LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
There are some interesting things about 'ol Fred's anti-gun moves on this site.
http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/
Ron Paul gaining credibility and backers on freerepublic.com
- Thread starter Zydeco
- Start date
There are some interesting things about 'ol Fred's anti-gun moves on this site.
http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
You're doing a wonderful job over there, don't get me wrong. But, even though they can't put up much of an argument, many still don't like him. Maybe it's because it is so hard for them to admit they have been sold a bill of goods for a number of years.
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
freerepublic has mirrored the history of the united states
started with almost libertarian ideals
slowly run over with neo-con fear-based arguments from big gov't supporters
slowly turning back because of RP! (and reason)
BTW i switched to www.libertyforum.org 5 years ago and freerepublic is pretty much a dirty word to me
it would be neat if it came back to promoting a free republic.
started with almost libertarian ideals
slowly run over with neo-con fear-based arguments from big gov't supporters
slowly turning back because of RP! (and reason)
BTW i switched to www.libertyforum.org 5 years ago and freerepublic is pretty much a dirty word to me
it would be neat if it came back to promoting a free republic.
denvervoipguru
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 236
FreeRepublic Casualty here...
Well, I hope that's true. I was banned from FreeRepublic in May after 8 years as a member and over 1000 posts, including many in support of Ron Paul.
They banned me because I had a quote from G.W. Bush in my profile...
"The Constitution is Just a Goddamm piece of paper"
Well, I hope that's true. I was banned from FreeRepublic in May after 8 years as a member and over 1000 posts, including many in support of Ron Paul.
They banned me because I had a quote from G.W. Bush in my profile...
"The Constitution is Just a Goddamm piece of paper"
berkeleybound
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 139
I've been on FreeRepublic since before the first Bush election in 2000. From my perspective, members on the board who know who Ron Paul is are supportive of him. However, the anti-war position is not liked by many FreeRepublic members.
IRO-bot
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,386
I still see alot of anti-paul support on there. Check out this post.
Like me, you've been here a long time. I've tried to get the Paul supporters to explain how he would get us back to the Constitution and restore the Republic. I got one dialog going where the Paul supporter had some good facts, and we went a few rounds. Another dialog died when the supporter admitted he lacked the scholarship in pre-Civil War American history to maintain the dialog. (I sent him to the library with a reading list). Along the way, a Paul detractor, one of our more obnoxious long-time FReepers, took a personal shot at me. So here goes, again.
I have assumed from the beginning of Dr. Paul's candidacy that his goal is to return to the America that existed before the Civil War -- minus slavery, of course. The America we lost was defined by a Constitution written for a republic of farmers. But long before the Civil War, the nation had industrialized, and most of its basic concepts had changed, thanks to the work of Webster and Clay. We are the America that Hamilton created, not the America that Jefferson wanted to preserve. If I understand what a Paul administration would look like, we could expect the following:
The restriction of the federal government to the 5 explicit powers and 7 implied powers granted it by the Constitution. That means only 3 federal crimes -- treason, piracy and counterfeiting. All other responsibilities would devolve to the states. Entitlements would either be run by the states, or handed over to churches, charities and benevolent associations.
The end of federal taxation as we know it and a return to excises, imposts and dunning the states for their share of the federal budget. With most items devolved to the states, the federal budget would be small, and Congress would meet for 6 weeks a year and then go home.
The end of the fiat dollar, paying off of the national debt and returning to the gold standard. The London Bill Market, closed since 1914, would be reopened, and real bills maturing to gold coin would circulate along with gold coin itself.
The end of our large standing army, which the Constitution permits to exist for only a 2 year period anyway. We would have a Coast Guard to protect our shores and some kind of air defense system, but the Army would return to the state militias that existed before the National Guard system was created in 1910.
American foreign policy would become isolationist. We would come home, close our borders, guard our shores, expel the UN and mind our own business. We would no longer use our dollars or military to take over various sectors of the planet. We would have a much smaller global footprint and would end any dream of an American world empire.
My area of expertise is the period between the Revolution and the Civil War, and I find a return to the America of Monroe and Jackson to be a very seductive concept. I would be quite comfortable in the America that existed before Lincoln, provided it were possible to return to those halcyon days -- minus slavery, of course.
The US shipped its manufacturing capabilities abroad to the Third World, and we now make our money moving piles of electronic currency around -- something that Hamilton, a believer in manufactures, would have frowned upon. The problem we face is that the changes sought by Hamilton and wrought by Webster, Clay and Lincoln are irreversible. So let me pose some observations and questions:
Corporations were strictly regulated by the states before the Civil War. Afterward, we were pretty much governed by Big Business in general and the railroads in particular. With the states' rights position discredited by the Civil War, Jeffersonians turned to using Lincoln’s powerful federal government for the people, i.e. using Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. This was what the Progressive agenda was all about. Franklin Roosevelt built on that to define a whole new paradigm of democratic socialism -- using government as the tool of the people's will to control the forces of the market. This raises the question of a power vacuum. Should the federal government retreat to only those powers granted by the Constitution, then who gains control? In a global marketplace, the states are going to find themselves powerless in regulating corporations. One would probably end up with some form of corporate fascism, sometimes referred to humorously as "Proctor and Gamble with the death penalty". This would indicate that even under a Paul administration, it would be necessary to utilize a loose construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause to prevent the undermining of democratic rule.
With the American people believing that only Big Government can protect them from Big Capitalism and that Big Government is the proper means by which the American people take care of each other, how does one convince the American people to go back to the days of Alexis de Toqueville and his classic tome Democracy in America? We have lost the ancient American trait of self-reliance, as Hurricane Katrina proved. How do you convince the American people to give up the protections they have relied upon from their federal government? Most people have based their retirement on those government checks.
You would need a worldwide financial crash and the involuntary imposition of a worldwide gold standard to get people to rethink the role of the modern state in their lives. How do you return to a hard money standard without inflicting massive pain?
After the War of 1812, even President Madison, father of the Constitution, believed we needed a standing army. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If America comes home and minds its own business, who steps into our shoes to run the planet? Macchiavelli says someone is going to try. The European Union? Russia? China? Iran? The United Nations (after relocation to Geneva)? It's a question that has to be answered.
To return to those less complicated days of Monroe and Jackson, the question arises, How can it be done without the kind of pain we experienced from 1929 to 1940 -- or the pain we experienced from 1861 to 1865? While I'd like to go back to the way things were, I fear the events that could force it to happen.
Returning to original intent is the purest definition of conservatism. But how do you get to there from here, and how do you get the American people to change their collective mindset?
How would you reply to that?
Like me, you've been here a long time. I've tried to get the Paul supporters to explain how he would get us back to the Constitution and restore the Republic. I got one dialog going where the Paul supporter had some good facts, and we went a few rounds. Another dialog died when the supporter admitted he lacked the scholarship in pre-Civil War American history to maintain the dialog. (I sent him to the library with a reading list). Along the way, a Paul detractor, one of our more obnoxious long-time FReepers, took a personal shot at me. So here goes, again.
I have assumed from the beginning of Dr. Paul's candidacy that his goal is to return to the America that existed before the Civil War -- minus slavery, of course. The America we lost was defined by a Constitution written for a republic of farmers. But long before the Civil War, the nation had industrialized, and most of its basic concepts had changed, thanks to the work of Webster and Clay. We are the America that Hamilton created, not the America that Jefferson wanted to preserve. If I understand what a Paul administration would look like, we could expect the following:
The restriction of the federal government to the 5 explicit powers and 7 implied powers granted it by the Constitution. That means only 3 federal crimes -- treason, piracy and counterfeiting. All other responsibilities would devolve to the states. Entitlements would either be run by the states, or handed over to churches, charities and benevolent associations.
The end of federal taxation as we know it and a return to excises, imposts and dunning the states for their share of the federal budget. With most items devolved to the states, the federal budget would be small, and Congress would meet for 6 weeks a year and then go home.
The end of the fiat dollar, paying off of the national debt and returning to the gold standard. The London Bill Market, closed since 1914, would be reopened, and real bills maturing to gold coin would circulate along with gold coin itself.
The end of our large standing army, which the Constitution permits to exist for only a 2 year period anyway. We would have a Coast Guard to protect our shores and some kind of air defense system, but the Army would return to the state militias that existed before the National Guard system was created in 1910.
American foreign policy would become isolationist. We would come home, close our borders, guard our shores, expel the UN and mind our own business. We would no longer use our dollars or military to take over various sectors of the planet. We would have a much smaller global footprint and would end any dream of an American world empire.
My area of expertise is the period between the Revolution and the Civil War, and I find a return to the America of Monroe and Jackson to be a very seductive concept. I would be quite comfortable in the America that existed before Lincoln, provided it were possible to return to those halcyon days -- minus slavery, of course.
The US shipped its manufacturing capabilities abroad to the Third World, and we now make our money moving piles of electronic currency around -- something that Hamilton, a believer in manufactures, would have frowned upon. The problem we face is that the changes sought by Hamilton and wrought by Webster, Clay and Lincoln are irreversible. So let me pose some observations and questions:
Corporations were strictly regulated by the states before the Civil War. Afterward, we were pretty much governed by Big Business in general and the railroads in particular. With the states' rights position discredited by the Civil War, Jeffersonians turned to using Lincoln’s powerful federal government for the people, i.e. using Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. This was what the Progressive agenda was all about. Franklin Roosevelt built on that to define a whole new paradigm of democratic socialism -- using government as the tool of the people's will to control the forces of the market. This raises the question of a power vacuum. Should the federal government retreat to only those powers granted by the Constitution, then who gains control? In a global marketplace, the states are going to find themselves powerless in regulating corporations. One would probably end up with some form of corporate fascism, sometimes referred to humorously as "Proctor and Gamble with the death penalty". This would indicate that even under a Paul administration, it would be necessary to utilize a loose construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause to prevent the undermining of democratic rule.
With the American people believing that only Big Government can protect them from Big Capitalism and that Big Government is the proper means by which the American people take care of each other, how does one convince the American people to go back to the days of Alexis de Toqueville and his classic tome Democracy in America? We have lost the ancient American trait of self-reliance, as Hurricane Katrina proved. How do you convince the American people to give up the protections they have relied upon from their federal government? Most people have based their retirement on those government checks.
You would need a worldwide financial crash and the involuntary imposition of a worldwide gold standard to get people to rethink the role of the modern state in their lives. How do you return to a hard money standard without inflicting massive pain?
After the War of 1812, even President Madison, father of the Constitution, believed we needed a standing army. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If America comes home and minds its own business, who steps into our shoes to run the planet? Macchiavelli says someone is going to try. The European Union? Russia? China? Iran? The United Nations (after relocation to Geneva)? It's a question that has to be answered.
To return to those less complicated days of Monroe and Jackson, the question arises, How can it be done without the kind of pain we experienced from 1929 to 1940 -- or the pain we experienced from 1861 to 1865? While I'd like to go back to the way things were, I fear the events that could force it to happen.
Returning to original intent is the purest definition of conservatism. But how do you get to there from here, and how do you get the American people to change their collective mindset?
How would you reply to that?
I don't actually post on FR, LibertyEagle, just lurk. I used to post a little years ago but it got too BushBot for me, though as I say times appear to be slowly changing.
Evan,
Many people who are interested in libertarianism judge it by its most extreme forms, which is something I think we have to nudge potential converts away from. There's a lot in your post and I certainly don't know RP's positions on most of it, but in general he's a gradualist and realist, understanding that the federal bureacracy took decades to build and will take years and decades to pare down to an ideal size. Once people hear that RP is a gradualist (and would be restrained from too-radical efforts to downsize by congress anyway) they are more amenable to his arguments.
I'm not sure RP wants us to go back to pre-1861 government, but pre-1913 monetary policy for sure (i.e. phasing out the federal reserve).
Many people who are interested in libertarianism judge it by its most extreme forms, which is something I think we have to nudge potential converts away from. There's a lot in your post and I certainly don't know RP's positions on most of it, but in general he's a gradualist and realist, understanding that the federal bureacracy took decades to build and will take years and decades to pare down to an ideal size. Once people hear that RP is a gradualist (and would be restrained from too-radical efforts to downsize by congress anyway) they are more amenable to his arguments.
I'm not sure RP wants us to go back to pre-1861 government, but pre-1913 monetary policy for sure (i.e. phasing out the federal reserve).
beermotor
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,085
Last edited:
I'm suprised at that because they banned my account from posting when I used to defend Ron instead of Fred or Rudy there about 3 months ago it got real nasty because they kept insisting that Ron was a kook and I did not take it too well the constant bashing they did on him and I mean it was real bad how they bashed and bashed Ron to the point I quit reading at their site. I found them to be along the lines of Sean Hannity, Michelle and the constant neocon crap associated their views. as you pointed out. I will check them out again
Silverback
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 163
I've posted links to that site.
They really don't seem to care about any of that stuff. FT supporters seem to be completely blind to his failings, perhaps willfully so.
It all boils down to foreign policy for a lot of these guys, they see FT as their only hope of continueing along the current path, and absolutely nothing else matters.
They're terrified the "Islamofascists" will take over the world if we don't.
That's going to be the battle in the primaries IMO, RP vs. FT, a new direction vs. stay the course.
The big question is where the voters are in Jan. I think they'll be with us.
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
nope. just return to respecting the constitutional mandate for the necessity to amend through state ratification. there are some new technologies that may require amendment. it's just that current administration doesn't feel the need to go the proper routes to adapt -- amendment through ratification.
we used to respect the constitution enough that we amended it for a simple alcohol prohibition. Nowadays all kinds of big time federal involvement bills get passed that are not strictly constitutional.
it's largely a balance of powers thing. the founders intentionally made it very difficult to implement a federal law, but executive orders etc have made it too easy.
he's a realist enough to realize we can't just turn off the switch. he doesn't even want to end welfare immediately. but he's a principled man who believes the founders had a better context to frame a government -- having recently extricated themselves from an oppressive one -- than current lobby driven politicians do. in short, RP believes the framers were pretty smart, and we should be very careful to try to 'improve' upon their model with new legislation.
There's nothing horribly inaccurate here that I know of, but I know nothing of the London Bill Market.
The argument for which being that the smaller the group, and the more local, the more efficiently it runs, and the more chance for different models of structure/planning to evolve. Thus others can emulate those that work best. If there is only one policy, and it's bad, we're all screwed. If there are 50 different attempts, the best policies become apparent quickly, and others will fall in line.
nope. mischaracterization. RP is non-interventionist, not isolationist.
isolationist = closed borders, no trade
non-interventionist = no nation building, meddling in governments
Nations should be protected just like people. Stay out of other people's business until they get into yours. Your right to nuke ends at the border of my country. RP fully supports raining down hellfire on those who use force on us. He will not, however, go after the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, or harm innocents unnecessarily.
We don't own land beyond our borders. we have no right to infringe upon another's property.
Closing our borders is not accurate. that is isolationist. immigration is fine, through legal paths. trade is fine, in fact encouraged by an RP administration.
yup, to the tune of thousands of saved american lives, and many, many thousands of lives around the world. oh yeah, and billions of dollars per day.
through the power of the concept of individual liberty. small examples. when thinking in terms of policy, don't think of an entire country, boil it down to what rules you would have for your own home.
don't try to tell your neighbor what their rules should be, but kick their ass if they screw with your property.
oh yeah, and vote for Ron Paul!
Last edited:
Trance Dance Master
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 954
All Truths go through three stages:
1. Ridicule
2. Violent Opposition
3. Accepted as Self-Evident.
We're getting closer and closer to stage three here!
1. Ridicule
2. Violent Opposition
3. Accepted as Self-Evident.
We're getting closer and closer to stage three here!
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
It works better for me if, on this, I do a cut-and-paste and force them to look at it.
Original_Intent
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 9,381
Makes you realize why public schools have been "dumbed down".
In the 40's the average 4th-6th grader had a vocabulary of 25,000 words.
Today the average 4th-6th grader has a vocabulary of about 10,000 words.
Proficiency in science and math has been pushed, they want us to be productive after all. But proficiency in history and English (i.e. the ability to reason, have cognitive thoughts, and make an argument) those abillities have been (I would say intentionally) left largely undeveloped.
They don't want a citizenry that knows HOW to think, they want a citizenry that can be told WHAT to think.
It's what makes the job we have - waking people up - so hard. The one hope we have is I believe those cognitive abilities are still there, just latent.
ARealConservative
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,829
I hate to burst bubbles, but I'm eboyer.
If you thought I was a new convert then my message reads precisely the way I wanted it to.
I have userid's at various boards that I created years ago for this very thing.
If you thought I was a new convert then my message reads precisely the way I wanted it to.
I have userid's at various boards that I created years ago for this very thing.
