BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Ron Paul

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Claris Dancers
00:05 / 20.06.07
As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul is the only candidate (regardless of party) that I could vote for in good conscience. He being routinely ignored & marginalized by the mainstream media, but his internet following is amazing. Who knew a traditional, small government conservative and constitutionalist would be the "wacky" candidate.
 
 
*
05:12 / 20.06.07
Great. Would you like to talk about his position on this issues? I sure would like to hear about it.
 
 
Lugue
07:52 / 20.06.07
Oh, I saw him on the Daily Show just yesterday. Only saw the first seconds of the interview, which kicked off immediately with a pro-Liberty, anti-violent intervention stance, which was nice. Interesting feller, at least.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:22 / 20.06.07
Yes, very 'interesting'.

Immigration:

He opposes illegal immigration because of the toll they take on the welfare rolls and Social Security. He has expressed concerns that welfare and other aid programs have made the US a magnet for illegal aliens...

Paul believes that all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally under the law through a "coherent immigration policy." He has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because it undermines the rule of law and grants pardons to lawbreakers. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico.

...Paul also believes that children born in the United States to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic citizenship. He has called for a Constitutional amendment to revise the Fourteenth Amendment, to "end automatic birthright citizenship" in order to address welfare issues.


Abortion:

Paul is pro-life. Paul holds that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. He believes that his pro-life stance aligns with his libertarianism, on the premise that abortion is aggression against a person. "Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures." Nevertheless, in order to offset the effects of Roe v. Wade, he voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

...During a May 15, 2007 appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Dr. Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians believe in non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus (which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights). He also briefly discussed his view of the proper role of the federal government and states in regulating abortion.


Race:

"By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist." [Direct quotation.]

Man, fuck this guy.
 
 
Lugue
08:51 / 20.06.07
I didn't say he was absolutely correct. I said he was interesting. In that some stuff surprised me. "Interesting".
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:56 / 20.06.07
Perhaps you could tell us what surprised you and why, Folano? Then we could talk about those things.
 
 
Lugue
09:14 / 20.06.07
It's, more than anything, out of a lack of contact with libertarianism, especially in the context of American politics, much less with enough of a presence to reach the media. I was not aware of a libertarian reading of abortion such as his, which surprised me, as did the contrast between that + immigration views + approval of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and other aspects that I read as more left-leaning. My general political ignorance means it was a throw-away post, and I'm sorry if that nags. And that's Fu-.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:30 / 20.06.07
I think libertarianism can be novel the first time one encounters it - certainly from a UK perspective looks like almost exclusively a US-based phenomenon, and even in the US obviously it is a form of political thought, such as it is, not espoused by either of the two main parties in a country which does not have a third party. However, sadly the politics of libertarianism, which though they come in many forms always share certain things in common - such as an inability to think outside of the perspective of a privileged monied white man, usually, so a belief that the market will be fair to everyone if we just leave it alone and that identity politics is just people whining a bit - well, advocates of libertarianism are people who crop up quite a lot on the internet, let's leave it at that.
 
 
Claris Dancers
11:38 / 20.06.07
In response to Flyboy, pretty much anything that isn't outlined in the constitution as powers of the government, he is against the federal government having/doing, and instead relegates that to the states to decide for themselves. This includes abortion - let the states make their own laws. The other two subjects are more federally sticky. I happen to believe he's right on race, immigration, maybe not so much. Theres also a piece he wrote about "the war on religion" which i think is irritating. But overall, given the choice between him and all the other douchebags running, it's a no-brainer for me. Hillary? Obama? Rudy (yikes), Romney? - no fucking way. The smaller we make the federal government, the less problems we will have.


advocates of libertarianism are people who crop up quite a lot on the internet, let's leave it at that.

I wish I could be as cool as you.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:54 / 20.06.07
That's flattering, but not really on-topic: perhaps there's a thread in Conversation might be appropriate? My point was that libertarianism is going to be neither very novel nor very interesting to those people who have been reading the Switchboard long enough to remember jbsay, to name but one.

Would you like to say a little more about why you believe the advocates of diversity actually perpetuate racism - the stance Paul has on race that you think is right? Whilst I certainly have issues with Barack Obama - his stance on Israel, for one - I'd also like to hear on what basis you're writing him off as just another douchebag.
 
 
Claris Dancers
12:27 / 20.06.07
I'm not familiar with jbsay, but I'm not sure that's really on-topic. Perhaps a new thread for remembering old-time Barbelith posters?

Perhaps I was harsh in calling him a douchebag, however, he is just another big government proponent with socialist leanings only interested in furthering his career. Why, he even supports the immigration reform you mentioned earlier -
"In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border. President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it 'an important step toward immigration reform.'" -- from Wikipedia.

So, as you so eloquently put it, "fuck this guy."


"By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

What is wrong or complicated about this statement? He is in-fact echoing King:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

By segregating people into groups and stating and mandating that certain groups deserve preferential treatment over another, we are encouraging racism. We are judging people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:50 / 20.06.07
Yes, but I've already said I have issues with Obama. I assume one of your issues with him is not that he shares similar views on immigration policy to Ron Paul. To say he is a "big government proponent with socialist leanings only interested in furthering his career" doesn't tell me much - it's just a series of buzzwords - what I'm looking for are specific policies that Obama holds or statements he has made that make you lump him in with Clinton, Romney and Giuliani and which are in contrast to Paul.

Paul is clearly not echoing Dr King: the latter recognised racial inequality and fought against it. Racial inequality still exists in the USA, as it does worldwide. Because structured systems of inequality that favour a dominant group (for example, white people) are often invisible, measures taken to combat or reduce said inequality can look like "mandating that certain groups deserve preferential treatment over another" to those who are either unable or unwilling to see the wider context. However that context exists, and to deny it, and then aim accusations of racism at people who have the temerity to make issues of race visible by highlighting and working to oppose otherwise invisible inequality, is about as far from the spirit of Dr King as you can get.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:16 / 20.06.07
The smaller we make the federal government, the less problems we will have.

Well yeah because you'll only have the problems of one state and not every state but don't go crying to Washington when a hurricane destroys the infrastructure of your state because you opted for the federal as negative.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:23 / 20.06.07
This thread is, I think, for talking about Ron Paul and his status or otherwise as douchebag. We have already seen that Libertarians on Barbelith are very easiily incited to going off on tangents about small government. Let's not help, eh, unless we relate it specifically to Ron Paul's candidacy - unless he is to be taken simply as "generic Libertarian". Another thread on the ethics of Libertarianism, or its role as a force in politics, would provide useful bleed-off.
 
 
Claris Dancers
13:48 / 20.06.07
what I'm looking for are specific policies that Obama holds or statements he has made that make you lump him in with Clinton, Romney and Giuliani and which are in contrast to Paul.

Universal (read: Federal) Health Care for one. Again, make the federal government smaller, and let the individual states decide if they want to institute statewide health care.

He says that he wants the troops out of Iraq, and yet, "In March 2007, speaking before AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that while the U.S. 'should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.'" I'll repeat part of the "should take no option ... off the table" - does that mean we are not ruling out glass-parking-lotting the whole area? Iran is not our enemy, just like Iraq wasn't our enemy. Outside of tagging bin Laden, we should never have been there at all like Paul said. Look into the petrodollar to see why I think we went into Iraq in the first place.

You said you have issues with Obama, yet you are defending him. Why do you like him? What has he said and what policies does he hold that makes you favor him over all the others? What makes him a better candidate than Paul?


However that context exists, and to deny it, and then aim accusations of racism at people who have the temerity to make issues of race visible by highlighting and working to oppose otherwise invisible inequality, is about as far from the spirit of Dr King as you can get.

I find this to be disingenuous. I also think that most of this context exists because it is self-imposed if only out of "racial pride." I've heard more times than I care to remember that black people refuse to take certain jobs because they don't want to "whiten-up." That means (according to them), not talking in ebonics, dressing appropriately for the job (suit/tie/blouse/skirt/etc...) and so on. This is more of a cultural issue than anything else, though. I've actually see white people in the ghetto, laughing at other white people for acting too "white," whatever the hell that means. The stupidity and ignorance abounds. The only place I can think of where people are genuinely discriminated against are with cops. There's even a term for it - "driving while black." But that context gets fuzzy again since the same holds true for people with grateful dead and phish stickers on their cars.

In no place I have worked in has there been a disproportionate number of white people to anyone else of color. Where I work now (state office job), white people are actually a minority. Sudanese, Pakistani, Hispanic, Indian, Black, Asian, and on and on. It's really cool actually, we have an international food day every year where people bring in dishes from their own cultures. But that is off the point. The point is that as far as I've seen, any actual racism is either entirely self-imposed (as Ron Paul implies), or incredibly overblown by the media.
 
 
Claris Dancers
13:50 / 20.06.07
but don't go crying to Washington when a hurricane destroys the infrastructure of your state because you opted for the federal as negative.

A fat lot of good that did in Louisiana.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:51 / 20.06.07
The stupidity and ignorance abounds.

Have you considered changing your circle of friends?
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
13:54 / 20.06.07
I've heard more times than I care to remember that black people refuse to take certain jobs because they don't want to "whiten-up."

From who?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:56 / 20.06.07
The point is that as far as I've seen, any actual racism is either entirely self-imposed (as Ron Paul implies), or incredibly overblown by the media.

The liberal media, one presumes. I can't say I'm surprised that you believe racial inequality is black people's fault for not being willing to stop talking in ebonics, Qwik - it's much the same kind of attitude you have towards feminism, isn't it?

And yes, Universal Health Care is one of things that would make me more likely to vote for Obama, if I thought he could successfully introduce it and should I ever be a US citizen: as a subject of the UK, where we still thankfully have a National Health Service which means that it is still possible to be sick and not wealthy without being utterly, utterly fucked, the fact that the USA remains reluctant to stop letting poor people be crippled by medical bills is one of the most baffling and off-putting things about it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:57 / 20.06.07
From guys. You know. Guys. All over.

Ah, look. This is pretty clearly going to become a swamp thread, as any thread with its pedigree is going to be. Shall we just accept that Ron Paul _is_ a generic libertarian, for the purposes of this discussion, and Claris Dancers the representative of Libertarianism on Earth? I can change the thread title.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
14:17 / 20.06.07
I don't think so. Because, y'know, if Ron Paul was actually a libertarian he'd be in the Libertarian Party. He's a Republican. Which explains why FF is confused.

I was not aware of a libertarian reading of abortion such as his

That's because he's not a libertarian. Whatever my disagreements with libertarianism, Ron Paul's stances on immigration and abortion preclude him from being such.

"Small government. Apart from when it comes to women's bodies and nasty foreigners".

He's pretending to be one so 'libertarians' who don't understand their own ideology properly vote for him.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
14:17 / 20.06.07
I've searched a bit -- is there a thread on Libertarianism? The most in-depth conversation I've found is a "Market Forces" thread in the Head Shop, but my search-fu is weak.

Interestingly, there was a Ron Paul thread back about five years ago that grant started.
 
 
Claris Dancers
14:31 / 20.06.07
The liberal media, one presumes.

How cute, play the victim. But no, the sensationalist media. The "liberal media" idea is a joke.

kind of attitude you have towards feminism, isn't it?

Boy that was a steamroller of a thread. I don't think i would say it's the same, but I still support everything i said there, though not the things other people put in my mouth, which seems to happen a lot in this place.

the fact that the USA remains reluctant to stop letting poor people be crippled by medical bills is one of the most baffling and off-putting things about it.

I agree, have the states make their own health care systems. People should bitch to the governors and get shit moving.
 
 
Claris Dancers
14:32 / 20.06.07
Claris Dancers the representative of Libertarianism on Earth?

You flatter me good sir! But I would rather leave it as it is, thanks.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:36 / 20.06.07
In that case, start talking about Ron Paul. The take-out from the Feminism 101 thread was that you walked a difficult line between being ill-informed and being profoundly ill-informed. Here is where you start either changing or confirming that impression.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:36 / 20.06.07
Haus, I can't believe you had the cheek to brigade me when you then wrote a post consisting of one sentence. My point was relevant because it was directly referring to Ron Paul's opinions concerning the federal government and we are talking about his candidacy. Have you considered changing your circle of friends? is clearly nothing to do with Ron Paul unless he is in fact in that circle of friends and that wasn't implied at all and don't excuse your naughty behaviour by trying to make this a swamp thread Mister! I see what you did there!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:41 / 20.06.07
Guilty as charged, Anna. I found myself overcome with compassion for poor Qwik, surrounded as he was by ignorant and stupid people - perhaps the same ignorant and stupid people who gave him such misleading information that made his imaginings about marital rape so cretinously wrong in the Feminism thread, leading him to make statements so mortifyingly dumb that he could not even bear to return to the thread to admit what awful poison he had unknowingly spouted, choosing instead to seek the emptiness of wild places and the companionship of birds until such time as his gnawing shame no longer burned within him. I apologise humbly, and will attempt to keep this thread ontopic from now on.

So, Ron Paul. TPB says that he is not and cannot be described as a libertarian, because various political positions of his advocate a level of interference from big government that no actual libertarian would countenance. Is this, then, like the suspicious greening of David Cameron in the UK - an insertion of a popular, or populist, position to refresh and make more appealing a relatively standard two-party set of ideologies?
 
 
Claris Dancers
14:51 / 20.06.07
Either I mis-represent myself horribly here or the good people of Barbelith are extremely set in their ways and hostile about it, for example: I found myself overcome with compassion for poor Qwik, surrounded as he was by ignorant and stupid people. My god that is an assholish statement.
Whenever I venture here it usually ends up a clusterfuck of a thread. Maybe there's something else I'm not getting.

Regardless, Ron Paul! I don't think he will get the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency. As i said in the original post, he is the wacky candidate. The best anyone who likes his stance can hope for is for Paul to stir up enough trouble that the other candidates start talking about the things he talks about.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:54 / 20.06.07
Either I mis-represent myself horribly here or the good people of Barbelith are extremely set in their ways and hostile about it

There is a third option.
 
 
Claris Dancers
15:01 / 20.06.07
I apologise humbly, and will attempt to keep this thread ontopic from now on. - FAIL
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
15:19 / 20.06.07
I might be wrong here, but was Ron Paul the guy who said that the federal government did not have the right to outlaw slavery, or was that a different Libertarian?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:23 / 20.06.07
I think we're still trying to work out whether Ron Paul _is_ a Libertarian, Elijah. Possibly a small-l libertarian, definitely not a member of or candidate for the Libertarian party.

Qwik: if you whine like a tiny, tiny child about how mean those Barbelith meanies are, I fear you have occasioned the threadrot, by making an assertion about your fellow members of Barbelith that requires a response.

So, the response. You do not, I think, misrepresent yourself. You represent yourself quite successfully as an ignorant man with very little life experience and a propensity to believe anything that chimes with his prejudices. Black people are the authors of their own misfortune? Check! White people are being made ashamed to be white? Check! Angry feminists encourage women to pretend to have been raped to gain power over men? Check! It is no more legally disadvantageous to be black in America than it is to have a Grateful Dead sticker on one's bumper? Check! No corroboration for any of this stuff, obviously; it is so self-evidently true, after all, that even when you are revealed to be wrong, your response is to slope off in the hope that eventually everyone will forget about it, if not so quickly as you have driven it from your own memory, since the alternative might be to consider that you might be wrong about other fondly-held bigotries as well.

So. You are, and remain, a waste of text. You have never said anything, to my knowledge, of genuine interest on Barbelith, and it is unlikely that you will. Although I am not going to call you a racist or a misogynist, your unsupported utterances certainly act to advance the cause of racism and misogyny - or would were you not so inept in your making of them.

Now, it seems unlikely that you will have anything useful to say here, both from precedent and from observation of your style. However, whinging about your reception, and then whining further about people responding to your assertions about your reception, does nothing to improve those odds.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:34 / 20.06.07
Elijah, I don't know about that, but he does have objections to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which again doesn't seem to suggest that he and Dr King would see eye to eye.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
15:48 / 20.06.07
Having looked into the various offshoots of libertarianism a bit more, it would seem that Ron Paul is probably best described as a paelolibertarian.

Some extracts from the wiki:

It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought.

However, paleolibertarians are slightly more inclined than not to support some kind of border enforcement and immigration regulation... This is in contrast to the generally held view by libertarians who subscribe to open borders and unregulated immigration.

he paleos express frustration over other libertarians who stress what they see as positive rights (such as gay rights, abortion rights and sexual freedom) rather than fight state coercion on life, liberty and property.


While Paul would seem to be moderate as paleolibertarians go (as he doesn't call for the abolishment of the state), that would seem to be the closest fit.

Great. All the bad points of libertarians with none of the redeeming features.
 
 
grant
16:29 / 20.06.07
is there a thread on Libertarianism?

Paul pops up a bit in the Third Parties thread, currently just a little ways down the Switchboard front page.

He was a big-L Libertarian candidate for president in 1988 (and I swear I saw new bumper stickers during the Clinton years).

On wikipedia, he's the subject of a bio article as well as a "political positions of" article (the one FF linked to upthread), presumably since he's hard to pin down.

That article appears to echo a statement I made in the Third Parties thread, that Paul is a Republican by convenience - it got him elected to Congress.

Quoting from wikipedia:
Paul says that the Republican Party has lost its commitment to limited government and has instead become the party of big government.[2]

He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes. His frequent dissents in otherwise unanimous votes, along with his medical degree, have earned him the nickname “Dr. No.”


He's an obstetrician. He was first elected as a Republican in the 1970s, but left the party over the War on Drugs and other excesses of the Reagan years.

The bit about him introducing the concept of Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the 9/11 terrorists is interesting -- those are the documents that made privateers privateers back in the piracy-on-the-high-seas days.

Another old-fashioned thing:
In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U. S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual[37] re-introduction of the gold standard.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply