Skip to comments.RevPac fundraiser at South Street Seaport (Ron Paul)
Posted on 12/07/2011 11:06:19 AM PST by OddLane
The RevPac event I attended on Monday night was an quite an experience. First of all, the choice of setting seemed designed to highlight some of the recurring themes in Ron Pauls presidential campaign. While most of his primary opponents have held Manhattan fundraisers targeting donors in this citys ever-dwindling, yet still potent, financial services sector, the rigidly anti-corporatist, free market dogma of the Paul campaign-highlighted by the appearance of bearish Euro Pacific CEO Peter Schiff-lent a new dimension to what would otherwise have been a routine campaign fundraiser.
The optics of the event were pleasing, which I suppose was by design. Even on an ordinary day, the South Street Seaport, bordering the nearby Financial District, is one of the pleasing parts of New York City. But on the cusp of Christmas, one of the more beautiful historic districts in Manhattan really comes to life.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org ...
A thread for you, Absolutely!
Peter Schiff had a pretty good standoff with some of the socialists in Zuccotti Park.
There were a lot of Ron Paul supporters debating the those who were willing to listen to reasonable arguments.
Time to paste me some liberaltarians.
I hate to get all technical and sound like some sort of inquisitor, but RuPaul is not a Conservative.
-—Conservatives don’t accept endorsements from Code Pinko.
-—Conservatives don’t think turning the Green Berets into the Raspberry Berets is acceptable.
-—Conservatives don’t count Neo-Nazis, 9/11 Truthers, and Islamo-Fascists as friends and followers.
-—Conservatives generally think legalizing drugs and prostitution are really bad ideas.
-—Conservatives think out-earmarking leftist pigs like Pete Starke Naked and Nazi Pelosi is a terrible idea.
-—Conservatives don’t normally have anarchists like Murray Rothbard as their mentor, nor do they have anarchists like Cindy Sheehan’s main squeeze Screwy Lewy Rockwell as their svengali and chief apologist.
ABOVE ALL, CONSERVATIVES DO NOT INSULT THEIR COUNTRY BY CALLING IT “IMPERIALIST”!
FREE REPUBLIC IS A CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE, NOT A LIBERALTARIAN WEBSITE!!!
“I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate critiques to be made of RP, but earmarks seems like a pretty thin reed to build your case upon.”
Huh ? Whaaaaat!?
I’m speechless. Utterly speechless. (Either that or I’m having another mini-stroke.)
“Paul really does have his cake and eat it too.”
And it’s a fruit cake!
I’m no expert or anything, but I think this photo is a work of art. All the freaks, miscreants, and dregs of society all under the RuPaul banner where they belong.
I’ll ba back tomorrow for more fun...
I’m a part of the local and national homeschooling culture. (We are all different, my group is more suburban — the Moms have usually been to college and have worked prior to having children).
About 2/3 of my homeschooling friends love Ron Paul. Leigh Bortins, the founder of Classical Conversations with its thousands of members, endorsed him.
I’m also in the tea party.
The local Republicans lament the lack of youth involvement, while doing nothing about it except snarling at new ideas. The local tea party laments the lack of youth involvement ... Except, there is one old lady who is for Ron Paul, and whenever there’s a rally, she’ll dependably find some young people.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a candidate that young people fought for? I remember Reagan was a big hit in 1980 with them.
There’s something about Mr. Paul that appeals to them.
I think Newt is going to be hard-pressed to garner their fervent support.
I write this as simply an observer.
Ron Paul is Christian and attends a Baptist church in his Texas hometown, but as far as I can tell, regards the Christian faith in terms of personal salvation and guidance in personal behavior. His worldview is essentially secular, characteristic of the followers of the Austin School. In that respect, Paul differs fundamentally from conservative Christians, whether Catholic, Reformed, or dispensational, who represent the large majority of homeschoolers. In terms of the Founders, he is closer to Thomas Jefferson than to Patrick Henry. Most conservative Christian historians (David Barton, Rousas Rushdoony) regard the foundations of the nation and the main influences on colonial and early Republican society as primarily Biblical.
Both Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have strong sympathies with the homeschooling movement. They are also Christians with a Biblical worldview, unlike Paul. They both have, as far as I know, squeaky clean personal lives, a plus in today's environment. Yet the support among conservative Christians and homeschoolers for these two candidates is minimal.
As for young people and conservatism, let me relate a story about attending a Tea Party meeting recently. All the members were middle aged and elderly. My father was a member of the John Birch Society in the 1960s and we sometimes hosted meetings at our house. The Birchers were mostly middle aged and elderly. The current Tea Party members were teenagers or young adults at the time, probably too busy with school, work, or partying to be politically active or were still young skulls filled with mush. It reminded me of the saying attributed to Winston Churchill that anyone who wasn't a liberal at age 20 had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at age 40 had no brain.
Murray Rothbard was an anarchist, not a “leading light” of anything.
“His worldview is essentially secular....” Much like the lib animals I battle on a daily basis.
I agree that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have sympathies with the homeschooling movement, which is why I’m surprised that they have not been more outspoken. I have long voted for those who say they support school vouchers, but Ron Paul seems to actually mean it, since he endorses it on his website. Perhaps that’s why he’s so popular with homeschoolers. His ad about politicians who bark like big dogs and then act like little timid dogs later struck a chord. Here in Virginia, we had McDonnell fawn all over private schoolers, but so far, nothing. Now that he has a Republican Senate, I’ll be interested if he pursues a little more on the voucher front.
Not that I’m looking for government handouts, but we do pay our school taxes and yet are unable to attend local schools because they are so bad.
Jefferson’s Declaration is based on the philosophy of Locke, and I don’t find it to be Biblical. He designed UVA to center around a library (human reason) and not around a chapel. He predicted young men would all be Unitarians before he died, and he didn’t count on the second Great Awakening. But absolutely - the moral code we follow is based on the Bible. Jefferson attended church in the Capitol. I think Ron Paul’s emphasis on simple liberty appeals to many, many Evangelicals. He also says that in war, he follows the creed of Augustine.
In terms of the Founders, wouldn’t Patrick Henry’s anti-federalist stance be more in line with Ron Paul? I would think so. On abortion, he has voted for pro-life laws while in Congress. He seems to think it’s a states-rights issue. I do disagree. I do also think that slavery was not a states-rights issue, but he thinks it was. I am very much a Lincoln Republican in many regards, but as Walter Russell Mead pointed out in an excellent article two days ago, we are long overdue for a Jeffersonian correction.
A few things that I find a little baffling:
(1) When a granny gets strip-searched by the TSA, the freepers are all over it. Ron Paul is just about the only Republican complaining.
(2) When the Federal Reserve debases our currency, the freepers are all over it. Ron Paul seems to be the only one talking about this.
But maybe I haven’t been paying close attention. I just find our current Republican crop a little baffling. Rick Santorum was on the Senate Banking Committee, and did absolutely nothing about the growing housing bubble. Newt said he didn’t see it coming, and got millions from Fannie and Freddie. Ron Paul was the only one warning against these bubbles - this distortion brought us Barack Obama and killed the Republican party for a time. And now we want to raise up the people who were blindsided? Seems odd.
Also, when I talk about young people and problems with the Republican Party, I’m talking about people under 60. I’m 40, and I’ve been treated with icy coldness when I mention conservatism around Republicans here in Virginia. I’m also called young by the Tea Party. The young people who support Ron Paul that I know were homeschoolers, so I assume they are heavily influenced by their parents.
Matt, what, EXACTLY, should government be DOING??? Personally, I think it’s DOING WAY TOO MUCH and needs to be shrunk to its Constitutional size, then bound with much stronger chains than it’s had up til now. In that light, what sort of things do you think Dr. Paul should have the government DO??? Before you respond, go to http://constitution.org and actually read that document, starting with the Tenth Amendment, then read the other Founding Documents, including both the federalist and anti-federalist papers.
Don’t forget the Declaration of Independence...
Why do you think I haven’t read those along with the Federalist Papers, the Founding Experience diaries and pretty much every other thing written on or by the founders? The premise you start with though seems to be that if you don’t support Paul, it is because you aren’t in touch with those documents.
Sorry old pal, but this is cultish. I would argue as I have many times that not only is Paul not a Constitutionalist, he bastardizes those documents in the same way Fred Phelps bastardizes the Bible. Not only that, but frankly, he has been a complete failure as a leader.
Let’s put it in different terms. Let’s say you had a guy under your command who always talked about how he was the best solider. He could quote The Art of War, Chesty’s story, and every detail of every battle. However, the very moment you hand him a gun, he freezes up or walks away? Does just talking actually make him a good Marine?
Paul is like this. He has this year, an opportunity to prove he is more than talk. He was given the most powerful position he could have in regards to oversight of the Fed and monetary system- Chairman of the House Committee on Monetary Policy. What did he do? Jack and Squat. Just to remind you, the Federal Reserve Act says that Congress has oversight over its operations, and this committee is the one given that duty. During this entire year, Paul has called only a couple of meetings, one he canceled and another one he didn’t show up to. On one meeting, instead of calling in bankers or other witnesses, he had on the roster an author who wrote books on Southern Succession and a blogger. He ended up canceling this hearing.
So in this entire year, when he had legal authority do put actions behind his rhetoric, he did jack and squat.
He had authority to subpoena records- he didn’t.
He had authority to call witnesses from the Fed- he didn’t.
He had authority to assign an independent investigator- he didn’t.
This pretty much epitomizes his entire career. He talks and talks and talks and talks and accomplishes nothing.
What makes him any better than a coffee shop philosopher?
“Why do you think I havent read those along with the Federalist Papers, the Founding Experience diaries and pretty much every other thing written on or by the founders? The premise you start with though seems to be that if you dont support Paul, it is because you arent in touch with those documents.”
How many Paultards hae read them ? Zero. They’re too busy getting high.
“What makes him any better than a coffee shop philosopher?”
Or bloggers with a mean streak a mile wide who don’t want go along with the program like me!
Great post, champ! Remind me to never attempt to debate you.....
Matt, my primary criteria for a political figure does NOT include seeing how much he or she can get government to GROW. I am interested in SHRINKING IT, to the exclusion of virtually ALL ELSE. I want to see ANY level of government do ONLY what it’s allowed to do, with emphasis on PROTECTING MY RIGHTS. That’s really ALL I want done by FedGov, my State and my city and county. Only one person in this crop of candidates meets that standard. His record of voting to limit government is stellar, even when he’s the only one doing so.
Furthermore, which is more in keeping with the original intent of the founders, a.) allowing nameless, faceless and, ultimately, UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRAPS access to mountains of taxpayer monies to spend as THEY wish or, b.) given our current circumstance, taking a fixed amount of money ALREADY BUDGETED and marking it toward a specific area in one’s own district, attempting to bring back a fair portion of what’s been taken out at the point of government’s gun? If you said b.), you’d be trying your best to do right by your constituents.
Which is more principled, a.) giving lip service to the notion of being “pro-life,” while wringing your hands but doing NOTHING, or b.) introducing, term after term, a bill which would define life as beginning at conception and DENYING THE COURTS JURISDICTION to change that definition, even though NOT ONE of your allegedly pro-life colleagues will sign on as co-sponsors? If you said b.), you would, in my view, be CONSISTENTLY AND STRONGLY pro-life.
Which makes more sense in supporting a friend, a.) giving that “friend” money to purchase items to help him defend himself from his neighbors, ALL of whom want him dead, yet also helping arm those same neighbors and tying your “friend’s” hands behind his back, or b.) cutting off your money to ALL of them, cutting the strings so your FRIEND can use his own best judgment in his defense (and encouraging your other friends to make PRIVATE, stringless donations, if they wish)? Once more, if you said b.), you’d be consistent, principled, and a far, far better friend than the one who offered money, but tried to reduce your friend’s defensive capability to Zero!!!
Last, which would be a greater threat to your personal security, a.) a bunch of backward, goat-humping, pedophile perverts who could only present a problem for you if you left your window open and refused to close it, or b.) your own out of control spending, FAR in excess of your income, coupled with a reduction in your personal liberties, brought on by mindless meddling in your personal, non-coercive business and a desire on the part of your chief exec and his minions to prevent you from correcting the spending and meddling problems? Once more, your b.) answer indicates a perspective that focuses on the true ROOT of your problem.