Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]doogie wrote:

“There was a time when nobody even knew who was a member of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission. I think it’s a bad sign that they’re not as secret as they used to be. They’re bolder now. But there is an agenda. They’re behind the scenes in many way - very secretive.”

–Ron Paul[/quote]

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.

The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

82

“The Western world is headed downhill and a few people know what can be done to save it. Many others don’t.”

Fair enough. I do not believe the most powerful, prosperous nation in history (which, by the way, became that way by following an endless line of anti-libertarian policy) needs saving, although it could probably use a good tune-up.

I would agree with the libertarians that the government often does not run things as efficiently as private enterprise and that the courts have become too activist. I also agree with many of them on some social issues. On the other hand, switching government services to purely for-profit-motive puts our safety and well-being at risk.

You say a few people know what can be done to save the country. Just how do they know? Where are all the examples of pure libertarian fairylands of awesomeness to prove your theory that completely changing policy would bear miraculous results? The tribal existence of the Celts? I do not think there are any. The fact is, no great society was every built on the cheap.

Why have there been no purely libertarian presidents? (Although they all, including Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush liked to proclaim a preference for small government) they always proceeded to do the exact opposite at least when it comes to expenditures.

Surely they could not have all been bought off. Who paid off libertarian-in-thought Thomas Jefferson when he was elected president and began to push through one anti-libertarian policy after another? In my opinion, if pure libertarianism could not work in 1807, it sure as hell will not work in 2007.

Why were many of the purely libertarian actions in our countries history (like Andrew Jackson and his dismantling of the Second Bank) so economically disastrous?

What is Ron Pauls position on defense? Some libertarians I have read take their inspiration from antiwar writers like Randolph Bourne. I have heard some say: Take away government and you eliminate war. Uh huh, right. And some, like Charles Murray, in his book ?What it means to be a libertarian? manage to avoid the question entirely.

83

I love the loony libertarians.

Taste like chicken.

84

Ron Paul Odds Slashed Dramatically: 15 to 1 from 200 to 1

[quote]
It was only two weeks ago that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul was listed at Sportsbook.com with odds of 200 to 1. In fact, early in the month he was not even offered on the political betting menu. My how things have changed in the past month.

…[/quote]

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-053107.html

88

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Let’s see what “The Stump” a major Internet election blog had to say about Ron Pauls performance in the most recent debate:

"Although the congressman from Texas has no shot at the nomination, he is a candidate and thus gets to talk at the debate. He’s anti-war, anti-national defense and would be the single worst choice to lead our nation at this time. I would take Hillary Clinton over Paul at this time – and anyone who reads my writing knows what I think of Hillary.

OOPS[/quote]

OMG, OMG someone has written down the exact same thing you are thinking and even thoigh it is completely wrong you feel all warm and fuzzy inside…

Congratulations…

89

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
"Although the congressman from Texas has no shot at the nomination, he is a candidate and thus gets to talk at the debate. He’s anti-war, anti-national defense and would be the single worst choice to lead our nation at this time. I would take Hillary Clinton over Paul at this time – and anyone who reads my writing knows what I think of Hillary.
[/quote]

This guy is a moron. Show me one thing that is anti-defense in Paul’s campaign. When Paul takes the nomination I’ll bet this guy changes his tune.

90

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

This guy is a moron. Show me one thing that is anti-defense in Paul’s campaign. When Paul takes the nomination I’ll bet this guy changes his tune.
[/quote]

He doesn’t tow the GOP line of “Kill 'em till they like us.” so he clearly must be anti-defense.

And possibly a gay communist.

91

Jack, your post is riddled with some of the misconceptions so often applied to libertarianism.

It’s not a political ideology, it’s not a system of government, it’s a WORLD VIEW. A scientific system for interpreting reality, centered around the economic doctrine of the monetary school.

The study of economics results from the direct application of physical laws to human affairs. The “basis” for Libertarianism is not found in the writings of John Locke or Adam Smith, but in the laws of thermodynamics which govern energy and matter. Every economic question relates to an expenditure of energy. The entire field is a fascinating study of the enthalpy and entropy of the universe. Of how every reaction which takes place influences every other reaction.

The field of economics has been a work in progress throughout human history because it is literally the domain of GOD, requiring omniscience to master. Economic mastery is the highest worldly achievement known to man.

To answer your question, the world already operates under “libertarian” principles. Every dictatorship, every tyranny, as well as every republic that has ever existed has been subject to the laws of economics. Systems of government come about as a consequence of economic factors. There is no possible form of government that could arise to “repudiate” libertarianism. That type of thinking only reflects a misconception of the true nature of the ideology.

Academic libertarians understand what I have written above. There are some political activists who call themselves libertarian that may not understand it. That’s why I try to avoid the term, myself.

“Big-L” Libertarianism is the name for a particular U.S. SOCIAL MOVEMENT which advocates constitutional republic as the optimal system of government.

My political views can most accurately be described as “fascist”. I’m a student of power, and fascism is the political doctrine of power. The power to affect change starts with a firm understanding of the immutable physical laws. All egalitarian, collectivist ideologies are false because they are based on false economic ideas. It was the notion of classical liberals that man could be molded like clay and “made perfect” by the helping hand of the State. The very notion was doomed to failure from the start. There has never been an egalitarian society in history and there won’t be any sooner than the pull of gravity changes directions.

Why do I support Ron Paul? I understand that his proposals are scientifically correct under formal economic analysis. But why should I care? Only because it affects me, that’s why. Because I’m not yet above the influence of popular movements. They still have the potential to affect my life. I know that the common man in this country will be better off in the foreseeable future if Ron Paul wins.

92

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Let’s see what “The Stump” a major Internet election blog had to say about Ron Pauls performance in the most recent debate:

"Although the congressman from Texas has no shot at the nomination, he is a candidate and thus gets to talk at the debate. He’s anti-war, anti-national defense and would be the single worst choice to lead our nation at this time. I would take Hillary Clinton over Paul at this time – and anyone who reads my writing knows what I think of Hillary.

OOPS[/quote]

  1. He’s anti-national OFFENSE. Every other candidate is anti national defense.

  2. It comes as no surprise to me that a neocon would say something like that about Ron Paul. That’s the POINT, you see. I could have told you as much. I mean, I’ve got a thread running on this board called “Hillary the Hawk”, which attempts to paint her as a neocon in drag. That’s what I, and just about every other libertarian who follows foreign affairs, thinks she is. Libertarians don’t subscribe to the popular myth of the Democrats being the “anti-war” party. They know better. They remember all the various nation-building escapades that have been launched by Democratic admins.

There are no true “non-interventionists” in the mainstream, there are only left and right variations of neocons, the chief difference among them being some superficial lip service paid to “multi-lateralism” (what a pedantic term, christ) on the left. Nobody seriously questions America’s role as chief enforcer of the world. Nobody, except Ron Paul.

All of the above has been known to libertarians for a very long time.

Did I not call Ron Paul the “Supreme Anti-Neocon candidate?” Did I not suggest that he could potentially attract votes from any voting block, with the notable exception of the neocons? I sure did.

So go ahead, pull up some more neocon viewpoints of Ron Paul and we can laugh at them together. I know what they think. I’ve been keeping tabs on his reception over on Free Republic. It’s fascinating to watch them being forced to debate topics that are normally a bannable offense on there.

96

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
When Paul takes the nomination I’ll bet this guy changes his tune.

Bet? Did you say bet?

Why don’t you step up and take the bet that Nominal refuses to?

If Paul takes the nomination I won’t post for one month on t nation. If he loses you don’t post for one month.

Care to bet on your goofy candidate?

…[/quote]

I only want Ron Paul to take the republican nomination so I don’t have to vote for Barack or Hillary and my conscious doesn’t usually side with neocons.

There isn’t one candidate that falls in line with my entire ideology but I like Paul’s non-interventionist intent. I don’t agree with him on many issues, including abortion, but I like his ability to be realistic. Besides this, he is easily the only candidate that “knows” the constitution.

If we as a nation can’t agree on what policies are correct I think we can at least “get along” and not force particular policies on the rest of the country or world.

Man, I hope I don’t turn into a dogmatist…this is going to be a long ride.

97

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
My position from the beginning has been that Paul will NOT be the democratic candidate. [/quote]

You’re going to have a tough time finding anyone to bet against you. No matter how kooky you guys think Ron Paul is, I’m pretty sure everyone agrees that he will never be the democratic nominee. It’s way to late to change his affiliation THAT much. So, you’re pretty safe. Meanwhile, who are you betting on w/r/t the Republicans?

98

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:

OMG, OMG someone has written down the exact same thing you are thinking and even thoigh it is completely wrong you feel all warm and fuzzy inside…

Congratulations…

Although the congressman from Texas has no shot at the nomination…

Completely wrong?

Time will tell.
[/quote]

According to you it won`t, so you are pretty safe.

Somehow you do not seem to get the point that some things need to be said even if they cost votes.

There are some qualities that make a man do that, like honor and integrity but I understand that you do not search for these attributes in a politcian.

I wonder if Guliani speaks Italian…

And are there good balconies in Washingtons public squares?

100

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Anyway thanks for asking. Who are your top picks?[/quote]

If I could have my 'druthers, my dream ticket would consist of Paul/Thompson, Paul/Huckabee, or Paul/Romney, pretty much in that order. I hope you’re wrong about Paul being forgotten, but the way the coverage has been going, you’re probably right.

So realistically, I’m guessing that Guiliani will get the nod, powered mostly by the “Rah-Rah, strong leader” crowd. And I would think he would want to pick either Huckabee (for the southern vote) or Tancredo, who could also pull in some from the south based on his anti-illegal stances. I can’t see Guiliani/Romney (i.e. New York/Massachusetts) working out at all in that respect.

Romney can draw some appeal on charm like you said, plus he has demonstrated credibility when it comes to fiscal conservatism, which I like.

He’s also consistently anti-gay-marriage, which I don’t like, but is probably going to help him with the majority of Repubs. So you might be right about Romney getting the top spot, but Guiliani will play the 9/11 card every chance he gets, and I figure he will end up getting the nod.

Thompson (Fred) will get a lot of Reagan references, but I don’t see a lot to like about him beyond his pro-2nd Amendment writings and his TV appeal. Romney/Thompson would make an interesting ticket, and one I could actually vote for, with some reservations.

McCain has pissed off everyone with his dealings with Kennedy. He’s out.

I think that feelings about Iraq are going to be even more important this time than in '06. If the Dems “big” win really is a direct result of dissatisfaction with the war, the Republicans only have one anti-war candidate to run, and we know who that is. If Paul continues to get buried and gains only “internet supporters” then the Republicans are basically doomed the way things stand now.

On the democrat side, I still think that there are too many people who will vote for Hillary just because of who she is. She’s still pushing universal health care, which is a big vote-getter for the people who want government care from cradle-to-grave. Unfortunately, I think that’s a lot of people. I see her taking the nomination, and if she doesn’t get the top spot, I doubt she will try for VP.

You may be right about Obama running for second. If he doesn’t, he and Hillary may split the primary, and let Edwards in. I don’t see how Edwards could win otherwise, he seems like a well-coiffed conman.

They all sound out of their minds to me, but regardless, I think Edwards’ class-war attitude isn’t going to work any better for him than it has as far back as I can remember. At this point I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Hillary/Obama.

Clinton/Obama (big tax/gov. care/anti-war) vs. Paul/Thompson (low-tax/minimal gov./anti-war) would be an awesome matchup, but probably just one for dreamers!