We All Know Ron Paul Kicks Ass

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Pookie, you must have skimmed my post. I said right in there that I always vote for the Libertarian candidate.

The reason I don’t believe it’s possible for a 3rd party candidate to win is that the system doesn’t allow for it. There is an Electoral College for Democrats and Republicans. It’s not clear to me what would happen If a 3rd party candidate took a state. I think the electoral votes would go to the Democrat or Republican who came in 2nd.

[quote]pookie wrote:
on edge wrote:
I don’t actually believe a 3rd party candidate can win in this country.

If everyone who’s sick and tired of the two interchangeable parties, who swap places every decade to pretend there’s a democracy going on, actually went and voted for a 3rd, that third would win handily.

There are too many sheeps who are afraid of “wasting their vote” so they simply cast it for whichever one of the duopoly they currently hate the least.
[/quote]

62

[quote]pookie wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Age does matter, you might be a smart guy at 28, but I bet you’ll be a smarter guy at 35.
[/quote]

Clearly the case, that’s why so many parents can’t help their children with their homework these days. When did they start putting letters in with the math anyway?

63

[quote]Magnate wrote:
Clearly the case, that’s why so many parents can’t help their children with their homework these days. When did they start putting letters in with the math anyway?
[/quote]
Pookie makes the incorrect assumption that everyone continues to learn after a certain age and you make an equally incorrect assumption that parents are incapable of learning.

64

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lifty,

What exactly are “high crimes and misdemeanors?”

Get the point?

JeffR

First of all it should be: “high” crimes and misdemeanors – these are such that can only be committed by “high” government officials as noted in the English common law tradition.

These crimes and misdemeanors only apply to official personage – government officials, military officers, etc.

“Crimes and misdemeanors” are defined individually under the law.[/quote]

lifty,

Never mind.

JeffR

65

[quote]JeffR wrote:

lifty,

Never mind.

JeffR[/quote]

As a handy-dandy rule, if you ever have a question for Lifticus, save yourself the trouble and go to:

…and type your keywords into the “search” box.

Works for anything.

Thoughts on “high crimes and misdemeanors”, what cheese to pair with which wine, and movie criticism.

The great thing for Lifty is, he never has to think again - he has a pre-recorded answer at his fingertips. No wonder anarcho-libertarianism is such a hoot - think of all the extra free time you have.

That is, until Lifticus determines he is a communist again - or some other radical persuasion. Give him a few days.

66

With regards to foreign intervention…

I don’t think Jefferson’s actions are in any way a violation of the idea of
“avoiding entangling alliances.” The Barbary States were attacking our merchant ships, holding our citizens for ransom and using physical force as a means of extortion. Yes, Jefferson militarilly intervened, and I doubt very much Ron Paul, or any other professed non-interventionist, would take issue with that.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy as spelled out on his campaign website doesn’t seem extreme to me at all: the Iraq war was a mistake and has only increased the threat against America; there is no reason why we ought to have troops in 130 different nations; Congress should be declaring war before we actually go to war; we should not make it our responsibility to inforce resolutiones passed by a foreign body (UN); we shouldn’t intervene in the internal affairs of other nations; free trade (Cuba!) and open diplomacy (Iran!) with other nations.

Now, I could be mistaken, but I don’t think that rules out the threat of force at all: if they use violence against us, and Congress passes a declaration of war, then by all means, lets kick some ass. That seems like a perfectly reasonable way to conduct ourselves.

The problem is, in my opinion, that we’ve made a protectorate of the rest of the world; we’ve built an empire. I think history has proven time and time again that democracies don’t do a very good job of maintaining empire. So that leaves us with two options: dramatically increase the power of the government, and the executive branch in particular (Roman Republic ca. 31BC); or lose the empire (Great Brittan). Bush seems to have chosen the former, I’d like my president to work towards the latter.

Paul may be over simplifying things, but, then again, that is the nature of politics. However, his underlying principles I think are correct.

67

Look at all these Ron Paul spammers show up at the San Francisco Republican Straw Poll.

Straw poll canceled because to many freedom fighters showed up.

68

I have to say, more and more I find myself hoping Ron Paul makes the establishment Republicans sweat bullets for some time to come. The party needs him, badly. Remember when we had a Republican congress? And then a Republican congress, and President? Did it really feel like the party of personal liberty, responsibility, and small government?

There was little to no Fiscal Conservatism. And, I am still extremely dissapointed in the party due to this. And on many social issues, well, Republicans need to be more consistent as the “Smaller Government” party.

When I hear Rudy, Huckabee, Thompson, or any of them speak about how they’ll ‘shrink’ government, I can’t help but think “sure, until you get in office and forget what you ran on. Like those other Republicans before you.”

Paul has something going for him. Honesty, and consistency. He’s not pandering to huge voter blocs, or fearful of “political suicide.” When he says he’s going after wealth redistribution programs, the man means it. He doesn’t pull punches on illegal immigration, fearful that liberals will paint him as some xenophobe.

So hey, good luck to Ron Paul and his supporters. I hope he does well enough to force the Republican party to recommit to some principles, and to reconsider others.

69

[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:

The problem is, in my opinion, that we’ve made a protectorate of the rest of the world; we’ve built an empire. I think history has proven time and time again that democracies don’t do a very good job of maintaining empire. So that leaves us with two options: dramatically increase the power of the government, and the executive branch in particular (Roman Republic ca. 31BC); or lose the empire (Great Brittan). Bush seems to have chosen the former, I’d like my president to work towards the latter.[/quote]

One of the distinguishing problems is that the American “empire” differs than the rest: our bases throughout the world are the result of the host government wanting us to be there. As for Europe, if they ask the US to pull up stakes and leave, does anything think the US would remain?

That said, I think we do have too many bases in too many places. But it is a different kind of problem than previous empires dealt with - part of that expansion was a direct result of controlling important sections during the Cold War. Rest assured, it has come at great cost, but an American empire is better than a Soviet one.

The next move will be re-addressing those positions - and also doing that in the context that the places where we are don’t necessarily want us to leave. Certain areas of the world - think Europe - have built their entire sociopolitical arrangement around the aegis of American power. If the US pulls back, what happens to the stability and expectation of force projection if something gets squirrely?

Pulling back is a great idea - but this naive libertarian vision that all of our overseas engagements were evil and wrong and did nothing to advance our national interest or national security is flatly wrong - so the Next Step requires a sober realist who must manage to strike a renewal of independence in an interdependent world without upsetting the benefits of either.

Ron Paul is not that person. Never has been. He is the champion of coffeehouse rhetoric making over the world in utopian fashion, where everyone gets along and trades according to libertarian principles.

Ron Paul, as a foreign policy candidate, is completely unserious - and I am one who believes in actually pulling back on our foreign presence.

70

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One of the distinguishing problems is that the American “empire” differs than the rest: our bases throughout the world are the result of the host government wanting us to be there. As for Europe, if they ask the US to pull up stakes and leave, does anything think the US would remain?

That said, I think we do have too many bases in too many places. But it is a different kind of problem than previous empires dealt with - part of that expansion was a direct result of controlling important sections during the Cold War. Rest assured, it has come at great cost, but an American empire is better than a Soviet one.

The next move will be re-addressing those positions - and also doing that in the context that the places where we are don’t necessarily want us to leave. Certain areas of the world - think Europe - have built their entire sociopolitical arrangement around the aegis of American power. If the US pulls back, what happens to the stability and expectation of force projection if something gets squirrely?

Pulling back is a great idea - but this naive libertarian vision that all of our overseas engagements were evil and wrong and did nothing to advance our national interest or national security is flatly wrong - so the Next Step requires a sober realist who must manage to strike a renewal of independence in an interdependent world without upsetting the benefits of either.

Ron Paul is not that person. Never has been. He is the champion of coffeehouse rhetoric making over the world in utopian fashion, where everyone gets along and trades according to libertarian principles.

Ron Paul, as a foreign policy candidate, is completely unserious - and I am one who believes in actually pulling back on our foreign presence.[/quote]

And this is exactly why I ultimately won’t vote for Paul. Trust me, I believe there’s regions and nations that need to handle their own defense, without help from us. But Paul goes way too far, for the wrong reasons.

71

First of all, great post!

[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:

The problem is, in my opinion, that we’ve made a protectorate of the rest of the world; we’ve built an empire. I think history has proven time and time again that democracies don’t do a very good job of maintaining empire. So that leaves us with two options: dramatically increase the power of the government, and the executive branch in particular (Roman Republic ca. 31BC); or lose the empire (Great Brittan). Bush seems to have chosen the former, I’d like my president to work towards the latter.

One of the distinguishing problems is that the American “empire” differs than the rest: our bases throughout the world are the result of the host government wanting us to be there. As for Europe, if they ask the US to pull up stakes and leave, does anything think the US would remain?[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more; that’s precisely what I intended to convey with the term protectorate. And I agree that we would undoubtedly leave if asked. But they wont ask, and why should they? We pay for their defense and they get the added boon of having a shitload of our soldiers add to their economy. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. The underlying reasons may be different, but just as ancient Rome, we now are in charge of keeping order for the known world. However you dice it, that demands a dangerous increase in the power of government. By analogy, just as the polis wasn’t capable of administering an Empire, liberal democracy, I’m afraid, can’t stand the strain either. It can’t last, and it wont – something will have to give.

[quote]That said, I think we do have too many bases in too many places. But it is a different kind of problem than previous empires dealt with - part of that expansion was a direct result of controlling important sections during the Cold War. Rest assured, it has come at great cost, but an American empire is better than a Soviet one.

The next move will be re-addressing those positions - and also doing that in the context that the places where we are don’t necessarily want us to leave. Certain areas of the world - think Europe - have built their entire sociopolitical arrangement around the aegis of American power. If the US pulls back, what happens to the stability and expectation of force projection if something gets squirrely?[/quote]

Good points. I don’t have an answer for you. I’m not naive enough to think this is all so simple as “bring everyone home tomorrow.” We’ve spent 200 years digging this hole, we ain’t getting out of it in 4.

[quote]Pulling back is a great idea - but this naive libertarian vision that all of our overseas engagements were evil and wrong and did nothing to advance our national interest or national security is flatly wrong - so the Next Step requires a sober realist who must manage to strike a renewal of independence in an interdependent world without upsetting the benefits of either.

Ron Paul is not that person. Never has been. He is the champion of coffeehouse rhetoric making over the world in utopian fashion, where everyone gets along and trades according to libertarian principles.

Ron Paul, as a foreign policy candidate, is completely unserious - and I am one who believes in actually pulling back on our foreign presence.[/quote]

You are absolutely right about the naivety of Ron Paul and the stated libertarian position. Fortunately, Ron Paul, if hell freezes over and he gets elected, wont be a dictator and will still have to navigate the political process, which has an inherent moderating effect. In my opinion, we just need someone to push in that direction – and push real hard, because that’s what it will take to turn the ship around.

72

[quote]Vegita wrote:
if someone wants to actually do some physical harm to us, they have to come here. If someone attacks us on US soil, then congress will no doubt declare WAR and our president can then use the full might of the military against them. [/quote]

If we weren’t using our military might across the globe there would be no profit in the business of war. If there were no profit in the business of war, American military might would be a shadow of what it currently is. I’m not justifying anything, just throwing that out there.

mike

73

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Your French Revolution analogy is an interesting one. It also directly supports my proposition that people will choose Democracy most of the time.

We set the example, the world followed.

Regarding Iraq, we were hoping that our example would lead the Iraqis to cast off saddam. Unfortunately, he was effective in his suppression.

Like the French in 1778, we helped them over the hump.

I’d love to debate ron paul. I’d ask him directly: Was it a mistake for the French to intervene in our War of Independence?

We wouldn’t have been born without INTERVENTION.

JeffR

[/quote]

Jeff, I agree with the spirit of your post, but it isn’t entirely accurate. The US would have been able to win the war without French support. Remember that we had been going at it on our own until Saratoga. It would have taken a little longer, but the French weren’t THAT supportive. Washington and Greene lamented the woeful lack of French military support as they spent the bulk of their time protecting their properties in the Carribbean. They also sent tons of worthless Frenchmen over that were constantly squabbling over getting commissions from Congress. In the end, it was really only Lafayette (and to a lesser degree Rocheambeau) that were worth their salt.

Their greatest help was financial and in their blockade to prevent Cornwallis from escaping at Yorktown. Even so, Howe was still in New York at the time of the surrender. Nathaniel Greene had been slowly picking Corwallis apart with great effectiveness in the southern campaign and the war was borderline non-existent in the north with the exception of the British stronghold in New York. Prior to Yorktown though the war was already extremely unpopular in parliament.

French help was certainly valuable, but it only shortened the war; it didn’t win it for us. That also said, the French did not help us out of anything other than self-interest, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

mike

74

All right, Jeff, I’ll bite.

No other candidate, Republican or Democrat, has impressed me with their stance toward the Second Amendment.

I would not trust the preservation of my right to own personal firearms to an administration run by the Bride of Clintonstein, nor for that matter would I trust it to the former mayor of New York City.

I believe, with no apology to Mao Zedong, that liberty flows from the barrel of a gun, provided that that gun is in the right hands. As I have said before, the right hands are those of responsible civilians, not just government agents.

The following is the position of the Republican Liberty Caucus, in which I can find nothing to disagree.

[i]WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;

WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;

WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and

WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:

Every American has the right to keep and bear arms. We affirm our support for the second amendment of the US Constitution.

All people, regardless of position in the public or private sector, should be held equally accountable under the law.

The only litmus test for Supreme Court or other judges should be their determination to accurately interpret, not amend, the Constitution. Judges have no authority to make new law.[/i]

Ron Paul shares this position. If you, Jeff, can present to me any other candidate who also represents limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility, then perhaps I will consider him. Until then, count me among the kooks.

And for what it’s worth, Mick, I’m thirty-eight.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Gun_Control.htm

As an aside, I kind of like the term “Libertarian Republican.” I guess that’s what I would be, if I ever allowed myself to be labeled.

75

By the way, Thunder, let me just say that I like you a lot better now that you’ve switched avatars from General Sherman to General Pershing. :stuck_out_tongue:

76

[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
With regards to foreign intervention…

I don’t think Jefferson’s actions are in any way a violation of the idea of
“avoiding entangling alliances.” The Barbary States were attacking our merchant ships, holding our citizens for ransom and using physical force as a means of extortion. Yes, Jefferson militarilly intervened, and I doubt very much Ron Paul, or any other professed non-interventionist, would take issue with that.
[/quote]

Yes, but how about Jefferson’s desire to get America involved in a war against the British to help during the French Revolution AFTER the terror had started? Really, it wasn’t until after Citizen Genet started to talk shit on Washington that Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the republicans took a step back from their heated efforts to pick a fight with England.

Washington consistently spoke of the American empire. Hamilton was a huge proponent of empire. Washington’s farewell address was written almost completely BY Hamilton and the talk of “avoiding entangling alliances” was really a partisan slap in the face by Hamilton to the Republicans. Shortly following the XYZ affair it was Hamilton pushing for war against France. Go figure.

Some thoughts on the Barbary Pirates: we had been paying tribute to them for years. Thanks to Jefferson’s desire for a coastal defense force instead of a large navy and his desire to wait to secure a coalition to fight we had to wait until the ransoms became too large and we had the navy that John Adams built to do the fighting.

“When federalists suggested that it was high time America had its own navy to combat the plunder of American shipping by Barbary pirates, Madison (Jefferson’s sidekick, my words) suggested, in all seriousness, that the United States hire the Portuguese navy instead.”-Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton

mike

77

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
By the way, Thunder, let me just say that I like you a lot better now that you’ve switched avatars from General Sherman to General Pershing. :P[/quote]

Odd, I thought the same thing.

mike

78

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
With regards to foreign intervention…

I don’t think Jefferson’s actions are in any way a violation of the idea of
“avoiding entangling alliances.” The Barbary States were attacking our merchant ships, holding our citizens for ransom and using physical force as a means of extortion. Yes, Jefferson militarilly intervened, and I doubt very much Ron Paul, or any other professed non-interventionist, would take issue with that.

Yes, but how about Jefferson’s desire to get America involved in a war against the British to help during the French Revolution AFTER the terror had started? Really, it wasn’t until after Citizen Genet started to talk shit on Washington that Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the republicans took a step back from their heated efforts to pick a fight with England.[/quote]

That’s certainly a valid point. I think I better clarify my position, though. I didn’t mean to imply that our founders were “non-interventionists.” Aside from the problem of applying that label to a group of men living in a very different geopolitical framework, I’m perfectly aware of our nations empire-building tendencies, and Jefferson’s almost communist-like urge to spread the “Revolution.” (Except where that involved black people…on an island a little too close to home.) I was only using Jefferson’s actions against the Barbary pirates, in contradiction to JeffR’s point, as an example of foreign intervention that a “non-interventionist” like Ron Paul might support.

Ever read the book Dangerous Nation? If not, I think you’d find it interesting.

[quote]Some thoughts on the Barbary Pirates: we had been paying tribute to them for years. Thanks to Jefferson’s desire for a coastal defense force instead of a large navy and his desire to wait to secure a coalition to fight we had to wait until the ransoms became too large and we had the navy that John Adams built to do the fighting.

“When federalists suggested that it was high time America had its own navy to combat the plunder of American shipping by Barbary pirates, Madison (Jefferson’s sidekick, my words) suggested, in all seriousness, that the United States hire the Portuguese navy instead.”-Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton

mike[/quote]

So Mike, were you a history major in college? I’m a history major myself; unfortunately my concentration isn’t American history so the depth of my knowledge doesn’t run as deep on the subject as it should – but you seem to know your shit quite well.

79

So who is planning on voting in light of all this debating and discussing?