Solid_Choke:I recently registered Republican so I can vote for Paul in the primaries but if he doesn't distance himself from these types of people I might just sit the election out.
I wish, too, that Dr. Paul would return the money he received by that Don Black guy (or whatever his name was); or, better yet, donate that exact sum of money to the JPFO. (I don't have a problem with the 9/11 conspiracy folks, they're relatively harmless.)
Yes, it's annoying that racist scum have, for whatever reason, decided to support Dr. Paul. But on the other hand, it's comforting to know that Dr. Paul is leading the Republican pack among black voters. So, ultimately, the disrepute of certain contributors isn't likely to stop me from voting for the candidate.
What can be more statist than accepting the offical conspiracy story put on by the state on 9/11? I'm a "9/11 truther" to the same degree Justin Raimondo is. Okay, maybe I'm just a bit more conspiracy minded than he.
Kent C: What can be more statist than accepting the offical conspiracy story put on by the state on 9/11? I'm a "9/11 truther" to the same degree Justin Raimondo is. Okay, maybe I'm just a bit more conspiracy minded than he.
I happen to work for the federal government and I see how rediculous and innefficient the beaucracy can be. The hands on experience I have causes me to believe that the government is not capable of pulling something like the 9/11 attacks off without a leak. I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith in their ability.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
It doesn't take the entire U.S. gov't to pull it off, just the right people in the right places. And I do believe that people are able to keep a secret, and those who can't, can be dealt with. I neither believe nor disbelieve that there were individuals in the U.S. gov't involved in the attack, I don't have enough evidence at hand to say either way...I remain sceptical. However, I do believe that there were those in the U.S. gov't (and other gov'ts) who knew what was coming and didn't act to prevent it. There is support for that "theory". They did so because they were looking for their "Pearl Harbor" event to unlesh American power on the middle east.
I've been watching the events unfold since 911, and haven't seen many surprises. Knew the U.S. would invade Iraq early on, knew what the outcome of that would be (as did the writers on LRC) and that there would be pressure to continue this adventure into the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. I guess I am a bit surprised there's been no overt attack on Iran yet, or Syria. Sure that will come however. Facts and evidence have never stopped them before.
Brainpolice: My own issues with Ron Paul do not have to do with his supporters (although libertarian criticism of Ron Paul apparently has become a grand heresy, and the paleocons bug me), but with some of his own positions and the mere fact that he is working inside of political power. Indeed, Ron Paul has not really changed his positions over the past 30 years. Yet I disagree with some of those positions. I disagree with constitutionalism, anti-immigration (I don't make a legal/illegal distinction, I find it disingenuous) and pro-life sentiments. And I disagree with voting as a means towards reducing political power. I am disturbed when I see life-long anarchists enthusiastically throwing money at a politician and involving themselves in the political process. Before anyone attacks me as misrepresenting him, I am aware that he generally takes a state's rights position on abortion, which is indeed preferable to a federal approach. Yet I do not believe I am seeing illusions when I see him introducing and co-sponsoring federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception. I am aware that he rhetorically says we should get rid of the welfare incentives to solve the immigration debacle, yet it is plain and clear that since that isn't currently being done, he is willing to support measures such as federal border fences and he is willing to enforce currently existing immigration laws and quotas, if not strengthen them. I find these things disturbing. I do not go for "lesser evils". I think his libertarian critics such as Wendy McElroy, Stefan Molyneux and Brad Spangler brings some good points to the table that are largely being ignored by libertarians. Not everyone who critisizes Ron Paul is a neocon or liberal, engaging in a smear conspiracy. Some of us feel that to financially support even Ron Paul inherently strengthens the very institutional framework by which the state thrives, by taking funds that could have been used on the market or "agoristically" and channeling them into campaign coffers. And some of us feel that voting, empirically speaking, simply does not work in the long-run as a means of reducing political power. And some of us do not think that even if Ron Paul made it into office, through some kind of divine providence, he could realistically do that much to reduce political power, let alone slow down its growth. So my challenge does not go out to those 9/11 truthers, John Birchers and Neo-*** who just so happen to have tagged along his campaign, for whatever reason (ill-concieved or not). My challenge goes out to all of those die-hard libertarians who are enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul. What makes you think that anything is different about this than Goldwater or Reagen? What makes you think that Ron Paul can "restore the republic"? Please explain to me how Ron Paul could get much of anything meaningful done for liberty in the face of a hostile congress? Explain how voting for politicians has ever been sucessful as a libertarian tactic for change? And explain how well Ron Paul's position on issues such as immigration square with libertarian principles.
My own issues with Ron Paul do not have to do with his supporters (although libertarian criticism of Ron Paul apparently has become a grand heresy, and the paleocons bug me), but with some of his own positions and the mere fact that he is working inside of political power. Indeed, Ron Paul has not really changed his positions over the past 30 years. Yet I disagree with some of those positions. I disagree with constitutionalism, anti-immigration (I don't make a legal/illegal distinction, I find it disingenuous) and pro-life sentiments. And I disagree with voting as a means towards reducing political power. I am disturbed when I see life-long anarchists enthusiastically throwing money at a politician and involving themselves in the political process.
Before anyone attacks me as misrepresenting him, I am aware that he generally takes a state's rights position on abortion, which is indeed preferable to a federal approach. Yet I do not believe I am seeing illusions when I see him introducing and co-sponsoring federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception. I am aware that he rhetorically says we should get rid of the welfare incentives to solve the immigration debacle, yet it is plain and clear that since that isn't currently being done, he is willing to support measures such as federal border fences and he is willing to enforce currently existing immigration laws and quotas, if not strengthen them. I find these things disturbing. I do not go for "lesser evils".
I think his libertarian critics such as Wendy McElroy, Stefan Molyneux and Brad Spangler brings some good points to the table that are largely being ignored by libertarians. Not everyone who critisizes Ron Paul is a neocon or liberal, engaging in a smear conspiracy. Some of us feel that to financially support even Ron Paul inherently strengthens the very institutional framework by which the state thrives, by taking funds that could have been used on the market or "agoristically" and channeling them into campaign coffers. And some of us feel that voting, empirically speaking, simply does not work in the long-run as a means of reducing political power. And some of us do not think that even if Ron Paul made it into office, through some kind of divine providence, he could realistically do that much to reduce political power, let alone slow down its growth.
So my challenge does not go out to those 9/11 truthers, John Birchers and Neo-*** who just so happen to have tagged along his campaign, for whatever reason (ill-concieved or not). My challenge goes out to all of those die-hard libertarians who are enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul. What makes you think that anything is different about this than Goldwater or Reagen? What makes you think that Ron Paul can "restore the republic"? Please explain to me how Ron Paul could get much of anything meaningful done for liberty in the face of a hostile congress? Explain how voting for politicians has ever been sucessful as a libertarian tactic for change? And explain how well Ron Paul's position on issues such as immigration square with libertarian principles.
Ron Paul would add a constitutional amendment defining life as the beginning of conception. Abortion can still be legal, because it does not set minimum prison sentences for the abortionist. It is up to the states' to set the prison sentences for abortionists, just like murder. Pro-choice states can allow abortions by seting the prison sentence for abortionists to zero.
This constitutional amendment would not prohibit abortion from private entities. However, it would prevent the government forcing its people to have abortions. It prevents "family planning" programs that would force its citizens limit their children, which is a threat from liberals. These genocidal policies are implemented in some other nations, such as the "one child policy".
Ron Paul is a federalist. He believes that the individual states' can set abortion and welfare incentives for illegal immigrants. He does not want to ban welfare in all 50 states. Some states can choose to set welfare incentives, therefore the border fence is perfectly compatible for his ideology.
Ron Paul is better than Reagan. He wants to abolish the IRS, federal reserve and all unconstitutional federal programs. Paul is a federalist, so people would have greater say in the states' government than federal government.
I agree with Brianpolice on a lot of his criticisms, especially on immigration and to a lesser degree, abortion. But I see Paul's campaign as move in the right direction. I'd like to see the abolution of the state too, but we have to get from here to there, and the ideas Paul is presenting might open a few more minds to the possibilities (despite how flawed some of his less than liberatarian ideas are).
libertarian: My own issues with Ron Paul do not have to do with his supporters (although libertarian criticism of Ron Paul apparently has become a grand heresy, and the paleocons bug me), but with some of his own positions and the mere fact that he is working inside of political power. Indeed, Ron Paul has not really changed his positions over the past 30 years. Yet I disagree with some of those positions. I disagree with constitutionalism, anti-immigration (I don't make a legal/illegal distinction, I find it disingenuous) and pro-life sentiments. And I disagree with voting as a means towards reducing political power. I am disturbed when I see life-long anarchists enthusiastically throwing money at a politician and involving themselves in the political process. Before anyone attacks me as misrepresenting him, I am aware that he generally takes a state's rights position on abortion, which is indeed preferable to a federal approach. Yet I do not believe I am seeing illusions when I see him introducing and co-sponsoring federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception. I am aware that he rhetorically says we should get rid of the welfare incentives to solve the immigration debacle, yet it is plain and clear that since that isn't currently being done, he is willing to support measures such as federal border fences and he is willing to enforce currently existing immigration laws and quotas, if not strengthen them. I find these things disturbing. I do not go for "lesser evils". I think his libertarian critics such as Wendy McElroy, Stefan Molyneux and Brad Spangler brings some good points to the table that are largely being ignored by libertarians. Not everyone who critisizes Ron Paul is a neocon or liberal, engaging in a smear conspiracy. Some of us feel that to financially support even Ron Paul inherently strengthens the very institutional framework by which the state thrives, by taking funds that could have been used on the market or "agoristically" and channeling them into campaign coffers. And some of us feel that voting, empirically speaking, simply does not work in the long-run as a means of reducing political power. And some of us do not think that even if Ron Paul made it into office, through some kind of divine providence, he could realistically do that much to reduce political power, let alone slow down its growth. So my challenge does not go out to those 9/11 truthers, John Birchers and Neo-*** who just so happen to have tagged along his campaign, for whatever reason (ill-concieved or not). My challenge goes out to all of those die-hard libertarians who are enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul. What makes you think that anything is different about this than Goldwater or Reagen? What makes you think that Ron Paul can "restore the republic"? Please explain to me how Ron Paul could get much of anything meaningful done for liberty in the face of a hostile congress? Explain how voting for politicians has ever been sucessful as a libertarian tactic for change? And explain how well Ron Paul's position on issues such as immigration square with libertarian principles.
I understand the point here, I really do. But I stand with Rothbard (also an anarchist) who pointed out that voting does not imply agreeing with the system, it can be simply an act of self-defense if, and only if, you vote for the candidate who will remove the most of the government off your back. Yes, it's part of their rules, but if their rules give you a way to protect yourself, why not take it?
I can understand the point of being a purist and sitting back, refusing to use the political process for anything. I understand it because I am drawn to it from time to time. Yet, if you know full well the evil of government action, you should also realize that, by putting Ron Paul into the White House, we can drastically reduce the amount of that action. The problem with purism is that there are real victims of statism, and those real victims can be helped through less statism. Refusing to support any change other than anarchy does not help them.
Also, the very fact of the campaign has introduced many, many people to libertarianism in a way that, say, Harry Browne's campaigns never did. His being at the debates put a well-spoken libertarian in front of the nation. If my money helps to do that, I don't see the problem.
Only got to skim the first page, but 2 points:
1. why should Dr. Paul reject the money he gets? No good reason; its a waste of time to check everyone who donates, and try to give their money back, as the guy in his campaign said, and the racists/anti-semites just basically proved themselves idiots. If they keep the racists/anti-semites money, then the Dr. Paul campaign gets to say that the anti-semites contributions helped defeat the anti-semetic cause. A True Ron Paul supporter is anti-war because its unnecessary violence, not the right way, and a waste of money. Someone like David Duke, isn't a true Ron Paul supporter; even though Duke is anti-war, its because he believes war will kill the people he's prejudice towards. Just like some may interpret Dr. Paul's anti-affirmative action stance as racist, when in fact, Dr. Paul supporters are anti-affirmative action largely because it's been detrimental to blacks. The Democrats are the ones who think blacks are inferior in terms of intelligence, because the Democrats care about them because they're black, not because they're individuals. And the Democrats are wrong as they always are. Finally, anti-semites fail to realize that FDR allowed the Holocaust to happen, and he could have prevented it, rather than the fallacy that he stopped it.
2. Technically, it's logical to blame the federal government for 9/11, as well as most other wars. I know that they didn't crash the planes, but they certainly provoked it. That's why in 2008, I refused to even consider voting for Obama and McCain, because their policies are asking for it, even if they may not intend for them to get us attacked again. I mean, as far as I know, every war (save the Revo war and the war of 1812 iirc) that the U.S. was ever in was started by the Federal Government's use of force and conquest/expansionism. It makes me sick that 98% of my friends voted for McCain/Obama who are trying to get the U.S. assaulted, even if they don't really want the u.s. assaulted.
3.
3. Old thread is old.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
I think politically, it was foolish of him to not give the money back. It was not that much money.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.