[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
What, no discussion about the news that Paul has lunched with Nazis?
Uhh, he did? I know he took money from a white supremacist but what does that have to do with Nazis?
People are acting if he gave money to a white supremacist and not the other way around – that I might be concerned with I if I were trying to get elected.
In either event he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Better for him just to stick to his principles. He does not support them, they support him.
Freedom means one is free to believe what one wants; it doesn’t mean one condones what they believe.
I’m surprised you don’t understand the difference – no wait, no I’m not…[/quote]
It goes much further than one donation. He has many links with these odious groups. Read the littlegreenfootballs link.
So, let me get this straight: Ron Paul attends a debate, one in which all the other candidates participated, takes a picture with a couple people and signs a campaign pic. Isn’t just as likely (if not more so given the fact the man is running for a national office) that he had no idea who these people were?
So, let me get this straight: Ron Paul attends a debate, one in which all the other candidates participated, takes a picture with a couple people and signs a campaign pic. Isn’t just as likely (if not more so given the fact the man is running for a national office) that he had no idea who these people were? [/quote]
Possible but I think he would know. They run in the same circles.
So, let me get this straight: Ron Paul attends a debate, one in which all the other candidates participated, takes a picture with a couple people and signs a campaign pic. Isn’t just as likely (if not more so given the fact the man is running for a national office) that he had no idea who these people were? [/quote]
So, let me get this straight: Ron Paul attends a debate, one in which all the other candidates participated, takes a picture with a couple people and signs a campaign pic. Isn’t just as likely (if not more so given the fact the man is running for a national office) that he had no idea who these people were?
Read the rest of the blog’s posts.
[/quote]
But it seems to rest on Bill White’s claims. American Thinker did an update that calls into question the man’s honesty. This poster seems to have pointed out some conflicting claims:
I’ll keep an eye on it, as I said. But after “Nazi,” “Fascist,” labels attributed to Republicans all my life, I’ll reserve judgement for now.
But it seems to rest on Bill White’s claims. American Thinker did an update that calls into question the man’s honesty. This poster seems to have pointed out some conflicting claims:
I’ll keep an eye on it, as I said. But after “Nazi,” “Fascist,” labels attributed to Republicans all my life, I’ll reserve judgement for now.[/quote]
Sloth, you are a reasonable guy, and I don’t have an objection to your support for a libertarian candidate (although there seems to be two kinds of libertarians these days).
My point in raising the issue is to point to several concerns
Paul is a “bird of a feather”, which frankly is not hard to envision (very bad)
Paul may not be a “bird of a feather”, but he will “get fleas from laying down with dogs” (bad)
Paul is completely innocent of wrongdoing, but his judgment is galactically bad (bad)
Paul apparently has more money than he knows what to do with, but he won’t return a white supremacist’s donation out of principle (bad)
The conclusion? An already fringe character has no way of washing off this stink for a general election, and he is candidacy - whatever its size before - is finished.
A better question to consider, I think - has Paul’s candidacy been bad or good for libertarianism in the US? I think it has been bad for libertarianism’s prospects. Libertarianism needed a viable “Tech Central Station” candidate to explain a third way in politics - instead the US got a quirky ideologue who trafficks with conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and nativist paranoiacs.
But it seems to rest on Bill White’s claims. American Thinker did an update that calls into question the man’s honesty. This poster seems to have pointed out some conflicting claims:
I’ll keep an eye on it, as I said. But after “Nazi,” “Fascist,” labels attributed to Republicans all my life, I’ll reserve judgement for now.
Sloth, you are a reasonable guy, and I don’t have an objection to your support for a libertarian candidate (although there seems to be two kinds of libertarians these days).
My point in raising the issue is to point to several concerns
Paul is a “bird of a feather”, which frankly is not hard to envision (very bad)
Paul may not be a “bird of a feather”, but he will “get fleas from laying down with dogs” (bad)
Paul is completely innocent of wrongdoing, but his judgment is galactically bad (bad)
Paul apparently has more money than he knows what to do with, but he won’t return a white supremacist’s donation out of principle (bad)
The conclusion? An already fringe character has no way of washing off this stink for a general election, and he is candidacy - whatever its size before - is finished.
A better question to consider, I think - has Paul’s candidacy been bad or good for libertarianism in the US? I think it has been bad for libertarianism’s prospects. Libertarianism needed a viable “Tech Central Station” candidate to explain a third way in politics - instead the US got a quirky ideologue who trafficks with conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and nativist paranoiacs.[/quote]
But it seems to rest on Bill White’s claims. American Thinker did an update that calls into question the man’s honesty. This poster seems to have pointed out some conflicting claims:
I’ll keep an eye on it, as I said. But after “Nazi,” “Fascist,” labels attributed to Republicans all my life, I’ll reserve judgement for now.
Sloth, you are a reasonable guy, and I don’t have an objection to your support for a libertarian candidate (although there seems to be two kinds of libertarians these days).
My point in raising the issue is to point to several concerns
Paul is a “bird of a feather”, which frankly is not hard to envision (very bad)
Paul may not be a “bird of a feather”, but he will “get fleas from laying down with dogs” (bad)
Paul is completely innocent of wrongdoing, but his judgment is galactically bad (bad)
Paul apparently has more money than he knows what to do with, but he won’t return a white supremacist’s donation out of principle (bad)
The conclusion? An already fringe character has no way of washing off this stink for a general election, and he is candidacy - whatever its size before - is finished.
A better question to consider, I think - has Paul’s candidacy been bad or good for libertarianism in the US? I think it has been bad for libertarianism’s prospects. Libertarianism needed a viable “Tech Central Station” candidate to explain a third way in politics - instead the US got a quirky ideologue who trafficks with conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and nativist paranoiacs.[/quote]
Honestly, I didn’t believe Ron Paul was going to win. But, I’ll be damned if I’m putting my support in for the other Republican candidates. I’m tired of being burned by a “somewhat smaller government than the Democrats” Republican party. My only other option is apathy. That is, to take my ball and go home.
I like my Republican with a hefty pinch of libertarianism. Unfortunately, I believe such a Republican is a dying breed.
But it seems to rest on Bill White’s claims. American Thinker did an update that calls into question the man’s honesty. This poster seems to have pointed out some conflicting claims:
I’ll keep an eye on it, as I said. But after “Nazi,” “Fascist,” labels attributed to Republicans all my life, I’ll reserve judgement for now.
Sloth, you are a reasonable guy, and I don’t have an objection to your support for a libertarian candidate (although there seems to be two kinds of libertarians these days).
My point in raising the issue is to point to several concerns
Paul is a “bird of a feather”, which frankly is not hard to envision (very bad)
Paul may not be a “bird of a feather”, but he will “get fleas from laying down with dogs” (bad)
Paul is completely innocent of wrongdoing, but his judgment is galactically bad (bad)
Paul apparently has more money than he knows what to do with, but he won’t return a white supremacist’s donation out of principle (bad)
The conclusion? An already fringe character has no way of washing off this stink for a general election, and he is candidacy - whatever its size before - is finished.
A better question to consider, I think - has Paul’s candidacy been bad or good for libertarianism in the US? I think it has been bad for libertarianism’s prospects. Libertarianism needed a viable “Tech Central Station” candidate to explain a third way in politics - instead the US got a quirky ideologue who trafficks with conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and nativist paranoiacs.[/quote]
But it seems to rest on Bill White’s claims. American Thinker did an update that calls into question the man’s honesty. This poster seems to have pointed out some conflicting claims:
I’ll keep an eye on it, as I said. But after “Nazi,” “Fascist,” labels attributed to Republicans all my life, I’ll reserve judgement for now.
Sloth, you are a reasonable guy, and I don’t have an objection to your support for a libertarian candidate (although there seems to be two kinds of libertarians these days).
My point in raising the issue is to point to several concerns
Paul is a “bird of a feather”, which frankly is not hard to envision (very bad)
Paul may not be a “bird of a feather”, but he will “get fleas from laying down with dogs” (bad)
Paul is completely innocent of wrongdoing, but his judgment is galactically bad (bad)
Paul apparently has more money than he knows what to do with, but he won’t return a white supremacist’s donation out of principle (bad)
The conclusion? An already fringe character has no way of washing off this stink for a general election, and he is candidacy - whatever its size before - is finished.
A better question to consider, I think - has Paul’s candidacy been bad or good for libertarianism in the US? I think it has been bad for libertarianism’s prospects. Libertarianism needed a viable “Tech Central Station” candidate to explain a third way in politics - instead the US got a quirky ideologue who trafficks with conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and nativist paranoiacs.
Honestly, I didn’t believe Ron Paul was going to win. But, I’ll be damned if I’m putting my support in for the other Republican candidates. I’m tired of being burned by a “somewhat smaller government than the Democrats” Republican party. My only other option is apathy. That is, to take my ball and go home.
I like my Republican with a hefty pinch of libertarianism. Unfortunately, I believe such a Republican is a dying breed.[/quote]
Sloth, have you ever read Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Sloth, have you ever read Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative?
mike
No, can’t say that I have. [/quote]
If you could only read one book your whole life on political thought, it should be that one. It’s a short read at 118 pages and it’s pure gold. Goldwater was Ronald Reagan plus one. If you want good libertarian thought mixed with a good and active foreign policy, Goldwater is your man.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Sloth, have you ever read Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative?
mike
No, can’t say that I have.
If you could only read one book your whole life on political thought, it should be that one. It’s a short read at 118 pages and it’s pure gold. Goldwater was Ronald Reagan plus one. If you want good libertarian thought mixed with a good and active foreign policy, Goldwater is your man.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I do have a question for conservatives who appear to be anti-Paul. Who else running do you consider the small government, return power back to the states, personal privacy and liberty alternative to Ron Paul. My problem is that I see none. Like, at all. And that’s a huge problem for me. I have only one candidate I can support, to no fault of my own.[/quote]
I asked the very same question of Jeff a few pages back, and neither he nor anyone else has responded.
Limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. That’s all I ask. Aren’t these good, conservative, Republican principles? So why is Paul the only candidate in the Party who’s pushing them?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I do have a question for conservatives who appear to be anti-Paul. Who else running do you consider the small government, return power back to the states, personal privacy and liberty alternative to Ron Paul. My problem is that I see none. Like, at all. And that’s a huge problem for me. I have only one candidate I can support, to no fault of my own.
I asked the very same question of Jeff a few pages back, and neither he nor anyone else has responded.
Limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. That’s all I ask. Aren’t these good, conservative, Republican principles? So why is Paul the only candidate in the Party who’s pushing them?[/quote]
Are Conservatives (Undocumented) Aliens?
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Conservatives are strange and fascinating creatures. Their minds operate in a strange, Bizarro-like universe in which delusion and deception seem to be considered normal.
Consider, for example, the most recent Republican presidential debate. Let�??s leave Ron Paul out of the picture for the time being. The rest of the candidates were standing there and periodically proclaiming how committed they are to such principles as �??free enterprise,�?? �??fiscal responsibility,�?? and �??limited government.�??
I watched this with fascinating bemusement. I kept asking myself whether these people really believed that. Is it really possible for them to be so out of touch with reality as to not recognize how bizarre their proclamations really were?
What was also strange was that many of the people in the Iowa audience didn�??t seem to notice anything bizarre about those proclamations. It�??s almost as if there were political zombies on stage dutifully repeating old, dated conservative mantras while an audience of conservative zombies were sitting there dutifully nodding their heads in agreement.
Reality check: Americans are living under the biggest, most powerful government in history. It is the biggest-spending government in history. Its currency is crashing because of its out-of-control spending. Its military power extends over the entire globe. It is an empire that polices the world, sometimes with brutal and deadly force. It kidnaps, tortures, sexually abuses, incarcerates, and murders people with impunity and without even the semblance of due process or trial by jury. It engages in coups, assassinations, invasions, and occupations of countries that have recalcitrant regimes. Its jails are overrun with people who have committed no act of violence against others. It ignores constitutional restraints on its powers. Its ever-increasing welfare-state programs keep the citizenry drugged, calm, and dependent on the state.
The reality is that all the Republican presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) are part and parcel of all this. During their entire political careers, they have supported the socialist, interventionist, and imperial direction the United States has taken. They still do.
Yet they stand there in front of an Iowa audience and look into the faces of the people and into the television camera and with straight faces repeat the old mantras that conservatives were mouthing in the 1950s: �??I�??m committed to free enterprise, private property, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the Constitution.�?? And then they dutifully bash those �??big-government, big-spending liberals.�??
And the people in the audience, zombie-like, just sit there, nod their heads, and applaud.
It�??s almost like watching a real-life variation of The Stepford Wives.
Now, it�??s true that liberals are in favor of big government and big spending, but what�??s different about them is that they don�??t make any bones about it. That�??s what they stand for and that�??s why they support every socialist and regulatory program that comes down the pike. But at least their recognition of this gives them a grip on reality.
What�??s fascinating about conservatives is that they claim to stand against those things and yet continue to support them and then act as if they don�??t.
Then along comes someone like Ron Paul, who has the temerity to propose abolishing federal departments and agencies, substituting voluntary charity for coerced welfare-state programs, restoring sound money, ending regulatory and interventionist programs, and dismantling the U.S. military empire. In other words, he proposes restoring �??free enterprise, private property, fiscal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government�?? to our nation.
The result?
Conservatives treat him as if he were from Mars! �??What in the world is Ron doing?�?? they exclaim. �??Is he crazy? Doesn�??t he know that in Bizarro-land, conservatives are only supposed to mouth the old mantras, not actually carry them out?�??
Let me give you another recent example of this strange, surreal world of conservatism, this one involving famous conservative Bill O�??Reilly. O�??Reilly became upset with White House reporter Helen Thomas for an exchange she had with President Bush�??s spokesperson Dana Perino over the occupation of Iraq.
During the exchange, Thomas took Perino to task for the U.S. military�??s continual killing of the Iraqi people. This led O�??Reilly to call Thomas a �??pinhead.�??
What was O�??Reilly�??s reason for hurling such a nasty insult against Thomas? In explaining his decision, he got all wrapped up in his own personal distinctions between Iraqi terrorists and insurgents, on the one hand, and civilians, on the other. Apparently, his point was that U.S. forces have been targeting only Iraqi terrorists and insurgents and that any killing of Iraqi civilians has been accidental.
But if you go back and closely examine the exchange between Thomas and Perino, it is clear that Thomas didn�??t draw any such distinctions. She just referred to the killing of Iraqis in general.
O�??Reilly and other conservatives simply block out of their minds a discomforting reality: No Iraqi ever participated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Every single Iraqi, including the hundreds of thousands who are now dead or maimed at the hands of U.S. forces, was innocent of the 9/11 attacks.
Why is that important? Because while the U.S. government had the right to go after those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, it had no right, legal or moral, to wreak vengeance against people who were innocent of the 9/11 attacks, including all of the Iraqi people who are now dead or maimed at the hands of U.S. forces.
Equally important, the Iraqi people have every right in the world to rid their country of a foreign occupier, especially an occupier who is in their country by virtue of a fake and false rationale �?? nonexistent WMDs �?? that was used to justify the invasion on which the occupation is based.
The strange part of all this is that conservatives such as Bush, Perino, and O�??Reilly behave as if U.S. officials are engaged in some act of morality by continuing to kill Iraqis as part of a brutal occupation that was based on that fake and false rationale for invading the country. And despite the fact that they know that the WMD rationale was fake and false, conservatives have deluded themselves into believing that the invaders are justified in killing Iraqis who are simply doing what they have a right to do �?? drive a foreign occupier out of their country.
At the risk of stating another obvious fact: If American troops do not wish to suffer any more attacks from Iraqi terrorists or insurgents who are trying to rid their country of foreign troops, there is a simple solution: Get out and go home. Haven�??t U.S. troops, loyally and obediently following orders, wreaked enough death and destruction on a country whose people did not participate in the 9/11 attacks and which U.S. forces invaded on the basis of a fake and false rationale?
The casual indifference that conservatives have displayed toward the killing of Iraqis is just one more example of the Bizarro-land in which these people mentally operate. After all, how often do conservatives remind us of how religious they are and how much they value human life, especially the life of the unborn?
But where is all that religion and so-called concern for life when it comes to the lives of the Iraqi people? We don�??t even know how many Iraqis U.S. forces have killed and maimed because conservatives don�??t deem them sufficiently important to count!
Why don�??t the conservative preachers who ask us to pray for the troops in Iraq every Sunday in church ever offer a single prayer for the victims of this aggression? Isn�??t the life of an Iraqi as valuable as the life of an unborn child, at least in the eyes of God?
One of the strangest aspects of Bizarro-land is how conservatives conflate the federal government and America. In their minds, the government and the country are one and the same. Thus, when O�??Reilly heard Thomas�??s criticism of the federal government�??s occupation of Iraq, that was all the proof he needed that Thomas hates America. Never mind that the federal government and the private sector are composed of two different groups of people, a fact recognized by the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the private sector from the federal government. That�??s a reality that is best left ignored in the conservative mind.
As a loyal conservative, Perino herself lives in this strange, alternate universe. In her exchange with Thomas, she said that Americans elected President Bush as their commander in chief? What? And here I thought that Bush was commander in chief only for those in the military. Wow! Does this mean that everyone in Bizarro-land is supposed to behave like loyal little soldiers, marching in lockstep with their leader, not daring to question his decisions, and saluting, brown-nosing, and spit-shining their shoes? Weird!
I predict that a century from now, sociologists, anthropologists, and psychiatrists are going to have a field day studying conservatives. They might even discover that conservatives were proof-positive that Earth had, in fact, been visited by extra-terrestrial life.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I do have a question for conservatives who appear to be anti-Paul. Who else running do you consider the small government, return power back to the states, personal privacy and liberty alternative to Ron Paul. My problem is that I see none. Like, at all. And that’s a huge problem for me. I have only one candidate I can support, to no fault of my own.
I asked the very same question of Jeff a few pages back, and neither he nor anyone else has responded.
Limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. That’s all I ask. Aren’t these good, conservative, Republican principles? So why is Paul the only candidate in the Party who’s pushing them?[/quote]
If only that were all Paul was pushing. Unfortunately he is an extremist. Where most of us recognize that there are problems in Washington that need to be fixed we do not like Paul’s approach.
For example the FBI and EPA are important organizations that have done great good for this country. They are also flawed, sometimes incompetent and even corrupt. These organizations need to be repaired and set back on the right path. Paul is not he man to do it. He wants to just eliminate these organizations and many more instead of fixing them.
When my car is broken I fix it. When my house is messy I clean it. Paul’s approach would have me destroy them when there is a problem.
This doesn’t sit right with me at all and that is why I will not vote for him.
I had hoped when he entered the race that he would push Republicans towards smaller government. Instead his platform has been designed to appeal to the lunatic fringe and as such is having no impact on the direction of the Republican party. The more I learn about the man the more I understand that he is part of this lunatic fringe. Yammering on about conspiracies that don’t exist such as the North American Union.
He is getting a lot of support from good people but he is not the right man for the presidency or even to redirect the Republican party.
Vote for him if you want to vote for change. That is your decision but you should understand that he is not the man you want him to be. He is a bit of a loon enjoying his day in the sun.
Actually, I wouldn’t mind if a couple of federal agencies were cashiered, particularly the BATFE and the IRS. I doubt if these can be “fixed,” because they already work precisely the way they are supposed to. But that’s beside the point.
It has been stated throughout this thread and in others that Ron Paul is the best candidate of the bunch. To which the detractors have responded with many versions of “oh, no he’s not.”
My question, which I ask for the third time, is: who is the alternative?
For whom does the gun-owning, freedom-loving, government-distrusting, independent Republican patriot vote, if not Ron Paul?
Actually, I wouldn’t mind if a couple of federal agencies were cashiered, particularly the BATFE and the IRS. I doubt if these can be “fixed,” because they already work precisely the way they are supposed to. But that’s beside the point.
[/quote]
I agree with ditching those two organizations. They are beyond repair.
[quote]
It has been stated throughout this thread and in others that Ron Paul is the best candidate of the bunch. To which the detractors have responded with many versions of “oh, no he’s not.”
My question, which I ask for the third time, is: who is the alternative?
For whom does the gun-owning, freedom-loving, government-distrusting, independent Republican patriot vote, if not Ron Paul?[/quote]
They are basically interchangeable but as an independent I don’t get a choice as to who goes on the ballot.
I cannot vote for any in the current group of Democrats so I will vote Republican in November of '08.
Things are still far too good for a revolution. If and when it comes there is no guarantee things will be better in the long term but it would certainly make things worse for the short term.
