Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1141

[quote]lifty wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Bush had made mistakes, but, it still doesn’t have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

Oh, when you throw in commentary like this, it indicates your argument is weak and your position untenable.

Says a person who has attacked Ron Paul supporters and not Ron Paul’s ideas. You have not made one argument why his ideas are incorrect just that they are wrong with no further comment. You call his ideas dangerous but fail to understand where his ideas come from. You flag wave for the American team but don’t even understand where this country comes from.

What does it do for your argument to make speculations about history that hasn’t happened yet? At least my arguments are factually based.

Quit using big words you don’t understand the meaning of. There is nothing untenable about my arguments as they are very capable of being defended (and hence tenable). You call Paul’s positions naive but he has been correct about everything he has said with regard to foreign policy. The evidence is in your face. Terrorism isn’t going away and in fact we are creating a new generation of terrorist; nor will Iraq have a stable government with our intervention.

You support a fascist who is intent on stamping out liberty through the strong arm of government. I am on the right side and you are on the wrong.[/quote]

lifty,

Deep breaths. Ease down.

Now, you know full well that I’ve spent time discussing paulie’s views. You may disagree with the obvious truths, but, don’t say that I haven’t discussed them.

For instance the horrible precedent of publicly acknowledging the “reasons” given by bin laden as justification for pulling out of the Middle East. That’s tantamount to legitimizing the tactic of terrorism.

As you are well aware, I’ve written that many times.

If you disagree, your argument is UNTENABLE.

You asked, “What does it do for your argument to make speculations about history that hasn’t happened yet?”

That is a fair question. Incidentally, it gets to the root of the question that people have been grappling with regarding Iraq.

A leader (and a voter) must decide based upon PAST actions, what are the most likely outcomes in the future. For instance, saddam was a known supporter of terrorists, used wmd against his own people and iran. saddam was defeated by the U.S. (Another Bush, no less) and was hostile to the U.S. (firing on planes, etc). It was therefore, reasonable to acknowledge and conclude that he most likely would have given said weaponry to groups hostile to the United States.

Does the possibility exist that he would have acquired a copy of the Sound of Music and suddenly decide that the “Hills are Alive…?” Yes, sure.

But, given his history and the pattern of most like-minded tyrants, the odds were overwhelming that something very dangerous was going to happen.

If you prefer, if you’ve had skin cancer, the odds that a similar lesion would be cancer is very high. Is it 100%? No.

Therefore, most reasonable people make decisions based on probabilities. Everything from the likelihood that an apple carries Hepatitis A to the risks of crossing the street at rush hour.

ron paul’s ideas of “fortress America” has been shown to be wrong so many times that it’s hard to argue that THIS TIME pulling into our shell would suddenly work. In fact, the world is MUCH SMALLER than 1917 or 1939. It didn’t work then and it CERTAINLY wouldn’t work now.

lifty, I think you are a cute, little guy. Misguided and naive, but, I can’t bring myself to dislike you.

JeffR

1142

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lifty, I think you are a cute, little guy. Misguided and naive, but, I can’t bring myself to dislike you.

JeffR
[/quote]
Do not patronize me.

The establishment is scared, as well it should be, otherwise they would not treat Paul with such disrespect and ill-temper. They laugh and scoff because they have no other argument to his ideas. Yes, laughter is the last vain effort of the fearful.

Clearly there is a disagreement on the ideas of liberty in our government. Liberty, in its truest sense, is not possible with the current establishment doctrines – Republican nor Democrat. Only a reassessment of the values of a constitutional government will save that.

The phrase, “give me liberty or give me death,” used to be the call of the patriot and now we are ruled by weak, unprincipled fear mongers who are so afraid of death they have sold out the American Dream for an arbitrary notion of “security”. When true patriots reject their efforts they get called anti-American because they do not want to submit to the establishment idea of safety.

There used to be a notion of self-sufficiency and responsibility in this country. That is all but gone and in its place now remains the the skeleton of individuality held together by collectivist dogma. We are not free – we are governed.

1143

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lifty, I think you are a cute, little guy. Misguided and naive, but, I can’t bring myself to dislike you.

JeffR

Do not patronize me.

The establishment is scared, as well it should be, otherwise they would not treat Paul with such disrespect and ill-temper. They laugh and scoff because they have no other argument to his ideas. Yes, laughter is the last vain effort of the fearful.

Clearly there is a disagreement on the ideas of liberty in our government. Liberty, in its truest sense, is not possible with the current establishment doctrines – Republican nor Democrat. Only a reassessment of the values of a constitutional government will save that.

The phrase, “give me liberty or give me death,” used to be the call of the patriot and now we are ruled by weak, unprincipled fear mongers who are so afraid of death they have sold out the American Dream for an arbitrary notion of “security”. When true patriots reject their efforts they get called anti-American because they do not want to submit to the establishment idea of safety.

There used to be a notion of self-sufficiency and responsibility in this country. That is all but gone and in its place now remains the the skeleton of individuality held together by collectivist dogma. We are not free – we are governed.[/quote]

Thinking anout running for office?

You`d have my vote.

1144

The poll also marked an interruption in what had been a slow but steady rise in support for Fred D. Thompson. The former senator from Tennessee nearly doubled his support from April to early September as he prepared to enter the race, but he has not picked up additional backing since.

Giuliani topped the Republican field with 34 percent, with Thompson at 17 percent and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at 12 percent in the new poll. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was in fourth with 11 percent but has continued to make strong showings in polls testing the crucial early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee took 8 percent, his best showing in a Post-ABC poll. Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) had 3 percent; Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), 2 percent; and Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), 1 percent.

1145

I doubt he’ll win but I will say every debate he’s always the best. Doesn’t back pedal in is much more informed and educated then the rest. Rudy is horrible but entertaining to watch. It’ll be a Democrat pres in the end much of America is sick of the repulicans after the Bush admin.

Ron Paul would be a great pres shame he doesn’t get enough exposer and most of America doesn’t even follow the elections to give a crap. They mostly seem to have there picks without listening to what the candiates have to say.

Rudy did very little for 9/11 as he so likes to banter on about. This is coming from a person that actually saw the planes hit with his own eyes not TV.

1147

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The establishment is scared, as well it should be, otherwise they would not treat Paul with such disrespect and ill-temper. They laugh and scoff because they have no other argument to his ideas. Yes, laughter is the last vain effort of the fearful. [/quote]

A precursor again. I’m voting for Paul. Now, with that out of the way…

The establishment IS scared. Paul isn’t going to win. But, people are waking up to his message. They had a chance with Goldwater and fucked it up by voting in Johnson. They thought they had it with Reagan, but Reagan fucked it up (read: war on drugs, ect). American liberty has been under attack from the inception of this country.

Since we will never be able to be truly free, we do the best we can. Lincoln give us a big push toward a tyrannical government, but we eventually scaled back. Wilson gave us another big push and FDR pushed us over the edge. We haven’t recovered since. American life has been a slow walk down the path of tyranny. Most Americans have the mark of the slave upon them and don’t care where we’re headed, but a growing and vocal minority is waking up. Paul is their champion.

The problem with Paul is that he’s kind of a kook. He’s a borderline Jacobin as well. His eccentricities hurt him. But he has a message many can respond to. Paul looks good to freedom lovers, not because of his merits, but rather because every other candidate merely gives lip service to freedom. No other candidate backs it up. I’m pulling for Paul, not because I like him. Hell, I don’t.

But he will do more good than harm, and that’s all you can ask of a government official. I’m more pro-Iraq than any of you people on this board and I’m giving in on that for this guy. [quote]

Clearly there is a disagreement on the ideas of liberty in our government. Liberty, in its truest sense, is not possible with the current establishment doctrines – Republican nor Democrat. Only a reassessment of the values of a constitutional government will save that.[/quote]

Liberty in its truest sense is anarchy. To assert my rights I still have to impose on your ability to violate them. Anarchy is the quickest route to tyranny. There will always be a Caesar ready to come in and “save us”. That said, the real argument here is why the hell our constitutional government that we HAVE is not being adhered to. I’ll continue to call that liberty, since I don’t want anarchy and an adhered to constitutional government fits the title of liberty pretty well.[quote]

The phrase, “give me liberty or give me death,” used to be the call of the patriot and now we are ruled by weak, unprincipled fear mongers who are so afraid of death they have sold out the American Dream for an arbitrary notion of “security”. When true patriots reject their efforts they get called anti-American because they do not want to submit to the establishment idea of safety. [/quote]

Precisely. We’re being ruled by cowards. Unfortunately, this statement is used mostly regarding republicans and war mongering. I’m equally appalled with people who encroach upon my liberty to provide my security with retirement and health care as I am appalled with those wishing to protect me from backwards terrorists thousands of miles away. Neither cry for “safety” is a mandate to put me to shackles.

All this said, I’ve never really liked “give me liberty or give me death”. I really don’t accept the alternative. I prefer, “give me liberty…now.” New Hampshire says, “live free or die” while I say, “live free or kill.”[quote]

There used to be a notion of self-sufficiency and responsibility in this country. That is all but gone and in its place now remains the the skeleton of individuality held together by collectivist dogma. We are not free – we are governed.[/quote]

Oorah. We’ve had our differences, but I’d share a fighting hole with you any day. The problem is that most don’t realize that we aren’t free. It is if we all live in a big fishbowl. The fish aren’t free. The problem is that all the goldfish never go anywhere. Because they never go anywhere, they don’t see the walls of the fishbowl, so as far as they’re concerned they still think that they’re in the ocean. The fish that move around alot quickly discover that they’re stuck in a fishbowl.

The problem is that there aren’t very many active fish in the fishbowl and when they tell the little goldfish that they are in a fishbowl, they’re laughed at. But the fishbowl is getting smaller every day and if they don’t watch out, the little goldfish are going to figure it out only when it’s too late.

mike

1148

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Unfortunately, this statement is used mostly regarding republicans and war mongering.[/quote]

I tried to be as value neutral is I could with regard to the policies of republicans and democrats. I do not believe it is just a republican problem. I think the fallacies of the democrats are that we get domestic protectionist legislation that kills individual liberty. Both parties still unfortunately seem to have the mantra, “No Problem Big Enough Government Can’t Solve.”

I am coming to realize no solution is perfect in this regard. I would just like the ability to live as I see fit and mind my own business and worry about my own life and the lives of the individuals I care about–and I wish more people did the same.

Some mistakenly call this isolationism. It is not. This country has never been isolationist and it will never be. Isolationists don’t trade outside their borders.

1149

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

The problem is that there aren’t very many active fish in the fishbowl and when they tell the little goldfish that they are in a fishbowl, they’re laughed at. But the fishbowl is getting smaller every day and if they don’t watch out, the little goldfish are going to figure it out only when it’s too late.

mike[/quote]

But even that won`t bother the little fish, because goldfish have a memory of about 30 seconds.

1154

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
If he doesn’t get the nomination you don’t post for 6 months. If he is the republican nominee I’ll never post again. Is that fair enough for you?[/quote]

Frankly, if you left for good we would miss the retard contingent.

1155

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Give me the names of the government officials or any particular law that prevents you from doing this right now?
[/quote]

Every government regulation that requires me to ask permission or out right prevents me from acting directly in the market place.

1156

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Every government regulation that requires me to ask permission or out right prevents me from acting directly in the market place.[/quote]

Nothing is stopping you from “acting directly in the market place” by taking your value of labor into the marketplace right now - and yet, you sit comfortably in the bosom of public employment, salary and benefits authorized and paid by the very regulations you denounce as holding you back.

You suckle at the teet, and then damn the cow that supplies your milk.

Ain’t libertarians cute?

1158

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You suckle at the teet, and then damn the cow that supplies your milk.

Ain’t libertarians cute?
[/quote]
I think maybe you are confused about how different university systems work. This is not run by a government monopoly. We get the majority of our funding from private citizens and endowments. My paycheck is not written by the state.

The biggest source of funding comes from federally backed loans but the money is still private. If we dropped all of our public funding we would just have to be a little more competitive which I am all for. You could kiss all of those “worthless” degree programs goodbye which you have complained about – the sciences and engineering would still be big here.

1160

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I think maybe you are confused about how different university systems work. This is not run by a government monopoly. We get the majority of our funding from private citizens and endowments. My paycheck is not written by the state. [/quote]

No, I am all too aware. Endowments aside, the institution is public - publicly-run, publicly-governed, and your salary is publicly-determined. You work at a public school - by your own measure, this state-relationship is holding you and everyone else back from the dynamics of the marketplace.

No worries - take your valuable labor into the marketplace free of state constraints and stop burdening yourself by being “held back” by the very regulatory benefits you enjoy.

Instead, we get ad hoc rationalizations about how you really don’t quite work at a “public school”.

Nice try, Lift - it’s just part of the package we have come to expect.

The revenues in the Treasury is the primary source of funding for public business - and all that money paid is from private sources. So what?

It’s not my case to make - you are the navel-gazing anarcho-libertarian (this week) that thinks the state should be involved in hardly anything. Again, I say no problem, practice what you preach and sever your relationship with “the Leviathan”.

Will we see such consistency out of the Rage Against the Machiner? Or will we get more deflective qualifiers about how “well, the public school ain’t exactly public”?

That is the problem with extremists - it takes nothing to expose them as hypocrites.