Posted on 08/13/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT by chatter4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
In 1975, Ronald Reagan stated, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"
You need to learn the difference between the Libertarian Party and the libertarian philosphy, which is individualism.
I agree with that. But what I heard Ron Paul say is “Mind our own business.” I think that could be disastrous in this instance.
Between 2001 and 2011 we spent $1 trillion "on the wars". Our current deficit is $1.4 trillion for this year alone. When Dr Paul indicates like that he has utterly no grasp of the real facts but is merely straining all reality thur the prism of his ideological dogmas, he raises serious questions about his fitness for the job of President
The party and the philosophy is the same. I don’t give a hoot what Wikipedia has to say on any of this. Wiki sites are information gathered by pajama wearing malcontents sitting in their mothers basement. I will take my info straight from the horses mouth. Murray Rothbard wrote the book on the modern Libertarian movement along with his sidekick Lou Rockwell. Paul was a follower of these guys and that is how he ended up in the movement.
Fine. Reagan made the statement of the blending of Conservatism and Libertarianism, but can you point to where it was put to practical use in his WH? It was most assuredly a Conservative Republican administration.
As for the Whacked Out answers Ron Paul peddled at the debate, one only has to go so far as his infantile explanation on why Iran should have a nuke. That answer alone should throw this dottering old reject out of the party. Let him and Dennis Kusinich start their own party of simpletons.
If your definition of "sometimes" is "invariably," then we're in agreement. I'm trying hard to think of the last time this didn't happen: Jeffords, Chafee, Specter, Scozzafava, Castle, Murkowski, ... please stop me when you have an example of a RINO who lost to a conservative but then fell into line with the Party...
The hill you've decided to defend with respect to O'Donell puts you in a very bad place. You won't excuse Paul for taking the passive role of not endorsing the execrable McCain, but think it's acceptable for Eastern Establishment Republicans to work actively and vocally against the Party's Senate nominee -- and in preference to whom? A principled conservative? No such luck: A man whose lifetime ACU rating is 51! Please. It's my turn to laugh out loud.
Paul has a solid Republican voting record, which is something one cannot say of a number of "Republicans" who endorsed John McCain, and unlike the "Republicans" in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Delaware, he does NOT routinely trash his own party for the sin of being too "conservative," or "radically right wing." This thoroughly bogus criticism [I only WISH it were true], coming with stridency and regularity from our Northeastern "Republicans" is far more damaging to us among Independents whose votes we must get to elect a President, than some limp-wristed endorsement about which NO ONE CARES.
Paul's ACU rating was 96 in 2010, 91 in 2009, and lifetime 83.5 is higher than John McCain's. That puts him very solidly in the Republican mainstream, and identifies him in the eyes of the ACU (and most sensible conservatives) as a -- GASP[!] -- conservative, whether you like it or not.
I'm not a Paulbot; I would vote for him only as a last resort, but my case stands. He's a better Republican than a lot of Establishment types who get a pass from you because they endorsed McCain. But there was no virtue in their endorsement: they already agreed with McCain's squishy Republicanism. Will the Maine ladies endorse Ron Paul if he wins the nomination? Scott Brown? They most certainly will NOT. Yes, I agree that's a pure hypothetical. Will they even endorse Rick Perry? That remains to be seen.
It is not significant because candidates do not change policy, only elected officials do that.
Adults understand that ideological purity works in NeverNever Land, but in the real world there are alternatives to Ron Paul that are worse to varying degrees, and some are a whole order of magnitude worse. If the Republic doesn't survive long enough for the Ron Paul Wave to arrive that sweeps him into power because purists stay home or vote for 0bama, the game's over.
Get it?
The voters will eventually wise up after they've suffered enough under the leadership of the usual full-of-baloney candidates of both parties.
The majority of people always have to learn the hard way.
Like Churchill also said, "America always does the right thing--after trying everything else."
You’re decrying purism here? At FR?
That’s funny.
Funny, you should bring up Ross Perot:
"Perot is famous . . . for his statement during the 1992 presidential campaign that NAFTA . . . would create a 'giant sucking sound' of jobs going south to the cheap labor markets of Mexico.
"Both of Perot’s opponents (George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton) argued that NAFTA would create jobs in the U.S. because of business expansion.
"However, the goods balance of trade for the U.S. with Mexico has been negative and steadily growing over the years." and cumulative job loss as amounted "to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010." So, Ross Perot was right, too.
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/looks-like-ross-perot-was-right-about-the-giant-sucking-sound-2011-2
"Standing Athwart History" is a conservative pasttime.
What are you not getting about the fact that Ron Paul completely and totally disqualifies himself as a serious Republican candidate with his foreign policy, defense policy and social policy positions? He can achieve those ratings because of what he is actually voting on. The Republican party in the House would never even allow votes on the kind of crazy stuff Ron Paul advocates. Paul is absolutely irresponsible in not firmly putting distance between himself and some of his conspiracy driven supporters. And what on earth is Paul doing appearing on the Alex Jones show?
Ron Paul does not even condemn the truthers who gravitate to his campaign. He just doesn't, and there is no way to paper over that. In fact, Paul is on record saying the only reason he doesn't get involved with finding "the truth of 9-11" is because he is too busy with other things.
Independents whose votes we must get to elect a President, than some limp-wristed endorsement about which NO ONE CARES.
Actually, the party that Ron Paul belongs to, the Republican Party, cared a lot. A real effort was made to persuade Paul to endorse the GOP nominee hoping to leverage some of his "youth" vote. Not only did Paul not endorse McCain, he called on voters to vote 3rd party. That may be a more popular position now, after the fact, but during the election it infuriated a lot of Republicans who wondered what the heck he was doing in the GOP in the first place.
The hill you've decided to defend with respect to O'Donell puts you in a very bad place.
There is no hill to defend here. Just pointing out that there were other reasons why many Republicans bailed on her in Delaware. Not only was she too flaky and carrying too much personal baggage to win statewide office in Delaware, but she'd already bailed on the party to run a 3rd party bid in 2006. She was considered a pariah from that point forward. She had zero chance to win no matter what the establishment said - and lost by 17 points (in a heavily Republican year) as an exclamation point about how true that was.
He's a better Republican than a lot of Establishment types who get a pass from you because they endorsed McCain.
My point in regards to this was that he is not bringing anything much to the Republican party. If his message was building the ranks of the GOP, he'd get a lot more sympathy from folks. Instead, Paul simply uses the Republican label for his own ends, doesn't provide any support to the eventual nominee himself, and directs his supporters to vote 3rd party. How on earth can you even begin to think this is good for the GOP? And if you don't give a darn about the party and think it's just dandy that Paul doesn't seem to either, what in the heck is doing in the GOP in the first place when he is obviously a Libertarian. Had he dropped out of the Republican party and ran as a Libertarian this time around you know perfectly well that he'd have won their nomination easily. He won't run honestly in the party he belongs to because he knows no one will pay attention to him - kinda like last time he ran as a libertarian when he garnered a whopping .5% of the vote in 1988.
I'm not a Paulbot; I would vote for him only as a last resort
If he won the nomination (and we both know he won't), I would vote for Paul VERY reluctantly. If my choice is Paul and Obama, I'd really have no choice but to vote for Paul. 3rd party voting is a cop-out and a wasted vote, so yes, if he won the nomination I'd hold my nose and vote for Paul. I think his foreign policy is downright dangerous. Extremely dangerous actually, but I'd have to hope reality would smack him in the face and he'd have trouble implementing it. I consider his social policy pretty unacceptable, but again, I don't think he'd have much success implementing most of it. I like quite a bit of his economic message and particularly the focus on massively less spending, so if battles post-election centered on economic policy perhaps he could do some good things. Still, I'd be extremely worried about how he'd react to a foreign policy crisis and I'd be highly concerned our competitors and enemies in the world would test his isolationism quickly - and suddenly find weakness and a void of leadership they'd exploit quickly.
Oh and thanks for the debate, it's been fun!
“He doesn’t, then name something, ANYTHING he has ever actually done, other than talk”
Ya know, you have a point. I sit corrected. He hasn’t accomplished much, if anything.
I still like him. He believes in our Constitution and limited govt. and that’s enough for me.
As usual, for anybody who’s followed Ron Paul’s work, he gets what the current crisis is about, how to deal with it in the future, with a tip of the hat to the past…
http://deadfed.com/2011/08/11/ron-paul-on-cbc/
And to the extent that it left libertarian principles, it was a failure.
For all his anti-Gov't rhetoric, Reagan left the government larger then when he took office.
Who wanted Pakistan to have a nuke?
But they do.
We don't control everything in the world.
That is all Paul is saying.
Against an enemy with no army,navy or airforce!
I have no problem with striking any nation supporting terrorism.
We may not agree on every aspect of Paul's approach, but we can agree that we need to change our direction from the Neo-Conservative view that the US is the world's policeman.
They can be countered by Vietnam and India, longtime enemies.
Honestly, I like Ron Paul on the economy, but he has completely lost me with his foreign policy. He blamed the US for 9/11, said the US is a greater threat than Iran, and he said in the debate that Iran does not have planes that can reach the US and can’t even make enough gas to get them here... problem with that statement is this: You could have said the same exact thing about Al Qaeda on 9/10/01, but they were able to take out 3,000 people here in the US in about 90 minutes. I just don’t think he understands Islamic extremism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.