Ron Paul Libertarian or Kook?

[Kathianne]

Libertarianism may well find it's place. If the candidates sounded more like this, (http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=656) the philosophy might become more widespread. There can be found reasons for the middle of both major parties to move in the direction espoused by libertarians, that Ron Paul managed to attract the fringes of both parties along with some of the middle and many ill-informed college age students should be worrisome.

[Gaffer]

Interesting find Kath. Lets see what the paul supporters have to say about that.

[manu1959]

libertarianism is an excellent political philosophy.....pity ron paul is their spokesman......he almost makes hillary appealing....

[Kathianne]

libertarianism is an excellent political philosophy.....pity ron paul is their spokesman......he almost makes hillary appealing....

:cheers2: Exactly!

[Little-Acorn]

Ron Paul Libertarian or Kook?
The answer, of course, is (C) All of the above.

Libertarians generally support government limited to the bounds called for in the Constitution. That is an excellent philosophy and should be embraced by all Americans. Ron Paul, however, further seems to feel that we should immediately tear down anything outside the Constitution. That amounts to about 3/4 of the Federal budget and most of its agencies, including Social Security, EPA, OSHA, school funding, and many others.

While I would like to see all those things returned to the level of government where they belong (state govt, city govt, or privatized etc.), simply amputating them all tomorrow, would cause such a "shock" it would kill the patient we are trying to cure. This is obvious to anyone who looks... except, for some reason, to Ron Paul.

If I had a cancer in my leg that needed to be cured, I would not necessarily want my doctor to be someone whose principal surgical tool was a chainsaw.... even if it WAS necessary to cut out the cancer or even amputate the leg. But that's the only tool Ron Paul seems interested in using.

And his foreign policy is nothing short of appalling. He seems to have grabbed with both hands George Washington's plea from his Farewell Address, that we not engage in foreign entanglements... and ignored GW's later comment that we should wait a period of years to build up our military strength and diplomatic credentials and then DO engage in foreign affairs. Paul's plan is to simply withdraw from all combat areas where Congress hasn't given a (Constitutionally mandated) explicit declaration of war. This would result, of course, in Iraq becoming a huge, well-funded, functional base for terrorist activities worldwide, at about the same time the last Jew in Israel would be annihilated by any of the millions of Arab extremists from half a dozen neighboring self-declared enemy countries, and the last South Korean was thrown into the sea along with his wife and children by invading soldiers from North Korea.

In short, Ron Paul's ideas are intellectually excellent, but he has no idea how to get there from here, and doesn't even care. Despite his excellent theoretical conservatism, I would no sooner put him in the Presidency than I would ask a chainsaw surgeon to cure my hangnail.

[bullypulpit]

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the GOP field that's making any sense whenever he talks.

[Dilloduck]

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the GOP field that's making any sense whenever he talks.

Then he's your man, Bully !! Vote for him.

[Little-Acorn]

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the GOP field that's making any sense whenever he talks.

Libertarians generally support government limited to the bounds called for in the Constitution. That is an excellent philosophy and should be embraced by all Americans. Ron Paul, however, further seems to feel that we should immediately tear down anything outside the Constitution. That amounts to about 3/4 of the Federal budget and most of its agencies, including Social Security, EPA, OSHA, school funding, and many others.

While I would like to see all those things returned to the level of government where they belong (state govt, city govt, or privatized etc.), simply amputating them all tomorrow, would cause such a "shock" it would kill the patient we are trying to cure. This is obvious to anyone who looks... except, for some reason, to Ron Paul.

If I had a cancer in my leg that needed to be cured, I would not necessarily want my doctor to be someone whose principal surgical tool was a chainsaw.... even if it WAS necessary to cut out the cancer or even amputate the leg. But that's the only tool Ron Paul seems interested in using.

And his foreign policy is nothing short of appalling. He seems to have grabbed with both hands George Washington's plea from his Farewell Address, that we not engage in foreign entanglements... and ignored GW's later comment that we should wait a period of years to build up our military strength and diplomatic credentials and then DO engage in foreign affairs. Paul's plan is to simply withdraw from all combat areas where Congress hasn't given a (Constitutionally mandated) explicit declaration of war. This would result, of course, in Iraq becoming a huge, well-funded, functional base for terrorist activities worldwide, at about the same time the last Jew in Israel would be annihilated by any of the millions of Arab extremists from half a dozen neighboring self-declared enemy countries, and the last South Korean was thrown into the sea along with his wife and children by invading soldiers from North Korea.

In short, Ron Paul's ideas are intellectually excellent, but he has no idea how to get there from here, and doesn't even care.

(Restated for BullPulp's benefit, since he obviously missed these facts before asserting that Paul "made sense whenever he talked")

[Pale Rider]

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the GOP field that's making any sense whenever he talks.

Yes he makes sense, and a hell of a lot of people are responding, but he's not the "only" one. Hunter, Thompson, Romney, all good men, all make sense.

Now the liberals.... ppphht... puuulleeeze... :laugh:

[typomaniac]

Blithertarians are corporatists and globalists. No thanks. :talk2hand:

[5stringJeff]

Libertarianism may well find it's place. If the candidates sounded more like this, (http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=656) the philosophy might become more widespread. There can be found reasons for the middle of both major parties to move in the direction espoused by libertarians, that Ron Paul managed to attract the fringes of both parties along with some of the middle and many ill-informed college age students should be worrisome.

This guy sounds like a left-libertarian. No wonder he doesn't like Ron Paul.

[truthmatters]

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=11139&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


I think this kid does a great job explaining Ron Pauls ideas.

[5stringJeff]

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=11139&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


I think this kid does a great job explaining Ron Pauls ideas.

Is that TheSage? :D

[Dilloduck]

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=11139&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


I think this kid does a great job explaining Ron Pauls ideas.

And your solution ?

[Dilloduck]

HELLLLLOOOOO TM----how do you recommend we solve this problem ???
I think you have hit the nail on the head !!!

[Dilloduck]

Anyone ????

[truthmatters]

I dont agree with everything he says but he does a good job.

I think cutting the military to a reasonable level, fixing our election system so that the lobbiests would not be able to corrupt or new legislators and sound fiscal policy would go a long way.

It would really help if republicans would stop believing the lies of the people who have corrupted their party and elect Good clean republicans who will really do what the people want.

[typomaniac]

Anyone ????

I've already said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again: take money completely out of the campaign process, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.

[JohnDoe]

Libertarians generally support government limited to the bounds called for in the Constitution. That is an excellent philosophy and should be embraced by all Americans. Ron Paul, however, further seems to feel that we should immediately tear down anything outside the Constitution. That amounts to about 3/4 of the Federal budget and most of its agencies, including Social Security, EPA, OSHA, school funding, and many others.

While I would like to see all those things returned to the level of government where they belong (state govt, city govt, or privatized etc.), simply amputating them all tomorrow, would cause such a "shock" it would kill the patient we are trying to cure. This is obvious to anyone who looks... except, for some reason, to Ron Paul.

If I had a cancer in my leg that needed to be cured, I would not necessarily want my doctor to be someone whose principal surgical tool was a chainsaw.... even if it WAS necessary to cut out the cancer or even amputate the leg. But that's the only tool Ron Paul seems interested in using.

And his foreign policy is nothing short of appalling. He seems to have grabbed with both hands George Washington's plea from his Farewell Address, that we not engage in foreign entanglements... and ignored GW's later comment that we should wait a period of years to build up our military strength and diplomatic credentials and then DO engage in foreign affairs. Paul's plan is to simply withdraw from all combat areas where Congress hasn't given a (Constitutionally mandated) explicit declaration of war. This would result, of course, in Iraq becoming a huge, well-funded, functional base for terrorist activities worldwide, at about the same time the last Jew in Israel would be annihilated by any of the millions of Arab extremists from half a dozen neighboring self-declared enemy countries, and the last South Korean was thrown into the sea along with his wife and children by invading soldiers from North Korea.

In short, Ron Paul's ideas are intellectually excellent, but he has no idea how to get there from here, and doesn't even care.

(Restated for BullPulp's benefit, since he obviously missed these facts before asserting that Paul "made sense whenever he talked")

little acorn,

i understand what you are saying about 3/4's of the programs the federal gvt does, being eliminated and how hard this would be on all of us.

But if you saw the whole picture, these programs WOULD NOT BE eliminated, they would go to the states to handle themselves...if your state wanted a retirement program like ss, they would have one for their citizens and tax their citizens for it.... schools, the states ALREADY FUND 93% of the money for schools and the 7% the fed's contribute would go away...but the state itself can raise taxes on their own citizens, while at the same time their own citizens will be paying LESS in federal income tax because the feds would not be spending the 7% on schools that it is now....

it gives us citizens more of a say in where their money goes, and more power to control the gvt, because the gvt is local, within the state.

jd

[Dilloduck]

I've already said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again: take money completely out of the campaign process, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.

We will have to because money is freedom of speech.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Ron Paul Libertarian or Kook? BOTH

[pegwinn]

Libertarianism may well find it's place. If the candidates sounded more like this, (http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=656) the philosophy might become more widespread. There can be found reasons for the middle of both major parties to move in the direction espoused by libertarians, that Ron Paul managed to attract the fringes of both parties along with some of the middle and many ill-informed college age students should be worrisome.

I read the article. This guy is full of himself isn't he? I didn't click all the links since there were too many to count. But, from a couple of paragraphs it is plain that he doesn't read the constitution literally and has decided that if you don't believe as he believes..... you are a kook.


http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=11139&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


I think this kid does a great job explaining Ron Pauls ideas.

I went there and the Presentations(?) did not load. Were they videos or posts.


I dont agree with everything he says but he does a good job.

I think cutting the military to a reasonable level, fixing our election system so that the lobbiests would not be able to corrupt or new legislators and sound fiscal policy would go a long way.

It would really help if republicans would stop believing the lies of the people who have corrupted their party and elect Good clean republicans who will really do what the people want.

I like his philosophy. But it will not work in the real world. I think we should get rid of everything in the gov not enumerated in the constitution. Are we waving a wand? No. We would draw them down over a period of years and as the states picked it up and attrition whittled it down, we retire the colors.

Elections are easy not an easy fix. You should not take away my right to support monetarily anyone I wish. And, campaigns also show (me at least) that if nothing else the candidate can make things happen and react to shifting priorities, crisis moments etc. It aint an OJT thing but it'll do.

Ya know. IF all the kook this, and racist that, and other negative mudslinging hadn't happened I for one would never have taken him seriously. But, in politics, there is no bad publicity. If that many people think he's a nutjob it makes me want to shove the microscope about 180 over to see what's on the other side.

[avatar4321]

I've already said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again: take money completely out of the campaign process, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.

How does that help anything? how do you propose the candidate gets from state to state? Hitchhike? How do you propose they organize their people? These are full time jobs. How do you propose they advertise?

Your suggestion gives the media ultimate power to dictate who is heard and who isnt.

[avatar4321]

I actually like Ron Paul. I disagree with alot of his policies. But I like the passion he has behind them. I love his constant reminders to focus on the constitution, although there are times Ive seen him miss clear opportunities to teach what the Constitution says. Ive been rather disappointed because i dont think he necessarily practices everything his message is saying.

[typomaniac]

How does that help anything? how do you propose the candidate gets from state to state? Hitchhike? How do you propose they organize their people? These are full time jobs. How do you propose they advertise?

Your suggestion gives the media ultimate power to dictate who is heard and who isnt.

You're assuming that the media has a monopoly on ideas. With publishing now being so cheap and easy (online), that can never be possible again.

As for your other questions, there would have to be a mandatory spending cap to cover the basics, but low enough for an ordinary person to scrape together. Beyond that, use volunteers. And maybe require the airlines and bus companies to give free tickets to registered, campaigning candidates.

[JackDaniels]

libertarianism is an excellent political philosophy.....pity ron paul is their spokesman......he almost makes hillary appealing....

You're exactly right about this, and basically because Ron Paul is not a true Libertarian at all.

[JackDaniels]

I like his philosophy. But it will not work in the real world. I think we should get rid of everything in the gov not enumerated in the constitution.

I'm not sure you really understand the Constitution. To get rid of everything in the government not enumerated in the Constitution, is in itself unconstitutional.

Learn the Ninth Amendment (http://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html).