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

Underground > Switchboard >

Ron Paul

Page: 1 2(3)

Tryphena Absent

10:19 / 21.06.07

I'd rather this was moved to coversation than locked.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:21 / 21.06.07

I've disagreed the lock request - see Policy.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:20 / 21.06.07

It seems Ron Paul really is a candidate who we should all be taking a closer look at - certainly anyone who thought he was a wacky funster, who was kind of one of the good guys because of his stance on US interventionism, needed to do so.

Indeed. Anyone else finding it impossible to read this thread without hearing the intro to California Uber Alles in their head?

(Incidentally, I'd rather this thread not be locked. If people want to move it to Convo, I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think it's drifted too far to be salvageable).

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

14:10 / 21.06.07

It seems Ron Paul really is a candidate who we should all be taking a closer look at

Through a high powered scope maybe?

19:28 / 23.06.07

I stated elsewhere that I retracted this statement:
"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."

and

"Black people are the authors of their own misfortune? Check!
In recent times, yes. Listen to recent Bill Cosby for an easy example."

Im not sure if saying that i retract it in a different thread is good enough or if it is wanted here as well, so...

I retract this statement. The point i had intended to make but bungled up entirely was that people (people of all races, damnit) generally dont, but should, take personal responsibility for their own actions and circumstances. I apologize for the hurt this has caused.

Gendudehashadenough

00:26 / 27.06.07

Only thing I have to say is that he reminds me of the politician in Transmet, whose name escapes me. While he was on the Daily Show I couldn't help thinking that much of the crowd, like me, was really getting into what he was saying, yet for some reason I nagged myself into thinking that, if I cared to read around, I'd probably find that he's just what he says he is, "a politician". Creepy, so creepy after the last 8 years.

08:12 / 27.06.07

I wouldn't say Ron Paul is "potentially insensitive"; I'd say he's *kinetically* insensitive (little physics joke there) and at best obtuse.

Getting back to Ron Paul's three positions cited above:

against neocon Irag/Iran adventures
against big government
for a return to the gold standard

I suspect all three of them. The first, in order to be consistent with libertarianism, would have to be plain old isolationism. The US, most recently through Bush, has been up to a lot of mischief. If Ron Paul or his ideas won, we'd opt out of the international community at a time we might do some good.

Against big government? Well, I think I'd like a government big enough that, after the next Katrina, it could actually help the survivors instead of mumbling its permission to mercenaries to swagger down Canal Street. Grover Norquist, bold defender of rich white men from the taxman, had to drink his words about "government small enough to drown in a bathtub." Enforcing civil rights or keeping abusive corporations in line is more than some states can (or will) handle. And water rights. Oboy. Cutting government waste and intrusiveness? I'm all over that. Cutting government on general principles? Not so much.

The Gold Standard. Jack Kemp was the last presidential candidate to take this seriously, and that was in the 1980s, before the big globalization boom. Maybe some economists can help me out here, but the gold standard seems like a straitjacket for today's economy. I'm not sure we could even have mined (let alone stored) enough gold to account for the expansion of the 1980s and 1990s. Hard currency, responsibly managed, is a good thing, but would a gold standard help at this point? I doubt it.

And regarding Ron Paul's stance on rights--sometimes you need a government to enforce rights on your behalf. If rights exist only in the abstract, they don't really exist.

Why should anyone support this guy just because he makes the right noises re Iraq/Iran. Broken clock, etc.

11:01 / 27.06.07

Bill Cosby is the white Right's idea of a black role model because he thinks *all* the problems of black people are their own fault and is willing to say so. Repeatedly. Being black automatically gives him the credibility to scold unruly black people (because they sure as hell won't take that guff from a white guy). And if black people listen to Cosby, that's just another strike against them.

Cosby's ignores the GOP's documented assaults on the black (mostly Democratic) vote, the businesses that prey on black people (payday loan companies, e.g.) or the banks that redline them.

In the 1940s or 1950s it might have seemed credible that uncomplainingly leading exemplary lives could convince or at least shame racist whites into tolerating black people. The ferocity of the white South's response in the 1950s and 1960s proved otherwise. And the decades it took to bring some of those killers to justice didn't help Cosby's message either.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:42 / 27.06.07

Cosby's rants are also famously incoherent, as satirised on The Simpsons. It's hard to tell the things he's actually said from the satire:

"Kids today, with the hipping and the hopping, they don't know what the jazz is!"

vs.

"People putting their clothes on backwards. Isn't that a sign of something going on wrong?"

More here.

05:03 / 28.06.07

Only thing I have to say is that he reminds me of the politician in Transmet

The Smiler, The Beast, or Heller, the "We do not want the wombs of our women shat in by the WEAK!" guy? The three of them are fair analogues for most politicians, which is probably why Paul fits in there so well.

13:46 / 19.11.07

Ron Paul supporter's minting operation busted by the feds.

Von NotHaus said that he has known Paul for years because they "move in the same circles" but that he had expressly not talked with Paul about his plans for the special coins so as not to violate federal election laws. He posted a message on the organization's Web site urging Liberty Dollar supporters to respond to the raid by donating to Paul, saying that "in light of this assault on our financial freedom, it is clear that we need Ron Paul to lead this country more than ever."

Should he be charged, he said, "I'll turn it into my golden opportunity to validate the Liberty Dollar as a legal, lawful currency and save the country from a monetary collapse."

So, let me see if I have this right. There are some Paul supporters out there that are so...out there...that they will try to print their own money with Paul's likeness on it, make no bones about their intention to use it as currency, and think there's a chance in hell of their "Liberty Dollars" becoming legal currency. Wotta buncha maroons.

14:29 / 19.11.07

Von NotHaus...*snicker*

What, they have never heard of the Amero?

Welcome to the fifth night, kids!

14:53 / 19.11.07

Actually, there's a thread around here somewhere that gets into alternate currencies. It's one of those concepts that comes up a lot in libertarian circles (I can't remember what the New Hampshire barter-scrips were called), so it's no surprise Ron Paul supporters would be involved in this.

I'm actually more surprised at law enforcement coming down on them.

BrianFitzgerald

20:25 / 19.11.07

I'm surprised at the timing. Many of the conspiracy-minded Paul supporters are looking at this as proof that The Man won't give Paul a break, but this crackdown/raid is actually keeping Ron Paul's name in the news, right as the Nov. 5th $4.2 million story was just about out of steam.

18:36 / 27.11.07

On R.P. and abortion (I originally posted this as a separate thread but got my hand slapped by moderator On Final):

We've established that Ron Paul is very openly and proudly "Pro-Life". He is a OBGYN and says that life begins at conception. He also says that if we don't protect the lives of "the unborn", we cannot protect individual liberty.

I'm thoroughly conflicted on this issue, myself, because I am personally very attracted to Dr. Paul's politics in general. However, I am also staunchly Pro-Choice. Is Ron Paul prioritizing the life of unborn fetuses over the lives of women?

It's quite a quandary: on the one hand, Paul believes every individual in this country should have complete freedom, which means that s/he shouldn't be killed or forced to do anything that would harm her/him. He also considers unborn fetuses to be individuals. On the other hand, is it not force (albeit much more subtle, embedded, and complicated) that makes women give birth to children they don't want or don't have the means (physical, emotional, economical) to raise?

Also, Ron Paul takes a strong position on illegal immigration. He wants to keep non-citizens from working in the U.S. He wants full liberty for U.S. citizens, but he wants to limited liberty for non-U.S. citizens. Now, given that babies are issued birth certificates when they are born and not before, doesn't that mean that until they have exited the vaginal canal, been cleaned off, and been entered into the bureaucratic system, they really aren't U.S. citizens?

I tend to think, overall, that Ron Paul does not understand the complicated set of socio-economic and -political factors that contribute to unwanted pregnancies.

To read what Ron Paul has said about these issues, a helpful website is www.ronpaullibrary.org, where there are a bunch of his writings and speeches.

21:05 / 02.12.07

I think, overall, that Ron Paul makes exceptions to libertarian thinking when it suits his personal beliefs on social/religious issues. I noted in the Wikipedia article posted on p1 that he also opposes same-sex parents being able to adopt. Where does that fit into libertarian thinking?

01:40 / 03.12.07

The response legions of Paul-bots are clamoring to make right now (and would be, if registration was open) is that Paul might believe in certain things, but doesn't believe in making federal laws to prohibit or allow them. That's why he reduces abortion to a states' rights issue.

I'm not sure I entirely buy this, but I've seen the argument made several times elsewhere online.

22:59 / 03.12.07

All I can say is, although I agree with Dr. Paul that abortion should not be federally regulated, I'd be wary of supporting anyone who believes that a fetus has more rights than a woman.

15:34 / 04.12.07

according to this thread, a discussion of abortion and libertarianism is vaguely relevant to ron paul. if you disagree, i apologize.

the rights of the fetus vs. the woman who wants to abort it is inevitably a quandary of liberty. obviously their desires are incompatible, and a libertarian must support both rights. ron paul apparently cowers from this conflict by wanting to devolve the issue to the states (why not to the individuals?). a better position would be to admit the limitations of libertarianism and decide the issue on other grounds: for example, world population is too high so lets legalize abortion (and contraception).

i mention it because i identify as libertarian, and ive always seen it as a strongly pro-choice stance, since women who have the actual power to abort their fetus should not be legally prevented from doing so. of course, if you believe a fetus is a real person, then this isnt much different from saying 'a father who has the actual power to rape his daughter shouldnt be legally prevented from doing so', which is the sort of straw man that gets libertarians shouted at (because its awful).

00:42 / 06.12.07

3110700101: a better position would be to admit the limitations of libertarianism and decide the issue on other grounds: for example, world population is too high so lets legalize abortion (and contraception).

And deny the sociocultural elements of the debate? Methinks not such a good idea. For example, how is abortion the same issue across the board for "the world population"? Abortion isn't even a homogeneous issue within the political boundaries of a state, much less a nation, and much much less the Globe. Violations of individual rights become magnified when the control of human bodies is in the hands of the federal government, but it's not much better when it's in the hands of the state. Perhaps state governments could deal with more region-specific issues surrounding the topic, but allotting the abortion decision to states is not going to be a panacea for the "problem" in all its myriad contexts.

I do, however, tend to agree with you, 3110700101, when you say that Ron Paul cowers from this conflict by wanting to devolve the issue to the states. He seems to want to avoid the topic, conceding only that it shouldn't be a federal government issue.

of course, if you believe a fetus is a real person, then this isnt much different from saying 'a father who has the actual power to rape his daughter shouldnt be legally prevented from doing so'

There is absolutely no discernible parallel between aborting a fetus and raping a child (at least for me). Perhaps you were trying to make an analogy about the power relation between the pregnant woman and the fetus, but this one surely does not work. If it really comes down to whether you believe or not that a fetus is an individual, then we will forever be at ideological war over this issue. If that were the case, I would plant myself firmly on the side of NO, a fetus is not an individual with rights. If it's inside my body, feeding off of it, it is not an individual.

My beef with Libertarians is that they tend to view everything out of context. That is to say, they want there to be no context to consider. If an impoverished mother of five in southern New Mexico and an upper-middle-class white woman in Santa Fe are considered as sharing the same sociological position and thus can be served by a blanket law on abortion, I'll be gosh-darned.

04:53 / 06.12.07

the raping thing

i was trying to challenge my own libertarian pro-choice argument. you are with me that a collection of cells in a womans body is not a person, whatever its potential. but a two-month-old baby is socially parasitic, just as an embryo is physically parasitic.

so there is a legal and moral difference between raping a baby and aborting a child because at some point that embryo becomes a person. and i think that birth is a good time for that. if nothing else, after birth you can take that baby and try to put it in a nice environment (if its mother doesnt want it).

the avoidance of context in libertarianism is related to the desire for small government. the more generalized the laws, the less there is for the legislative branch to do. a though that has just emerged is that a libertarian government might require a swelling of the judiciary, in order to provide legal context. but no, i dont think the number of cases would increase under a libertarian regime (if anything decrease due to loss of drug possession laws).

13:15 / 10.12.07

10 reasons not to vote for.

19:06 / 10.12.07

There are only like three libertarians: Paul Pope is one.

Page: 1 2(3)