Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? RON PAUL SAYS YES!

TCM, I don't get out to Winnipeg very often at all these days. What family I had there has long since moved away, my summers are spent in Alberta, and Saskatoon gives me more than enough cold in the winter that I don't feel the need to visit my eastern friends.

But next time I'm in the city, we're going to the commie-est bar in town (and/or a bar named after Louis Riel; we've got one in Saskatoon, there should be a fucking billion of 'em in Winnipeg) and drinking until we can't keep the bolshevik anthems straight anymore, yeah?
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I also look at the scope of government nationally. They regulate everything, tax everything, pour craploads of money into stuff like social programs, the arts, and the bottomless pits that are health care & education.

Seriously, the level of funding for those last two, from ALL levels of government, NEVER stops going up!

Furthermore on Winnipeg, the #1 promoted small entertainment venue is the communist (or at least extremely left-wing) West End Cultural Centre. The existing infrastructure is crumbling (all the roads are shitty, the bridges are getting dangerous, the outer walls of the police headquarters are LITERALLY crumbling, the traffic control system is horrendously outdated) while millions are being pumped into megaprojects like condos & a new stadium (the existing one is structurally sound, and football fans couldn't care less where they get drunk). The city is loaded with stark, modernist architecture like you'd find in Moscow. EDIT: Man, you should see the new downtown public library - it's all done in beautiful shades of white, black, and grey! :rofl:[/QUOTE]

You've almost described America to a tee. Maybe it's not an ideological bent that leads politicians to waste money by the boatload.

Also, damn near every small theater troupe in the world is left leaning. Why? Because they're broke bastards that don't want to work for the man.
 
[quote name='camoor']Serious question: why are conservatives so proud of being ignorant?[/QUOTE]

Combination and laziness and anti-intellectualism.

They don't care about facts, what works best etc. They just want a world that fits their beliefs and value system.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Let's take this to its logical conclusion. What would stop Texas from invading Mexico to get more land considering Paul's stance of states rights being the end-all be-all argument?[/quote]
even in super libertarian boner land, defense is the duty of the national govt.


Which is fine if you're from liberal Taxachusetts because laws there won't apply elsewhere, but if you're in Texas where he's from, you better not want an abortion or gay marry because he'll hang up that noose before he lets rape victims get abortions and dem queers ruin the sanctity of Christian values marriage.
This is already the case to a certain extent. While the federal law is that you can have an abortion, state law can certainly make it infinitely more difficult in some states than others. Christ, try to get an abortion in Utah at one of their
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']even in super libertarian boner land, defense is the duty of the national govt.[/QUOTE]
Funded by what and enforced by whom? It's barely being enforced as it is and by some miracle, corporations will pay out of the goodness of their hearts once Uncle Sam gets his jackboot off their throats if there was a smaller government?

This is already the case to a certain extent. While the federal law is that you can have an abortion, state law can certainly make it infinitely more difficult in some states than others. Christ, try to get an abortion in Utah at one of their
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On my phone so trying to be short and sweet.

You are a knucklehead DD. The only thing good about you is that DD reminds me of Hannah Minx. You have no ability to look forward whatsoever. You seemingly demand that we go from point A to point Q with no stops in between. End the war on drugs because its policy implies racism? Nah fuck that, changes nothing! How about, if it actually happens (unlikely), 5 years from now you begin to see changes. Progress is better than nothing no? Or would that mean that you could no longer be a dick on the internet and essentially take away your hobby? I mean, fuck tennis right?

Once again you paint a barn when I hand you a pencil. The crux of the 25 points (aside from jews = bad) is that everyone benefits from their own labor and there will be a social structure that allows for advancement. It's like the new deal with the benefits of genocide.

Your counterpoint to my immigration stance is horseshit sir. You don't even bother addressing the point (par for your course). Illegal immigration is by virtue illegal. Various laws have various punishment. Essentially, theres no capital punishment for shop lifting bubble gum. Don't be a nitwit and avoid the point by equating bubble gum to murder. They are different.
Yes, those that employ illegals should also be punished/fined what have you. We agreed on that a year ago. In fact I demanded stiffer punishment than you did IIRC.
 
[quote name='nasum']On my phone so trying to be short and sweet.

You are a knucklehead DD. The only thing good about you is that DD reminds me of Hannah Minx. You have no ability to look forward whatsoever. You seemingly demand that we go from point A to point Q with no stops in between. End the war on drugs because its policy implies racism? Nah fuck that, changes nothing! How about, if it actually happens (unlikely), 5 years from now you begin to see changes. Progress is better than nothing no? Or would that mean that you could no longer be a dick on the internet and essentially take away your hobby? I mean, fuck tennis right?[/QUOTE]
How the fuck is addressing lack of education, lack of jobs, lack of money, an addiction, PTSD from being imprisoned, etc going from step A to step Q especially when it would be impossible under libertopia to provide those social programs? The only difference is would be fewer addicts in prison and more addicts on the streets. I'm directly addressing everything after the first step and I'm not even asking you to provide specific solutions. Is it progress? Sure it is! But you're still left with the same result as those kicked off welfare. The drug war is a symptom, not the cause.

Once again you paint a barn when I hand you a pencil. The crux of the 25 points (aside from jews = bad) is that everyone benefits from their own labor and there will be a social structure that allows for advancement. It's like the new deal with the benefits of genocide.
You mean like how it worked for the US?:lol:

I'm not sure if you got that joke, but I'd like to see if you could figure it out.

Socialism for Germans and slavery/genocide for the rest is not socialism. If anything, it's more nationalist and against the communists and socialists of the times. It might look like a duck, but it does not quack like a duck or walk like a duck. Any socialist worth their red star would be against any edicts that view foreigners in that manner of the 25 Points. Marx would call that class consciousness and that goes against the core concept of solidarity. Sounds like you don't really know anything about socialism either!

Your counterpoint to my immigration stance is horseshit sir. You don't even bother addressing the point (par for your course). Illegal immigration is by virtue illegal. Various laws have various punishment. Essentially, theres no capital punishment for shop lifting bubble gum. Don't be a nitwit and avoid the point by equating bubble gum to murder. They are different.
And your point isn't simplistic horseshit? "Illegal immigration is by virtue, illegal?" Translation: something illegal is illegal because it's illegal...it's a goddamned circular argument. Like I said, so are blowjobs and buttsecks in some states...it's all arbitrary. The question is WHY is it illegal and WHY is there retributive punishment. These people aren't put on the first plane/bus out of the country, they're incarcerated. And only certain shades to boot. Holdovers form the UK aren't exactly high on the list of priorities. Being in Boston and having taken classes at a community college for fun, I've met plenty.

Yes, those that employ illegals should also be punished/fined what have you. We agreed on that a year ago. In fact I demanded stiffer punishment than you did IIRC.
Undocumented workers still contribute to the system and should be afforded some rights...or at least more than what they have now to start.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Combination and laziness and anti-intellectualism.

They don't care about facts, what works best etc. They just want a world that fits their beliefs and value system.[/QUOTE]

Makes sense.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Like I said, so are blowjobs and buttsecks in some states...[/QUOTE]

Hey, look, Dohdough spouting off incorrect statements. Who'd thunk it?
The last of the sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003.
 
For a guy that claims to be so smart you sure like to play dumb.

1.) Ending the drug war is step 1. It clears up a lot of money spent in the enforcement arena which can be shifted to the rehab arena and Dr. Drew will become even more famous etc... Now, in Libertarian boner land you may not get those programs as that is part of that evil govt spending, but I would be willing to bet that state govt would step up and do something about people wandering the streets. You seem to forget that libertarian boner land is minimal federal govt with plenty of options left open to the states.
It also has nothing to do with education/jobs/money/etc because that's a different issue. Quit trying to make a Manhattan with the ingredients of a White Russian.

2.) I get the joke, it's just not funny. America is terrible even though it isn't. I hear Somalia is real nice this time of year...

3.) The premise of socialism is to bridge the gap between capitalism and communism, paying no mind to that devil found in the details. That you lump it all into one category (referring to the 25 points) further shows that you have this all or nothing attitude about everything and that there is no such thing as partial credit. Yeah, the heads of the party were insane and terrible people. Remove the extreme protectionism and intolerance and you pretty much have exactly what you keep calling for.

4.) RE: Who pays for it from your previous post.
Libertarian boner land still has taxes and the purview of the federal govt. is defense and foreign trade. Essentially you'll end up with higher state and county taxes due to the lack of federal aid by the govt. There's much less shifting of money (i.e. for every dollar that SD pays to the US govt they get $1.48 back) which becomes a good thing.
The IRS has a reduced role and there is no central bank that controls monetary policy. Not exactly a good idea but that's just how it works in that system.

5.) Yes, illegal is illegal but there are varying degrees of punishment that suit the illegal act. Again, stealing bubblegum is not murder. You're not stupid, stop playing like you are because it takes away the fun.
Your anarchist utopia doesn't exist. Sorry bud, it just doesn't work. There are rules and that's how the game is played. Notice how you don't often see footballs being thrown by the pitcher in a baseball game? Yeah, it's against the rules.
 
Anyway, a similar pilot program was tried in Florida in 99'. It was canceled because it didn't save money. Also just to reiterate a study of forty still trumps a non study of no one.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hey, look, Dohdough spouting off incorrect statements. Who'd thunk it?
The last of the sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit. You finally did some homework and all it took was a quick google search. If only you'd apply that effort on other arguments! Good job Mr Fact-checker!:roll:

It's like I never use hyperbole either!

[quote name='nasum']For a guy that claims to be so smart you sure like to play dumb.

1.) Ending the drug war is step 1. It clears up a lot of money spent in the enforcement arena which can be shifted to the rehab arena and Dr. Drew will become even more famous etc... Now, in Libertarian boner land you may not get those programs as that is part of that evil govt spending, but I would be willing to bet that state govt would step up and do something about people wandering the streets. You seem to forget that libertarian boner land is minimal federal govt with plenty of options left open to the states.[/QUOTE]
If people bitch about the already absurdly low taxes now and some people paying an increased marginal tax rate of 3%, do you really think that states will introduce social programs to address these issues? And if we remove federal funding and make states self-sufficient, almost every state that went red the last few elections would be worse than developing countries.

It also has nothing to do with education/jobs/money/etc because that's a different issue. Quit trying to make a Manhattan with the ingredients of a White Russian.
Really? Crimes have nothing to do with lack of jobs, money, educational opportunities? So somehow, drugs exist in a vacuum? That's some seriously dumb shit, even for you.

2.) I get the joke, it's just not funny. America is terrible even though it isn't. I hear Somalia is real nice this time of year...
No...I don't think you do get the joke. And the last time I checked, Somolia is a libertarian paradise and I'm no libertarian or anarchist, which I'll address later.

3.) The premise of socialism is to bridge the gap between capitalism and communism, paying no mind to that devil found in the details. That you lump it all into one category (referring to the 25 points) further shows that you have this all or nothing attitude about everything and that there is no such thing as partial credit. Yeah, the heads of the party were insane and terrible people. Remove the extreme protectionism and intolerance and you pretty much have exactly what you keep calling for.
It's only the transition if your endgame is communism. Having a class system is an anthema to communism and completely against it's core principles. The endgame of the Nazi's wasn't a socialist/communist utopia; it was about racial supremacy. It's not an all or nothing criteria; protectionism, xenophobia, and racism are core tenets of the 25 points. Would you call the US a socialist state because it has some socialist-like programs? Of course not.

4.) RE: Who pays for it from your previous post.
Libertarian boner land still has taxes and the purview of the federal govt. is defense and foreign trade. Essentially you'll end up with higher state and county taxes due to the lack of federal aid by the govt. There's much less shifting of money (i.e. for every dollar that SD pays to the US govt they get $1.48 back) which becomes a good thing.
The IRS has a reduced role and there is no central bank that controls monetary policy. Not exactly a good idea but that's just how it works in that system.
Not a good idea you say? Kinda like how I've been saying since forever?

5.) Yes, illegal is illegal but there are varying degrees of punishment that suit the illegal act. Again, stealing bubblegum is not murder. You're not stupid, stop playing like you are because it takes away the fun.
It's almost as if I was trying to make a point by being hyperbolic...I wonder what it could mean...could it mean that libertopia wouldn't have the tools to address worker abuse illegal or not? Or libertopia actually encourages these types of employment conditions? Or maybe some things are considered crimes, but are in a morally gray area so there aren't retributive consequences?

Your anarchist utopia doesn't exist. Sorry bud, it just doesn't work. There are rules and that's how the game is played. Notice how you don't often see footballs being thrown by the pitcher in a baseball game? Yeah, it's against the rules.
Looks like you also don't know what anarchism is either! And what rules are you yammering about? Something close to referencing a contract? Perhaps even *gasp* a social one? Something you could maybe call a social contract?
 
Crack is a hell of a drug isn't it?
Was I not the one clamoring that the social contract is why murder is worse than bubblegum theft a couple months back? Jesus christ dude.

Well, thanks for your typical canned responses. It's been a pleasure as always. Apparently my reedin compreehenshun issues have spread to you as well since you've ENTIRELY MISSED THE fuckING POINT once again.

Spend less on drug war, more money on the books, spend it elsewhere. Work on root causes as opposed to the symptom as you correctly pointed out earlier, but then dropped it because you thought it made me look dumb or whatever. It's always fun when I serve you these softballs upon which we agree but then you come up with some way to twist it to feel superior because it's awesome to always be right.

The National Socialists were National Socialists? What a fucking concept. Thanks once again for proving that particularly tricky theorem. Not a communist and/or socialist utopia but one that adhered to the tenets of its self constructed paradigm. Simply amazing. Once again, congratulations on agreeing with me but having to call me a dumbass at the same time. We bow to you oh great one. Would you like your blowjob with or without chapstick?

On this law thing you again completely fail to realize that libertarian boner land would also have a healthy dose of authoritarianism. Maybe not so much under the Ron Paul plan, but it'd most definitely be there. To deny it's existence because "on paper" it isn't needed is simply absurd.

Given that you're either A.) Being hyperbolic to prove a point (and doing so very poorly) or B.) Just not a fan of rules and laws I'm always curious as to how you think this whole thing is supposed to work. Civility isn't your strong point, leading one to assume that you've got this notion of a mutually beneficial yet aggressive social construct which is just bewildering. It makes me ponder if you were either one of those super coddled children that got a trophy for crapping in the right place or if you got your ass handed to you on an almost daily basis for dropping the dishes.
In the end, I've come to the conclusion that you're actually my ex-wife. If I was making a sandwich and asked her if she wanted one, for whatever reason she'd hear that we weren't going to a fancy place for dinner and get all pissed.
 
[quote name='nasum']Crack is a hell of a drug isn't it?
Was I not the one clamoring that the social contract is why murder is worse than bubblegum theft a couple months back? Jesus christ dude.[/QUOTE]
Not that I can think of, but it's irrelevent when we're talking about moral gray areas as all murders aren't treated equally. And to bring it back on topic again, illegal because it's illegal is circular nonsense.

Well, thanks for your typical canned responses. It's been a pleasure as always. Apparently my reedin compreehenshun issues have spread to you as well since you've ENTIRELY MISSED THE fuckING POINT once again.
Your points are nonsensical because you're using terms you don't understand the meanings of and tying them into sentences that are meaningless.

Spend less on drug war, more money on the books, spend it elsewhere. Work on root causes as opposed to the symptom as you correctly pointed out earlier, but then dropped it because you thought it made me look dumb or whatever. It's always fun when I serve you these softballs upon which we agree but then you come up with some way to twist it to feel superior because it's awesome to always be right.
First you said end the drug war, then I said that'd be worthless if we don't address the underlying problems, then you said that I'd never be happy because I'd lose my motivation to be dickish and the only thing I was is to go from step A to step Q, then I said that I'm addressing step B, and now you say that B would magically happen after step A. Which still has nothing to do with the original comments with TurboPortaPotty because you failed to understand that I wasn't comparing Republicans to Nazi's, but mocking TurboPortaPotty blaming everything on leftists and how they're compared to Nazi's and communists/socialists because really, communism and socialism is the same thing amirite?:roll:

The National Socialists were National Socialists? What a fucking concept. Thanks once again for proving that particularly tricky theorem. Not a communist and/or socialist utopia but one that adhered to the tenets of its self constructed paradigm. Simply amazing. Once again, congratulations on agreeing with me but having to call me a dumbass at the same time. We bow to you oh great one. Would you like your blowjob with or without chapstick?
There's a difference between national and national-ism/ist. You're still basically arguing that Nazi's are socialists because they used the word socialism in the party's name when socialism has absolutely nothing to do with this level of extremist nationalism. This added to the fact that they were not leftists, but far right wing conservatives in even the modern context shows how wrong you are. The only thing we're agreeing on is that they called themselves socialists and used some socialist ideas, but that doesn't make them socialists. If you go to a novelty store and buy a fly in an ice cube, is it really a fly in an ice cube? It looks like a fly and looks like an ice cube, but the fly isn't real and the ice isn't real, which would mean it isn't a goddamned fly in an ice cube, but a plastic facsimile of a fly encased in a plastic facsimile of an ice cube.

On this law thing you again completely fail to realize that libertarian boner land would also have a healthy dose of authoritarianism. Maybe not so much under the Ron Paul plan, but it'd most definitely be there. To deny it's existence because "on paper" it isn't needed is simply absurd.
Authoritarian how? Certainly not in regards to making sure social services are sufficiently run and funded.

Given that you're either A.) Being hyperbolic to prove a point (and doing so very poorly) or B.) Just not a fan of rules and laws I'm always curious as to how you think this whole thing is supposed to work. Civility isn't your strong point, leading one to assume that you've got this notion of a mutually beneficial yet aggressive social construct which is just bewildering.
Hmmm...what could this mean...:whistle2:k

It makes me ponder if you were either one of those super coddled children that got a trophy for crapping in the right place or if you got your ass handed to you on an almost daily basis for dropping the dishes.
None of the above.

In the end, I've come to the conclusion that you're actually my ex-wife. If I was making a sandwich and asked her if she wanted one, for whatever reason she'd hear that we weren't going to a fancy place for dinner and get all pissed.
I'm going to leave this one alone. Even I have some scrupples.
 
Couple questions for Paulistinians, I'm kinda curious:

1. The 2008 economic collapse. What was the cause of it?
2. What involvement should the government have with respect to the environment?
 
dodd-frank and the community reinvestment act

they should get the fuck out of the way, duh. the free market will resurrect endangered species.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']dodd-frank and the community reinvestment act

they should get the fuck out of the way, duh. the free market will resurrect endangered species.[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of this badass poster

bladerunner_godmachine.jpg


As far as ideas go, PKD was brilliant.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']they should get the fuck out of the way, duh. the free market will resurrect endangered species.[/QUOTE]

I love this idea.

Because our banking system - in no way whatsoever - resembles anything close to a "free market".

But let's blame the "free market". It's a great scape goat for the dumb masses.
 
herp der..what? banking? the question was about the environment.

you've gone paulistinian on us, haven't you? Bet you bookmarked "Prison Planet" in your web browswer just two days ago, didn't you?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Couple questions for Paulistinians, I'm kinda curious:

1. The 2008 economic collapse. What was the cause of it?
2. What involvement should the government have with respect to the environment?[/QUOTE]

1. Another feather in the hat of the Nixon Depression.

2. Enforce property rights; reverse the collusion between industry/corporate America and government since the Industrial Revolution that has allowed pollution to occur. For incremental steps that can be achieved in a four year term, stop running an empire, and stop subsidizing oil.
 
Elaborate on 1. please.

And for 2., would you dismantle the EPA? What about states rights? Would you also dismantle state environmental protection agencies?
 
Hmmm...what could this mean...

Geez I dunno Mr. Wizard, you tell me. I'm just a drooling retard that is conservative though I make fun of them on the internet because I'm not one. Or at least that's what you've told me and you're the best one here so I'm just going to follow you over cliffs now to make you happy.

Sure sucks to be black in this racist world, I mean hell, they made the MLK statue WHITE! Ooo those klannies at the top just won't ever stop!
 
OK, since I admitted that I have little to back my opinions up with, I'm going to permanently stop talking about them.

Right now, I'm like to bring to your attention something very surprising - a Time Magazine article about Ron Paul.

This is the first time that Time has done a print article strictly about Ron Paul - they've mentioned him a scant few times in articles about other people/movements, but have otherwise consistently ignored him since '07 (they somehow managed to mention LESS popular candidates than him during that campaign).

Not only is having a Time article all to himself a first, it has a positive slant to it! :shock:

Note the highlighted section - I'm a little bit of all of those... ;)

The Prophet
By Alex Altman / Concord Monday, Sept. 05, 2011

Twilight descends in new Hampshire as an old man climbs onto his soapbox. LIBERTY: TOO BIG TO FAIL reads a banner hanging in the jam-packed tent. He is hardly a commanding figure, but a thousand people chant his name and lean in to listen, ready to follow, as Ron Paul delivers his genre-bending stump speech. There are no focus-grouped slogans, no empty calories: Paul's talk is more like a high-fiber graduate seminar on economic theory, forgotten history and the nooks and crannies of the U.S. Constitution. "The Federal Reserve system and all their members have been counterfeiters for a long time," he says, his reedy voice straining. "Sound money is connected to free markets and the freedom message and the Constitution, and we can bring this all together for people. It fascinates me, and I'm sure it must fascinate a lot of you also."

In normal times, Paul's esoteric pitch might leave voters bemused, bewildered or just bored. But these aren't normal times, and the rapt crowd roars its approval. The attendees share his conviction that a great man has met his moment in history. "Our time has come," Paul declares, and this time, it may be more than wishful thinking.

For decades, the Republican Congressman from Texas has preached much the same brand of libertarian politics and Austrian economics. When he ran for President four years ago, Paul drew a zealous but narrow following, and his warnings that murky monetary policy, runaway spending and a sprawling foreign empire would ruin the country struck many Republicans as kooky. His GOP rivals smirked or simply ignored him. Although Paul raised a staggering $35 million, he captured just 1% of Republican delegates.

But in the four years since, the world has changed in mostly grim ways that seem to affirm Paul's worldview. His vision of an eroding Constitution and a Washington--Wall Street cabal helped spark the Tea Party movement. Conservatives who once sneered at his foreign policy as being "isolationist" have grown weary of war. His call for a more accountable and transparent Federal Reserve has morphed from quaint obsession to mainstream Republican talking point in Congress and on the campaign trail.

As presidential contender, Paul remains an extreme long shot. He lags behind central-casting candidates like Mitt Romney and Rick Perry in polls. The pillars of his libertarian philosophy--restoring the gold standard, abolishing the central bank, letting states legalize drugs, gutting the size of government and the social safety net, sharply reducing America's global footprint--are too radical for the typical suburban swing voter. Not to mention that the 76-year-old Paul would be the oldest ever first-term President.

(page 2)

But as prophet, he is still defining the GOP race. He came within a whisker of spoiling Michele Bachmann's headline-making win at the Aug. 13 Iowa straw poll and helped end Tim Pawlenty's candidacy by denying him a second-place finish. When Republican heavies like Newt Gingrich and Perry bash the Fed's monetary policy, he mocks them as latecomers to his party. "Who would have thought the former Speaker of the House would come out for 'Audit the Fed?'" Paul says to deafening applause in Concord. "Now we have a Southern governor. I can't remember his name"--a wry reference to Perry, who suggested it would be almost "treasonous" for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to pump more money into the economy--"[who] realizes talking about the Fed is good too."

Paul still struggles to win the major media's attention, prompting Jon Stewart to compare his candidacy to "the 13th floor of a hotel." But Paul's allies say he's more interested in influence than political power. "He does not have a great personal desire to be the President," says Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman and grandson-in-law. Instead, he is that rare commodity in modern politics: a man of ideas, however unconventional they may be.

The Making of the Maverick

Ron Paul's political epiphany took place on Aug. 15, 1971. That was the day Richard Nixon, hoping to boost a flagging U.S. economy, decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. Few people understood or cared about the change. For Paul, it was a calamity. "That was the moment I knew something very strange was going on in the government establishment," he recalls, sitting in a desk chair in his Concord campaign office. Paul believes that a currency unmoored from gold is based on, well, nothing, and that simply printing fiat money inevitably leads to ruin. "I thought it was just a total disaster," he says.

The mild-mannered Paul is an unlikely messenger of economic doom. Born outside Pittsburgh, he attended medical school at Duke and joined the Air Force in 1963. He served as a flight surgeon during Vietnam, an experience that convinced him the American "empire" is folly. As he built an obstetrics practice in Brazoria County, Texas, he spent his free time studying the theories of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, giants of the Austrian school of economics, which champions unfettered free markets, individual rights and money backed by scarce commodities like gold and silver. "When I discovered people like Mises, to me they were geniuses," Paul says. "They could explain this stuff. It helped me feel comfortable that it wasn't only me in the world."

In 1974 Paul ran for Congress in South Texas, promising "freedom, honesty and sound money." He lost that race but won the seat two years later. Paul's latest campaign ad boasts that he is "guided by principle," and his record supports the claim. Though he represents a rural coastal district, Paul regularly votes against farm subsidies and flood insurance. He has never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget. He opposed congressional medals for Rosa Parks, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa as well as aid for Hurricane Katrina victims, all on the grounds that Congress has no business meddling in such matters.

(page 3)

Paul isn't a pure libertarian. He doesn't support abortion or gay marriage; he believes those issues should be left up to states. But he has a coherent worldview: that individual liberty is the highest American ideal and a free-market economy its foundation. Paper money is a mirage predicated on trust in a government that can't be trusted. Fealty to the Constitution means accepting the parts of it you might not like, whether it's your neighbor's right to shoot heroin or gamble away his paycheck. "You can take your life and be very productive, or you can be destructive," Paul says, "but you can't meddle in other people's lives."

Paul's acolytes often speak of him in nearly messianic tones. "It's like a light switch going on. You see things you haven't seen before," says Doug Wead, a senior adviser who served under both George W. Bush and Bush's father. After Paul spoke in Concord, hundreds of fans thronged to greet him. Kate Baker, the national chair of a group called Women for Ron Paul, tried to organize a greeting line. "Ron Paul walks where he wants to walk and stops," she tells an eager fan. "We follow him."

A Revolution Matures

For a political prophet, paul isn't much of a speaker. He tangles his syntax and is prone to rambling. But one man's awkward is another's authentic, and when you are trying to sell a candidate as a truth teller, it's best if the packaging doesn't show: his newest ad contrasts him with the "smooth-talking politicians" he's running against. "We've run into Romney. We ran into McCain. Whenever you talk to them, you feel like everything they say is almost programmed," says Jesse Coffey, a 17-year-old Paul volunteer who is among the candidate's many young devotees. "When you meet Ron Paul, it's like meeting an old friend you haven't seen in years."

For the next hour, Paul stands in the gathering dusk, shaking hands, snapping pictures and signing memorabilia: $2 bills, a watercolor portrait of his face, a copy of the John Birch Society's magazine. "I'd ask you to sign my chest, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate," says one woman, who settles for her sleeve. A trio of young men, including one in a T-shirt depicting a vampiric George W. Bush sinking his fangs into Lady Liberty, crowd around the Congressman to vent about the treatment of Bradley Manning, the Army private imprisoned for allegedly slipping a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks. "They tried to throw Daniel Ellsberg in jail too," Paul says, shaking his head, recalling the furor over the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago.

The 2008 Paul campaign was a ragtag coalition of anarchists, antiwar activists, goldbugs, paleoconservatives, hard-core libertarians and conspiracy theorists. His grassroots supporters threw raucous rallies, floated a Ron Paul blimp, lionized the 17th century British revolutionary Guy Fawkes--infamous for his attempt to blow up Parliament--and raised huge chunks of cash through online "money bombs." But his organization was hapless when it came to translating that enthusiasm into votes. "Last time, we didn't know what we were doing," says Chris Lawless, 42, a volunteer who voted for Paul back in 1988 when he ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. "We made WHO IS RON PAUL? T-shirts"--a reference to the "Who is John Galt?" refrain in Ayn Rand's libertarian touchstone Atlas Shrugged. "We had a freaking blimp."

(page 4)

Paul was almost a passive figurehead in that spectacle, putting his message ahead of campaign tactics. "His goal, I think, was to use his platform as a pulpit to keep talking about these things until people understood it," says Jim Forsythe, his New Hampshire campaign chairman. "Enough people understand it now. It's time to do something about it."

Convinced that he has a shot in 2012--a late-August Gallup poll showed him running nearly even with President Obama in a hypothetical matchup--Paul's aides have hired seasoned operatives and are more focused on ballot-box results, demonstrating early success at the Iowa straw poll. And Paul is still raising big money, including a $1.8 million money bomb to mark his Aug. 20 birthday.

There remains the matter of the candidate himself, though. "He's incorruptible," Wead says. "He just will not say or do anything that is not based on what he believes, even if it will help his cause. It's very frustrating, because at times using different language would be so much more politically effective."

Whether or not Paul attracts more votes than he did in 2008, his ideas have clearly taken on a life of their own. And that's what Paul says is most important. "I do what I do because I believe that truth wins out in the end," he explains. Even if his candidacy will have a hard time doing the same.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I love this idea.

Because our banking system - in no way whatsoever - resembles anything close to a "free market".

But let's blame the "free market". It's a great scape goat for the dumb masses.[/QUOTE]

Slavery was a result of the "free market." It was cheaper to capture Africans and then ship them across an ocean instead of paying fair wages.

'The Jungle' was a result of the "free market." It was cheaper to treat people like disposable garbage instead of accepting responsibility when people were hurt on the job.

Why is the "free market" preferable to what we have now?
 
Given that markets are created and maintained by governments, you cant technically blame or credit the free market either way, since its figment of your imagination. Now, you can blame persons who try to push us towards completely impossible and contradictory policy positions.
 
Bingo. It's like watching big time pro wrestling on television and getting mad at the wrestling ring because the action spilled to the outside of it.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Slavery was a result of the "free market." It was cheaper to capture Africans and then ship them across an ocean instead of paying fair wages.

'The Jungle' was a result of the "free market." It was cheaper to treat people like disposable garbage instead of accepting responsibility when people were hurt on the job.

Why is the "free market" preferable to what we have now?[/QUOTE]

Slavery was the result of the government failing to do its duty of ensuring that all people are afforded their opportunity at liberty.

Libertarians believe that government has a role. Pretty sure you and I have discussed this before.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Slavery was the result of the government failing to do its duty of ensuring that all people are afforded their opportunity at liberty.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the government did ensure that all people were afforded opportunity at liberty(just for the sake of this argument, I'm gonna roll with this, but we both know that isn't really true) because African slaves weren't considered people.

Libertarians believe that government has a role. Pretty sure you and I have discussed this before.
And their role is to GTFO of our lives amirite! :lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, the government did ensure that all people were afforded opportunity at liberty(just for the sake of this argument, I'm gonna roll with this, but we both know that isn't really true) because African slaves weren't considered people.[/QUOTE]

And back to that part of "government failing..."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And back to that part of "government failing..."[/QUOTE]
I don't think you got the point...

There was much less government back then and a lot closer to what could pass for free market libertarianism.

Saying that government was ineffective is a given, but only to a certain extent. So if the government was impotent, then who is responsible for the events of that time?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Saying that government was ineffective is a given, but only to a certain extent. So if the government was impotent, then who is responsible for the events of that time?[/QUOTE]

The government for creating laws that encouraged and supported slavery.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Slavery was the result of the government failing to do its duty of ensuring that all people are afforded their opportunity at liberty.

Libertarians believe that government has a role. Pretty sure you and I have discussed this before.[/QUOTE]

Slavery - an issue that conservatives were on the wrong side of. Just like everything else ever.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I don't think you got the point...

There was much less government back then and a lot closer to what could pass for free market libertarianism.
[/QUOTE]
There have only been about 20 years total that bankers didn't have this country by the short and curlys, so there may be some truth to what you are saying but not much.

[quote name='camoor']Slavery - an issue that conservatives were on the wrong side of. Just like everything else ever.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Kill 'em in the womb, just don't enslave them - is the right side of the argument.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah. Kill 'em in the womb, just don't enslave them - is the right side of the argument.[/QUOTE]

What's next - you're going to start quoting Bible verses. I expect this from the theocratic con peanut gallery but I thought you were more libertarian then that...
 
[quote name='camoor']What's next - you're going to start quoting Bible verses. I expect this from the theocratic con peanut gallery but I thought you were more libertarian then that...[/QUOTE]

It's just an attempt at lowering to the level of vague non sensical statements like your last.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's just an attempt at lowering to the level of vague non sensical statements like your last.[/QUOTE]

It was kinda late - wrong was the wrong word. Just that society tends to become more progressive over time, and conservatives (particularly social conservatives) tend to lose in battles over policy.
 
[quote name='camoor']It was kinda late - wrong was the wrong word. Just that society tends to become more progressive over time, and conservatives (particularly social conservatives) tend to lose in battles over policy.[/QUOTE]

I can agree with you on social conservatives - of which I don't count myself.



As an aside, I ran across this, which is appropriate for this thread:
56a05ce95160.gif
 
[quote name='camoor']What's next - you're going to start quoting Bible verses. I expect this from the theocratic con peanut gallery but I thought you were more libertarian then that...[/QUOTE]

Thrust has theocratic tendencies. Like the time he was defending Warren Jeffs from all the mean old libruls.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Slavery was the result of the government failing to do its duty of ensuring that all people are afforded their opportunity at liberty.

Libertarians believe that government has a role. Pretty sure you and I have discussed this before.[/QUOTE]

So it was all the government's fault? You're saying that not once, America could've collectively said, "You know what. We don't need a law to tell us that Africans, Natives, and Asians are actually people. Your Three Fifths Compromise is an affront to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If you Tea Party folks really wanted to replicate what the Founding Fathers did, you should build your asses some crappy boats, sail across the Atlantic, brutalize the native population, rape their women, trade crops for slaves, and set up a crappy coalition of "states" loosely governed by "Articles of Confederation." Only after we invade twice and lose to your scrappy guerrilla tactics, will you finally wise up and set up a central government and thus become what you hate so much. A grown up country with grown up problems.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The government for creating laws that encouraged and supported slavery.[/QUOTE]
The Founding Fathers!:roll: weren't some monolithic group. Sure, they kicked that can further down the road, but to insinuate that there weren't monied interests influencing the government back then would be plain stupid.

[quote name='thrustbucket']There have only been about 20 years total that bankers didn't have this country by the short and curlys, so there may be some truth to what you are saying but not much.[/quote]
Since you narrowed it down to 20 years, you're going to have to be more specific than that. And if it was only 20 years, there's a lot more than just "some" truth.

Yeah. Kill 'em in the womb, just don't enslave them - is the right side of the argument.
:rofl:

[quote name='thrustbucket']As an aside, I ran across this, which is appropriate for this thread:
56a05ce95160.gif
[/QUOTE]
Again, when have monied interests not been in control of the country? The Federal Reserve is emblematic of the problem, not the problem itself.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Again, when have monied interests not been in control of the country? The Federal Reserve is emblematic of the problem, not the problem itself.[/QUOTE]

How is a government-sanctioned group that operates outside the government, above the government, ran by the banks, operates in secret and artificially controls everything regarding our money anything *but* the problem?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How is a government-sanctioned group that operates outside the government, above the government, ran by the banks, operates in secret and artificially controls everything regarding our money anything *but* the problem?[/QUOTE]
Easy, problems that were occuring because of financial crises were nothing new and the largest one so far happened right before the Fed was even established. The Fed was created as a response to it. Just because we experience financial crises after its establishment doesn't mean that the same types of monied interests aren't involved. Saying that it's "government-sanctioned" is meaningless because government has never acted in a vacuum.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Again, when have monied interests not been in control of the country? The Federal Reserve is emblematic of the problem, not the problem itself.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was a fascinating quote. Income inequality is the most it's ever been. I think that's a clear sign that things are worse then normal in this regard.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Thrust has theocratic tendencies. Like the time he was defending Warren Jeffs from all the mean old libruls.[/QUOTE]
Really? Where?
Someone must have hacked my account. Better change my password.

[quote name='dohdough']
Since you narrowed it down to 20 years, you're going to have to be more specific than that. And if it was only 20 years, there's a lot more than just "some" truth.[/quote]
It's been a while since I read the book and saw the documentary but it wasn't a contiguous 20 years and it was mostly in the early 1800's.

Again, when have monied interests not been in control of the country? The Federal Reserve is emblematic of the problem, not the problem itself.

Exactly my point. And it's a point that the "See this is why the free market and capitalism sucks" crowd usually misses. We've never had a "pure" libertarian form of free market economics so it's all just words and debate without any proof.
 
bread's done
Back
Top