Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 01/24/2010 5:58:31 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Ron Paul has made some nutty declarations in recent years, but this time he is right on, depending on what he means bt “reigning in” the CIA.
On economic issues few can touch Ron Paul.
Politition, yes, but establishment? Not by most definitions; he has been a constant gadfly in congress, which in most (but not all) cases has been a good thing.
To the cult, conservative is not necessarily a label they crave. They tend to the hyper-libertarian. (some would say anarchist)
Doom and gloom on acid.
Good grief, Ron Paul = RINO in a major way. The guy is anti-American, soft on crime, soft on abortion, etc. etc. This is the guy that the Paulistianians tout to “save the Republic”? No thanks, not with this guy.
Thanks for the heads up. Ron Paul’s record on abortion is worse than Scott Brown’s. At least Brown holds to a lot of “functional” pro-life positions, even if he mouths platitudes about it being “between a woman and her doctor.” I’ll keep this in mind the next time some holier-than-thou third partyist idiot mouths off about how we’re “supporting RINOs” by being glad that Brown beat Coakley.
Ron Paul’s best line in the debate:
“Your making fun of me?”
Actually, nobody made fun of him, they were all ,(including the moderator) biting their lips to keep from laughing at him.
You know, for better or worse, the only thing that I have ever seen Ron Paul defend and base every single of his arguments upon, is the US Constitution -- maybe to a literal fault -- but that's it. Ron Paul doesn't come up with anything new, it isn't just "his view" -- every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So when I hear people ridicule him as "a kook", "a nutcase", etc. -- rather than just wrong --, I just keep thinking that they are also saying that the Founding Fathers were also "loonies" -- or that they think that the Constitution is completely outdated & nearly useless -- or perhaps "a living document".
If that really is the case -- and someone thinks that the Constitution and Bill of Rights really is completely outdated and in need of revision -- then I'd like to see someone with the stones to try and amend & revise it -- and I mean that, float revisions and potential amendments and see how that goes.
Because as far as I know, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the only contract that we citizens have with our Federal Government -- it's the only thing that we have to hold DC politicians to their part of the bargain, while we hold up our end.
But if people want to continually set the Constitution aside or ignore the parts that are difficult -- and/or label every politician who expects other politicians to follow it in all their decisions, "a nutcase" or "a lunatic" -- then it seems to me that then we deserve what we get from DC.
And I don't have to want Ron Paul for President to see that.
Bravo, my friend. Well said, indeed.
Who’s being ignored? The Austrian free-market economists—the very ones who predicted not only the Great Depression, but the calamity we’re dealing with today. If the crisis was predictable and is explainable, why did no one listen? It’s because too many politicians believed that a free lunch was possible and a new economic paradigm had arrived. But we’ve heard that one before—like the philosopher’s stone that could turn lead into gold. Prosperity without work is a dream of the ages.Ron Paul: The Austrians were Right
Yes, I've *heard* that, but I remain unconvinced that Ron Paul really has a clue about what a lot of the Constitution even says. Basically, his argument seems to be that whatever he think, is therefore "constitutional," therefore, his viewpoints are constitutional. Essentially, the argument is that whatever Ron Paul says must be constitutional, therefore if someone disagrees with Ron Paul and thinks he's a kook about some things, then they must not believe in the Constitution.
That's not a good argument. That's bullhockey.
Ron Paul is great on spending issues. He's great on sovereignty issues. But these are also NOT the issues that people on here call him a kook about.
Unfortunately, he's a kook because of his ridiculous opinions about foreign policy. And let us note - there is no such thing as a "constitutional" position on foreign policy. Isolationism is not demanded, nor even implied, by the Constitution. The Constitution never stipulates what sort of a foreign policy the United States are to conduct - it merely stipulates that the President conducts it, and Congress approves of it.
Yet, Ron Paul and his followers seem to think that his particular foreign policy viewpoints are demanded by the Constitution. They are not. As such, the claim "every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" is patently incorrect. Likewise, the Constitution never demands that we be on a gold standard (though the position has merits and I *tend* to agree with RoPaul on that).
Look, I know a lot of folks on here are just jolly for Ron Paul. And I agree that on issues such as spending and federal overreach, national sovereignty, etc. he is good. But he is very, very bad on several important issues. That's simply the way it is, and is why he don't get no respect on FR.
Actually, when he is talking about the Constitution, he very often refers to it chapter and verse.
However, having said that, I realized that I did make an error -- in addition to RP's references to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I should have added "the writings of the Founding Fathers", which while not laws in and of themselves, do clearly state their positions and intentions of how and why certain portions of the Consitution were written.
And let us note - there is no such thing as a "constitutional" position on foreign policy. Isolationism is not demanded, nor even implied, by the Constitution.
As for the "Constitution and foreign policy" -- the powers allotted to the President and Congress were designed to avoid war, because war was profitable only to a few while created suffering and reduced prosperity for the rest of the country. There are many quotes by the Founding Fathers to attest to this. So you are correct in that "isolationism" was not written into the Constitution, but many of the Founding Fathers writings seemed to suggest that they saw the US as a sort of "Switzerland" -- armed to the teeth in defense of our own country, while holding the money and prosperity when European countries were killing each other:
Washington's Farewell Address:
...Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Again, these are the Founding Father's "opinions", not just Ron' Paul's, and they are not laws, but they provided the world view of how the Constitution was written and administered at the founding of our country.
Personally, I think that America has every right to defend and protect itself the best of it ability. But I've yet to discover why I should pay for defending every country in the known world and send my son to defend people who should be defending themselves.
In earlier times, countries went to war with one another and America let in only the best of the refugees. If a despot became unbearable, his own people overthrew him -- it cost America nothing and some Americans helping to rebuild it, might even profit from it. In short, Americans wanted to live in peace and freedom -- and profit.
But today, we seem to think that "our government knows best". We let -- even encourage -- our government to plant their big foot on foreign soil and use our sons to do it to fight for other people's peace freedom & profit, instead of our own. We let government and big business set up the war scenarios that allow their cronies to profit, while we even pay for their trouble with our taxes. Our mindset has changed radically from that of our ancestors -- they were more concerned about themselves and their own honor & prosperity, while we are more arrogant, assuming that we know what's best for the world.
Criticize him if you will, but I don't think that it does our country harm to remember the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and if Ron Paul is the reminder, well then good for him.
("In this present crisis, interventionism is not the solution to our problem; interventionism IS the problem."
It's time that we use our military to defend the United States on our own soil, mind our own business in foreign conflicts, ^protect our own back yard. RON PAUL IS RIGHT!
In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a "dramatic failure" as President. Paul also said, "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration", Reagan was "a failure, yes, in, in many ways". Transcript of Paul's remarks on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP.
Paul's association with other Reagan haters like the John Birch Society, lewrockwell.com and that all time Reagan hater, Murray Rothbard, is not cause for celebration either.
Then wtf are you doing with a picture of Paul with Reagan on your FR homepage? You and Paul are hypocrites. Not to mention Paul being a certified nutjob.
Reagan was the most successful conservative President of the 20th century. There were only six presidents in history with more vetoes then Reagan. He also had more vetoes then any potus of the last 50 years.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
So is it not possible, in your opinion, to criticize w/o being considered to be insultive, hateful, etc.? I always thought that criticism was a good thing, in that it makes us better people in the long run.
Hint: Previously reading thru any of the various 'Palin campaigns for McCain' threads will greatly enhance your chances for achieving the answer.
Also, you may wish to keep these words in mind:
contradictory - ironic - hypocrisy
I'm betting you will get it because you and I, for the most part, see this site thru similar eyes.
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.