It's amazing to me that people don't see what Ron Paul is doing.

[PolicyReader]

But while they may have spoken out against some policies that restrict civil rights and liberty, they have supported Socialist policies that also take away civil rights and liberty (the income tax, entitlement programs, unrestricted spending, regulations, etc).

I agree.

So Kucinich and the rest are enemies of liberty just like those that support NDAA, the Patriot Act, etc. Progressives are as bad or worse than neo-cons. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric.

I strongly disagree. Supporting bad policy (yes even policy that leads to negative consequences, policy that I would like to see repealed) is not equal to supporting the NDAA, "Patriot" Act etc. As someone who has read the text involved in those bills I can confidently state that no one who has read them (who understand how law works on a basic level, which for the sake of argument I'll presume our Congressional reps do) can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do.
It's one thing (still not good) to vote for or support something with positive intent which has unforeseen (even tho they should be) consequences and it is quite another to support something that blatantly and directly trades fundamental liberty for some temporary sense of security.

I'm not saying this objection applies to all Dems is obviously does not, and yes there are many Dems and neo-cons that are interchangeable (just look at Obama and Romney), however credit where credit is due if someone fights against things like the so called "Patriot" Act but votes for bad fiscal policy they are not equal to someone who outright votes for the "Patriot" Act and it's ilk.

 

[tbone717]

I agree.



I strongly disagree. Supporting bad policy (yes even policy that leads to negative consequences, policy that I would like to see repealed) is not equal to supporting the NDAA, "Patriot" Act etc. As someone who has read the text involved in those bills I can confidently state that no one who has read them (who understand how law works on a basic level, which for the sake of argument I'll presume our Congressional reps do) can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do.
It's one thing (still not good) to vote for or support something with positive intent which has unforeseen (even tho they should be) consequences and it is quite another to support something that blatantly and directly trades fundamental liberty for some temporary sense of security.

I'm not saying this objection applies to all Dems is obviously does not, and yes there are many Dems and neo-cons that are interchangeable (just look at Obama and Romney), however credit where credit is due if someone fights against things like the so called "Patriot" Act but votes for bad fiscal policy they are not equal to someone who outright votes for the "Patriot" Act and it's ilk.

Having read the legislation for welfare, gun control, socialized medicine, environmental regulations and every policy that Progressive support, I can confidently state that anyone who has read them can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do as well.

One only needs to visit the "inner city" section of any major metropolitan area to see the obvious effect that Progressives have had on this country. They don't get a pass on this because of their supposed "good intentions". NDAA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, EPA regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps -- they are all equally bad.

As I said, Kucinich is as much of an enemy of liberty as Gingrich is.

 

[PolicyReader]

Having read the legislation for welfare, gun control, socialized medicine, environmental regulations and every policy that Progressive support, I can confidently state that anyone who has read them can misrepresent what those articles of legislation do as well.

One only needs to visit the "inner city" section of any major metropolitan area to see the obvious effect that Progressives have had on this country. They don't get a pass on this because of their supposed "good intentions". NDAA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, EPA regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps -- they are all equally bad.

As I said, Kucinich is as much of an enemy of liberty as Gingrich is.

I have been to such areas, in fact lived in/on the fringes of more than one (depends on where you draw "the line") and as my handle suggests I read the legislation's too
but I feel you don't read my posts or at least not the last one. Stating that there is a matter of degree is far from saying that anyone should be given "a pass" which I in no way advocated. However it remains that directly voting for authoritarian violations of individual rights is simply not equal to voting for bad economic policy. It's not even a question of consequences, I'm not trying to weigh net long term harm of one vs the other, but someone can have a flawed grasp of economics and think that certain social programs are a good idea without being as bad as someone who is directly (or directly catering to/carrying water for) a war-profiteering chickenhawk. Let me make this even more simple, advocating "helping the needy" or "not dumping toxins into water" simply isn't the same as advocating the doctrines of preemptive invasion through undeclared wars, warrantless police action, indefinite detention or assassination based on "secret evidence".

You can choose not to acknowledge that there's a matter of degree there, and ignore the concept of what someones intent or design may be if you'd like. You can also (as you demonstrated) ignore the level of immediacy in involved in the consequences rendered or that I'm not talking about "which bad thing is better". But "as I said" they are not equivalent.

 

[jolynna]

But while they may have spoken out against some policies that restrict civil rights and liberty, they have supported Socialist policies that also take away civil rights and liberty (the income tax, entitlement programs, unrestricted spending, regulations, etc).

So Kucinich and the rest are enemies of liberty just like those that support NDAA, the Patriot Act, etc. Progressives are as bad or worse than neo-cons. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric.

Ask the Jews and Poles that got shipped off on Boxcars to "detention camps" about what the loss of liberty means. Or the those that ended up in the Obama administration’s maintenance and proxy operation of secret CIA-run prisons in Somalia. http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia Or those in the secret prisons acknowledged by U.S. President George W. Bush, (during Sept. 6, 2006 speech) operated by the United States (U.S.) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), generally outside of U.S. territory and legal jurisdiction. The facilities are controlled by the CIA used by the U.S. government in its "War on Terror" to detain alleged unlawful enemy combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site &

A balanced budget won't mean squat when government authorities have the power to kick in your door, unlawfully search your home without cause or a warrant, detain you without probable cause and hold you indefinitely without trial.

What America does to "them" might one day (maybe sooner than we think should the financial situation implode) be used against American citizens. The Germans didn't start their atrocities with acts against the Jews. They first went after the Bolsheviks and Communism which the world supported and applauded them for. When Hitler first came into power the world was so communist-phobic (like it is now Arab-phobic) that Hitler was seen as a good thing.

HOWEVER, if morality and ethics and being anti illegal killing isn't enough, let's talk money...

The projected tax revenues for 2011 are $1.6 trillion (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_fy2011outlook.pdf) . The amount spend on military in 2011 is $1.030–$1.415 trillion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States ALMOST EVERY DIME COLLECTED FROM TAXES IS GOING INTO THE MILITARY BUDGET. And you ask WHY we have a deficit?

Yet Romney wants to INCREASE military spending. While taking away our liberties.

NO.

Liberal voters are not our enemies. The governments that are eliminating our constitutional rights, illegally killing foreign AND American citizens, taxing us to the hilt to "grow their kingdoms" and be the "toughest guy on the block with the most and biggest guns", that taxes our citizens to pay for the bonuses and the security of the big banks that gambled away our money on purpose, that lines its pockets with insider trading profits and lobbyist "favors" and owns all of the media (both GOP & Democrats do) to filter the news we get to hear.

The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. ~Ron Paul

In my opinion. And no to Romney.

 

[tbone717]

Policyreader,

Someone can have an equally bad grasp of domestic policy and vote for something where they feel the intentions are noble. I have no doubt that many who supported the Patriot Act thought they were doing so with good intentions. Just as Progressives feel they are doing things with good intentions. We can go around on this all day, but I give no excuse or praise to either.

jolynna,

Ask the mother and child living in a slum because the system makes it nearly impossible for them to escape. Restricting government's power to kick in our door, etc doesn't mean squat if we are buried in debt and unable to make ends meet. When we are slaves to the government we are not free. Thousands of Americans have died because of Progressive welfare policies long before any of the post 9/11 stuff came into being. The policies are equally bad, and as libertarian-conservatives we cannot let our focus be greater on one than another.

Good night

 

[opinionatedfool]

I wouldn't write him off yet, as of THIS point his delegate count is quite good, from the convention reports we are getting. It is the lack of media coverage and momentum which is necessary for the upcoming primary states that is problematic, and, while hard to foresee how that would change right now, stranger things have happened in this campaign.

+rep sailingaway. You always have good things to say.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement doesn't get stuck with a Bush.

The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement isn't a Reagan! Reagan was a sell-out from day one. He never, ever, ever stood for anything. Zip. California state budget while he was governor? Look it up. He was not a small-government person. He was a big government person who lied about being for small government.

Let's avoid scum like that.

But anyway, yes, keep the long term in perspective, but keep trying to win this election, too. It could happen. The future is uncertain.

 

[jolynna]

Policyreader,

Someone can have an equally bad grasp of domestic policy and vote for something where they feel the intentions are noble. I have no doubt that many who supported the Patriot Act thought they were doing so with good intentions. Just as Progressives feel they are doing things with good intentions. We can go around on this all day, but I give no excuse or praise to either.

jolynna,

Ask the mother and child living in a slum because the system makes it nearly impossible for them to escape. Restricting government's power to kick in our door, etc doesn't mean squat if we are buried in debt and unable to make ends meet. Thousands of Americans died because of Progressive welfare policies long before any of the post 9/11 stuff came into being. The policies are equally bad, and as libertarian-conservatives we cannot let our focus be greater on one than another.

Good night

Think I've never been poor?

But, I was free, so I didn't HAVE to stay poor.

It sure as heck did make a difference to me that I could come and go as I pleased and that no authority had the power to kick down my door or throw me in jail indefinitely unless I did something wrong. Freedom is everything because when you are free there is ALWAYS hope.



In my opinion.

 

[jolynna]

Since it fits with the line this thread has taken, I brought this post from another thread over:

Our current administration is putting all the pieces in place for a war on its own people. This is starting to pile up at a rapid rate. If its Obama, Romney or Santorum we could lose what our founders fought so hard for. We have one shot to get Dr. Paul elected and we cannot fail. Put more effort into this campaign than you ever have for anything in your life. Do not fail into the trap of being lazy now. There have been so many posts about great people going above and beyond the cause and I urge you to do the same. If your in a state that hasn't started yet from my experience in Nevada you have to drag voters to the polls even if they agree with you. If your in a state where your involved in the delegate process, keep fighting and show up no matter what.

I was lucky in my county convention as we sent the most delegates to state from the largest county in Nevada. I have also seen all the posts from across the country including another county in Nevada where they are trying to cheat us. Tape Everything even if it means just turning on a microphone on a smart phone. Roberts Rules is very important so we do not make any mistakes. Let them continue to try and cheat us as we beat them at their own game. America is at stake and we are responsible to make sure our Republic is restored.

Cheers to everyone who has given so much!
Do not listen to anyone trying to derail the campaign!

The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
Ron Paul

Thank you for your great post!

 

[PolicyReader]

Policyreader,

Someone can have an equally bad grasp of domestic policy and vote for something where they feel the intentions are noble. I have no doubt that many who supported the Patriot Act thought they were doing so with good intentions. Just as Progressives feel they are doing things with good intentions. We can go around on this all day, but I give no excuse or praise to either.

jolynna,

Ask the mother and child living in a slum because the system makes it nearly impossible for them to escape. Restricting government's power to kick in our door, etc doesn't mean squat if we are buried in debt and unable to make ends meet. When we are slaves to the government we are not free. Thousands of Americans have died because of Progressive welfare policies long before any of the post 9/11 stuff came into being. The policies are equally bad, and as libertarian-conservatives we cannot let our focus be greater on one than another.

Good night

I haven't given excuse or praise to either. However the "Patriot" Act and many of it's contemporaries were mean to expire and despite that (and the various indications of impropriety and misconduct) they have been renewed more than once. It is logistically easier to repeal oppressive policing practices that are by wrote meant to expire than to end a system upon which people have become dependent. Taking the longer view it is notable that the bad economic polices have been digging their rut for longer to get to the point of harm they are doing so unless your advocacy is somehow that the bad economic policy is more damaging than the bad civil and foreign policies (which are in themselves bad for the economy) the folks voting for the NDAA, "Patriot" Act, ExPat bill, anti-protest bill, et al are clearly coming out on the short end of the stick due to the immediacy of the negative effects and their continued refusal to alter course, or rather their continued instance that the course which was undertaken as a temporary measure be continuously extended.
It is worth noting here that the policies under discussion aren't really partisan questions when it comes down to it, as Obama, Romney, Reid, Santorum and many others display for us consistently.

And let is be blunt here, understanding market trends and economic theory is more obtuse than understanding the nuances of warrantless police action, execution without trial or indefinite detention based on suspicion. Because we're not talking about all of the abstractions of domestic policy or a failure to see the long term implication of a new law we're talking about reading a proposal to codify military detention of suspects without limitation on time. Then when protest erupts revising it so such detentions are now just being codified as legal rather than codified as mandatory which was the original proposal. And then after much debate and the law being passed rejecting a proposed bill that would strip the most onerous clauses.
That's much more glaring and blunt, and requires far less specialized knowledge than does understanding of economics.

Stripping someones right to trial by jury is more straight forward than the process of a hidden tax via inflation.

 

[twomp]

One only needs to visit the "inner city" section of any major metropolitan area to see the obvious effect that Progressives have had on this country. They don't get a pass on this because of their supposed "good intentions". NDAA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, EPA regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps -- they are all equally bad.

As I said, Kucinich is as much of an enemy of liberty as Gingrich is.

My family immigrated here from Vietnam after the war (legally of course). When they first came here, my mom washed dishes and my dad cleaned toilets. It might be shocking to you but it was not enough for us to get by. We received government aid in the form of Medicare and Food stamps. Eventually they learned enough english, my dad got licensed to fix cars, my mom to cut hair. They started their own business and we got off Welfare the first chance we got. We will forever be greatful to the United States and their people for that. Litterally saved our lives.

I understand how those same programs are now sucking the life out of our economy but I definitely do not equate that to being the same as having the right to search a person's house without a warrant, indefinitely detaining a person without trial or bombing a country "pre-emptively". I understand your anger at us "liberals" but I don't think the examples you give are equivalent.

 

[Electric Church]

So he has amassed a ton of young people to his campaign, and his main message to them has been to become delegates. Suddenly, it dawned on me what Ron Paul has been doing.

Ron Paul didn’t amass a ton of young people to his campaign the young people amassed to him because they are the single largest demographic to get their political information from alternative sources on the Internet. Many within the core of these young supporters were informed about liberty and the corrupt Fed system by many others before they even heard about Ron Paul.

The GOP establishment can not be changed from within and from the lower ranks up… it either has to be torn apart from the top down with RP as presidential nominee or severely weakened into insignificance by a viable 3rd party option. If Ron Paul tries to incrementally change the GOP from within from the bottom up it will fail because it will be quickly assimilated into the establishment fold just like the tea party and that will be the end of the Ron Paul Revolution.

 

[Tinnuhana]

Here's another angle to look at: I wondered why Ron was so open about taking delegates at the conventions. After the past few days, it seems clear that because he has been very open about it, GOP machinations have been put in place. Now the whole country and world is getting to see first hand, the corruption. Republicans sincere in their beliefs cannot but look at what's really happening and question what the party is so afraid of. Now when Ron Paul talks about freedom and the Constitution/Bill of Rights, these events will replay in their minds. The true emperor, not a candidate, has been exposed as being naked.
I only ask that our freinds from the blue side look to their own party to see where corruption exists there. This is systemic.

 

[affa]

I'd take a thousand Kuchinich's in government over neo-cons. At least you know he's not going to kill hundreds of thousands of people through bad foreign policy. He's got solidly good intentions, and while you may disagree with him in principle, and while that disagreement may be a chasm, it's important to recognize his intentions are good. He's not going to kill, torture, or imprison innocents. And while you may disagree with his fiscal beliefs, and even consider him an 'enemy of liberty' as a result, I'd much rather be working to solve that problem right now than trying to extricate ourselves from multiple endless pre-emptive wars (as well as massive fiscal problems). Perspective is key.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Everybody's intentions are good. Maybe. If you're sold on them. (And all these people are talented sociopaths, so if you're not already strongly prejudiced against them by your brand-loyalty, talk to them for a few minutes or listen to them on their terms, and you will be sold on them.)

But everybody's policies are monstrous.

And so I don't really care what their intentions may or may not be.

Impossible to tell anyway, because they're sociopaths. That's what it means to be a sociopath. They are horrifyingly good at making you, and everyone, like and trust them and be convinced they have good intentions.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd take a thousand Kuchinich's in government over neo-cons. At least you know he's not going to kill hundreds of thousands of people through bad foreign policy. He's got solidly good intentions, and while you may disagree with him in principle, and while that disagreement may be a chasm, it's important to recognize his intentions are good. He's not going to kill, torture, or imprison innocents. And while you may disagree with his fiscal beliefs, and even consider him an 'enemy of liberty' as a result, I'd much rather be working to solve that problem right now than trying to extricate ourselves from multiple endless pre-emptive wars (as well as massive fiscal problems). Perspective is key.

This. War is the health of the state, and him opposing foreign wars and the war on drugs makes him a greater ally of liberty than the GOP, which by and large is also socialist.

 

[Crotale]

Oh obviously. But the bottom line is....either he's running for President, or he isn't. If he's not, then he should stop telling people that he needs money to run for President.

Do you expect instant success? A liberty candidate to run for President and suddenly romp to victory? No, the foundation has been built. You think such a strong R3VOLUTION would have been possible if we had ran purely on an educational platform?

It takes time.

 

[Lishy]

I think Ron is planting his seeds in the future generation, rather than the motivation-less, stubborn adults.

 

[cheapseats]

Do you expect instant success? A liberty candidate to run for President and suddenly romp to victory? No, the foundation has been built. You think such a strong R3VOLUTION would have been possible if we had ran purely on an educational platform?

It takes time.

Ron Paul has been in office for the better part of THREE DECADES. This is his THIRD presidential run.

Some are saying WE'RE OUTTA TIME. Some are still saying MARATHON-NOT-SPRINT. They are ENTIRELY different mindsets.

 

[S.Shorland]

I watched the full interview with RP,the latter part of which they quoted to Nassim Taleb.RP mentioned also that if you cut the spending,you crash the economy.If you continue as 'we're' going,you crash the economy.It could go either way.That's why Ron refers to the 1921 crash.Take the medicine and get it over with.