he’d be better than anything else the political system had to offer. As it is, were stuck with turdballs on the left, turdballs on the right, and a guy who’s followers want to usher in a new era for humanity.
[/quote]

I agree with this. I would add greedy, and power hungry to turdball.

BUT -
You don’t answer the question. You are standing in the middle again. I want unabashed liberals, even self professed communists like lifticus to tell me why they are so in love with Paul. He should fly in the face of every left wing-nut on this forum.

Is it a change for change’s sake? I just don’t get it.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Not in the current climate. Liberal is one that favors entitlements and big government programs. That is why I asked the question. Please don’t assume I don’t know what I am talking about.
[/quote]

This is a somewhat new interpretation of the word liberal, and frankly it leaves no room for general liberals who are not into entitlements and big government programs. Yes, I’m sure you know that too, but perhaps you could suggest a word to use when talking about disenfranchised liberals?

In this case, I get a free pass. I’m not able to answer on behalf of the group you want to hear from… I told you why I liked parts of what I heard as I seem to get lumped in the liberal camp often enough.

EDIT: Oops, maybe I didn’t, at least not explicitly. I like fiscal responsibility, not wanting to be the world police (which doesn’t preclude actual wars), shrunken government and greatly heightened social liberties. I suspect his ability to be effective would be very constrained as he would be the executive and not effectively directing congress to enact his views. This would also preclude him from doing too much damage with his more radical views, presumably.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’m just thinking out loud here - but if a bunch of conservatives were having the political orgasms over a promising republican like you guys are displaying over this Ron Paul guy - you’d laugh us off the forum.

I think Ron Paul has some very, very good ideas. But I’m not creamin’ my jeans over the guy.

What gives?

He is a promising Republican.

SO you guys are republican if they are promising?

You are a socialist, no?

Why are you so excited over a man that will strip government of all the frills, and future frills?

Welfare?

Healthcare?

How do you reconcile this? [/quote]

I am WHAT?