Jon Pizzo Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 Why, on principle, then would you vote for Giuliani, a Republican? Why, on principle, vote for any Republican? Why not have, as you say, a "prejudice" against Republicans as such? Candidates, schmandidates... It's all about party affiliation...like the last election. Agreed. Why would you say that you hate ALL libertarians on principle? That is extremely dangerous logic in my opinion. Have you ever considered the fact that a politician might feel obligated to run as a libertarian as to not be lumped in with the mass corruption of the democratic and republican parties? I think voting any certain way on "prejudice" is a pretty bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 Why would you say that you hate ALL libertarians on principle? That is extremely dangerous logic in my opinion. Have you ever considered the fact that a politician might feel obligated to run as a libertarian as to not be lumped in with the mass corruption of the democratic and republican parties? How is it "dangerous logic"? Would you vote for someone who "might feel obligated to run" as a Communist so not to "be lumped with the mass corruption" of the two major parties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 So far my views conflict with Ron Paul's views on abortion, immigration, and church & state. However, he still has my vote. My reasoning being: -I have yet to find a better candidate. -I agree with him on free market capitalism, gold standard, civil rights & liberties, small government -I think primarily his views are a step in the right direction which will help America to think about things it needs to think about. -I consider democrats & their socialist/communist views much more of a threat to my freedom. I think universal health care is a real possibility and I absolutely don't want that to happen. -Despite the socialist democrats gaining more power in congress recently I think social security is very weak right now and someone like Ron Paul is just what we need to kill it. He is against social security and this is one of his primary issues. -I don't consider his views on abortion or church & state as a threat or that he will achieve any legislation based on his views. ----As for abortion he said he think its should be an issue decided on by the states. He has taken a relatively weak stance on this and doesn't discuss it often. I don't think he'll take much action on this and if so, I don't think he will be able to succeed in overriding a supreme court decision. ----I think the walls in our constitution protecting us from the religious are strong and, again, I think he hasn't made this his primary issue. Really what it comes down to is voting for the best of the bunch, he's not perfect, but he still has my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pizzo Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 How is it "dangerous logic"? Would you vote for someone who "might feel obligated to run" as a Communist so not to "be lumped with the mass corruption" of the two major parties? That can't really be argued in this context. Here's why: I would never vote for a declared communist, even if they felt the need to run for the communist party because of the reasons I spoke of. This is because there is virtually nothing a communist politician could offer that I would agree with, if they were really communist. You must be forgetting that libertarians and communists are completely different, at least in theory. I agree with some of the things that libertarians support, and I think that their stance on some issues agrees with objectivist logic. That is precisely why I think it is dangerous to proclaim to "Hate all libertarians on principle." I don't think you can take what I said and put it into any context you want, because I was specifically talking about libertarians, not communists, anarchists, or any other group of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 Okay, looking at Paul's reasoning in the "We The People Act" imagine this. Your local government gets this idea that God isn't being praised enough and that's why they are having problems. So they decide to raise a giant 6 story cross made out of pure gold and encrusted with every time of jewel money can by. How do they pay for it? Either by taxing the living hell out of everyone or by selling worthless bonds that they would end up going bankrupt with, because their massive spending would make it impossible to pay off their debts. But, under that act you wouldn't be able to challenge this. It's "secularizing" the American public. The act would make the courts unable to do anything about it. It's kind of ridiculous point, but it needs to be made to show how this contradicts his "free-market" ideals. So does his stance on immigration, and his stance on the war is "America's fault" again, doesn't help spread the idea of free-markets. This is why I say he is actually hurting our movement rather then helping it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) This is why I say he is actually hurting our movement rather then helping it. By the standard you have described all candidates hurt the "movement". Edited November 13, 2007 by Clawg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 Paul is opposed to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Jurisdiction stripping on constitutional issues like this would mean that the states (all 50 of them) would become the "final arbiter" of the meaning of the US Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit clause would not be enforceable in such situations, and prior (prior to the stripping, that is) Supreme Court precedent, though technically binding, would also not be enforceable against the states. The Constitution would become 50 different documents, at least on the issues stripped from federal jurisdiction. This is a way of writing certain provisions of the Constitution out of effectual existence. The very suggestion that Constitutional issues should be entirely removed from the jurisdiction of a single interpretive court is so contrary to the concept of objective, constitutional law that no possible excuse can be made. I am probably a bit biased, but I think the views of a politician on this one issue are more relevant to the voting decision than any other issue. It cuts right to the heart of the politician's opinion of the rule of law and the role of government. This issue touches and concerns every other major election "hot button" issue. The Supreme Court may actually finally resolve the constitutional question of whether Congress has in fact the power to strip jurisdiction from the federal courts like this in the Boumedeine case. It's a Guantanamo detainee habeas case, and the Court initially denied cert on the question of whether Congressional legislation constitutionally removed the case from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The lower court had ruled that it did, so up until the Supreme Court's last-minute reversal of its own prior denial of certiorari, Boumedeine's habeas petition had been removed from federal court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will almost certainly have to address the jurisdictional question before it can get to the question everyone else has been paying closer attention to: the question of whether these military tribunals and associated legislation work an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. That's really far less interesting a question than the jurisdiction stripping one, because the Court has effectively evaded the jurisdiction stripping question for over 150 years, always finding some way to avoid having to clearly define the constitutional limits on Congress' power to regulate Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction. Paul would certainly appoint judges that would read the Constitution as conferring broad power to do so. This might even be a more dangerous and immediate threat than theocracy. If jurisdiction stripping of this sort is permitted, and Paul clearly thinks it is, the Constitution becomes a meaningless document. ~Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promontorium Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 Ron Paul's plans are quite aligned with Objectivism. Do not convict him of thought crimes, and sight his beliefs as his plans. For example he specifically said he would do nothing to change abortions legality, yet isn't in favor. You here claiming to be an Objectivist are espousing only hypocracy. Objectivism is people acting in their own best interest. It is people coming together, even when they are completely different. Simply on the principle that they are people who will not hurt others or act irrationally. Ron Paul doesn't call himself a Libertarian, his enemies do. Judge him for yourself. His morality is solid and obvious. It's fundamentals are Objectivist. His thoughts and opinions are his own. You fail as humans if you cannot see past yourself. If your only standard is that people think just like you do. Now I plead that you supposed representatives of reason and thought, put down that reply button for a day or two and get informed before you continue on with exactly what the media wants you to believe. It makes me sick that the majority of you consider yourselves Os because you like killing babies and hate Adam Smith. You are completely missing the point. Go back. Stop reading. Think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 Ron Paul's plans are quite aligned with Objectivism. How? Do not convict him of thought crimes, and sight his beliefs as his plans. Ones beliefs have nothing to do with ones plans? For example he specifically said he would do nothing to change abortions legality, yet isn't in favor. Yes, and this stance contradicts his other ones. You here claiming to be an Objectivist are espousing only hypocracy. Objectivism is people acting in their own best interest. It is people coming together, even when they are completely different. Simply on the principle that they are people who will not hurt others or act irrationally. Who died and made you Leonard Peikoff? Ron Paul doesn't call himself a Libertarian, his enemies do. Judge him for yourself. Every Libertarian I've seen calls him a libertarian, I guess they are his enemies now? Also, if he doesn't call himself a libertarian, why did he run for president with the Libertarian Party?? In the 1988 presidential election, Paul defeated American Indian activist Russell Means and musician Frank Zappa to win the Libertarian Party nomination for U.S. president. His morality is solid and obvious. It's fundamentals are Objectivist. He is a Baptist Christian, that's about as far from moral as black is from white. Plus, where in Objectivism does it say to believe God sent his son to become a zombie so I can get shit-faced drunk and have tons of sex with people I don't know and be forgiven for it every Sunday? His thoughts and opinions are his own. His thoughts and opinions are what Lew Rockwell want them to be. You fail as humans if you cannot see past yourself. If your only standard is that people think just like you do. Now I plead that you supposed representatives of reason and thought, put down that reply button for a day or two and get informed before you continue on with exactly what the media wants you to believe. OH FORSAKETH ME LORD PAUL!! YOUR LIGHT SHINETH, EVEN DOWN HERE IN THE MURK!! Since I fail as a human, if I prayer to Jesus Paul will I be forgiven? It makes me sick that the majority of you consider yourselves Os because you like killing babies and hate Adam Smith. You are completely missing the point. Go back. Stop reading. Think. Hell fire and brimstone await ye heathens that don't accept Ron Paul as the one true savior of America!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I came across an interesting article about some of Ron Paul's supporters and, more importantly, Mr. Paul's willingness to accept such support. The article provides us with an example of Libertarians’ anti-philosophical approach to politics. Paul Supporters Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I came across an interesting article about some of Ron Paul's supporters and, more importantly, Mr. Paul's willingness to accept such support. The article provides us with an example of Libertarians’ anti-philosophical approach to politics. Paul Supporters Dan That is a fantastic article! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I came across an interesting article about some of Ron Paul's supporters and, more importantly, Mr. Paul's willingness to accept such support. The article provides us with an example of Libertarians’ anti-philosophical approach to politics. Paul Supporters Only one philosophical issue is raised, his article about the '92 riots compared to his opinion on foreign policy suggesting that the current situation with terrorism is the same as in '92 with the riots. That's a very long shot. The author assumes that not waging the war on terror abroad equals to not fighting terrorism at all. He also raises the point that Paul criticized in '92 that the media told "white America that it is guilty" while now he is blaming the foreign policy for 9/11. These are two very different points. The riots in '92 were caused by 'barbarism' as he puts it, by what the aggression in the Middle-East is caused is under dispute. According to the CIA the main cause is the occupation. The differences in the political opinion between the author and Ron Paul is that the author doesn't think that the continuation of the occupation in the Middle East is an act of aggression while Ron Paul thinks that it is. If one assumes that the occupation is not an act of aggression and not the cause of the anger against the US then it is double standard on the side of Ron Paul, yes, otherwise no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 Only one philosophical issue is raised, his article about the '92 riots compared to his opinion on foreign policy suggesting that the current situation with terrorism is the same as in '92 with the riots. Ron Paul received, and continues to receive, financial and moral support from neo-nazis and their ilk. Mr. Paul's anti-philosophical approach is evidenced by his unwillingness to (thus far) categorically reject the support of these groups. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 Ron Paul received, and continues to receive, financial and moral support from neo-nazis and their ilk. Mr. Paul's anti-philosophical approach is evidenced by his unwillingness to (thus far) categorically reject the support of these groups. Dan Do you equal the acceptance of donations by someone who holds a certain philosophy with the acceptance of that person's philosophy? Probably not. Do you assume that if person A is supported by person B then person B must see some values in person A? Well, of course, otherwise they wouldn't donate the money in the first place. I haven't read any of the reasons neo-nazis give why they support Ron Paul, but I guess it is because of his position on national defense and immigration - not because Ron Paul is racist. And I have my doubts that he will change his position to be more appealing to that constituency. Thus, mentioning that Neo-Nazis support Ron Paul doesn't add anything to the argument. On the contrary, I think the money is in better hands now than it was before. I also want to add that according to one poll, of all GOP candidates Paul is getting the most support from African-American voters (32% compared to Giuliani with 16%, compared to Hillary/Obama). So he receives and continues to receive support from white supremacists and African-Americans. Same situation with the donations from the military and I guess he attracts also a number of former democratic voters. The case of him being supported by such diverse groups of people rather shows that he would have chances to win the election than that his philosophy is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Toad Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 (edited) … A candidate does not have to agree with all those who vote for him – they have to agree with him (or at least to a limited extent). It is his function to offer a program – theirs is only to accept or reject it at the polls. Under a two-party system, any candidate will necessarily have an enormously mixed following. To judge a candidate not by his own views but by the views of his followers – over whose irrationality, inconsistency, stupidity or dishonesty he has no control, whose contradictory demands he could not possibly reconcile – is worse than unjust: it is absurdly evil. It is a repudiation of the entire concept of national elections and parliamentary government. A voter’s choice does not commit him to a total agreement with a candidate – and certainly cannot commit a candidate to an agreement with every voter who supports him. Under a two-party system, a voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation – a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter merely chooses the lesser of two evils. If a candidate disagrees with some group, he is free to say so. But to attack, to smear, to repudiate the support of any legitimate group means to disenfranchise its members, since they have no other party to vote for and since they cannot, in honor, vote for a man who slaps their faces. … “How to Judge a Political Candidate,” Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Newsletter, Edited and Published by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, Volume 3, No. 3, March, 1964, pg. 10. I think Clawq is on the right track, but the last sentence of this quoted passage from Ayn Rand suggests, by negative inference, that a candidate should repudiate the support of an illegitimate group – such as the Neo-Nazis. Edited November 15, 2007 by Old Toad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Well, he shouldn't get in front of a camera, openly embrace the support and acknowledge commitments in exchange for their votes as e.g. Giuliani did with Pat Robertson. I think accepting money is a very different matter than for example an own campaign because those who donated the money have no control on how the money is spent. A different issue would be if they started campaigning in his name or if their endorsement / donation was connected to a political commitment on the side of Ron Paul. If he did not speak out in those cases then the accusation would be perfectly justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul for president. “America is at a crossroads,” said Mr. Goldwater. “We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America.” “Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job,” he added. Barry Goldwater, Jr. endorses Ron Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Barry Goldwater, Jr. endorses Ron Paul Do you know of any other prominent figures who have endorsed Ron Paul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Depends on who you count as prominent. Various people from the financial sector have endorsed him: Axel Merk (Merk Hard Currency Fund), Harry Schultz (Harry Schultz Letter), Jim Rogers, (Jim Rogers.com), Richard Russell (Dow Theory Letters), and Peter Schiff (Euro Pacific Capital). http://www.dailypaul.com/node/6638 I don't work in the financial sector so I can't say much about their prominence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 A different issue would be if they started campaigning in his name or if their endorsement / donation was connected to a political commitment on the side of Ron Paul. If he did not speak out in those cases then the accusation would be perfectly justified. Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs. Ron Paul Support On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying: "Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008." As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign. The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam Holland reports: "one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S." Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries". Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 I still see no valid point here. They don't campaign in his name and Ron Paul does not make any political commitments to them in exchange. But let's discuss it one by one: - 'Will Williams' was a member of an internet meet-up group. Calling him "one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee" is wrong. Yes, it seems he does lead a meet-up group in Tennessee, but anyone can join 'meet-up'. Is it the task of a candidate to check the background of all 42,000 'meet-up members'? And after all they did ban him after he was reported (at least that's what I've read, difficult to find credible information, at least this thread suggests that), I don't know the circumstances though. Linking Ron Paul to the 'Turner Diaries' by arguing that a former meet-up member was the head of a party whose founder wrote that book is a little... well... far-fetched. - I already discussed the morality of the donations, I rather want to see their money helping to spread Ron Paul's message than their own. As long as there is no indication that he makes political commitments in exchange that money is not 'dirty'. - blocking the IP: Firstly people still can advertise the web page or use a different site (technical issue), secondly - same argument as with the donations - I rather want those people to read some of Ron Paul's articles on individualism than block them. Or do you think that blocking Neo-Nazis from the political events is going to solve anything? That doesn't work, the only thing you get is radicalization and attract more people (who are disaffected with the current system) to the group. And let's take a look why he is supported by 'white supremacists': - border security: While this is questionable at least he is right on the goal: To allow free immigration, as soon as the welfare state is brought down - against globalism (meaning he is against the subordination of the US to a world body like the U.N. or the North American Union) - reducing foreign financial and military aid - against 'hate crime' - general issues (taxation, privacy etc.) The point is that Ron Paul's program would help any group whatsoever - if they have something that they value within the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 If you thought things were looking bleak for Ron Paul, well cheer up. This should all but guarantee him a spot in the oval office. http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stori....xml&coll=2 Who could resist such a dream team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 If you thought things were looking bleak for Ron Paul, well cheer up. This should all but guarantee him a spot in the oval office. http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stori....xml&coll=2 Who could resist such a dream team? Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul...together at last... The only things that they seem to have in common are: They both want to unconditionally withdraw from Iraq. They both think the constitution supports everything they do. They each think they saw a UFO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 If you thought things were looking bleak for Ron Paul, well cheer up. This should all but guarantee him a spot in the oval office. http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stori....xml&coll=2 Who could resist such a dream team? On Sunday, her husband said, "Think of how you could unite the country, having a Democrat and a Republican on the ticket." This, I agree with. I think the proposal is interesting. Imagine how many people would vote for Kucinich if Paul ran with him? How many people who'd never vote for him EVER, but had no choice because they liked Paul so much. I think Kucinich is smarter then we give him credit for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xare Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Hello friends, Ron Paul is the man for us in 2008, He is a Fan of Ayn Rand and trys to follow and objectivist philosophy. He will bring us back to our Limited Government Constitutional Republic. While Hillary is the Opposite, she is a complete Socialist / Collectivist. Look at this youtube video where Ron Paul Talks about Ayn Rand with some college students ! Ron Paul 2008 !! Everyone I know in the Michigan Militia is voting for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.