Two views of Ron Paul at Catallaxy Files

Two views of Ron Paul

In past few days the Wall Street Journal has published two articles on Ron Paul. The first is somewhat hostile.

The congressman named Ron Paul has served in the House off and on since the 1970s to no discernible effect. Every four years he runs for president, tapping into a vestigial base of Newsletter Libertarians, whose support qualifies him for the debates.

Let no one deny that swimming eternally amid the rightward waves of American politics is an ever-present school of fish that would solve Washington’s spending problem mainly with cuts in the defense budget (ending foreign “entanglements”), set a place at the nuclear table for Iran (“Who are they going to bomb?”), cut Israel loose, cut the Federal Reserve loose, and legalize many currently controlled substances.

The second is more favourable.

Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He’d be the first to admit he’s not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.

Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians.

There is a lot to like about Ron Paul – but some of his positions are untenable. So when I get asked (every time he ‘runs’ for higher office) whether I support – whatever that means – Ron Paul the answer is ‘no’. First on some doctrinal grounds I disagree with him but secondly, I don’t think he could ever win; so the only role he plays in running for higher office is as a spoiler. Now there are some libertarians who can’t tell the difference between Obama, Romney, and Stalin and so are indifferent to whether Obama remains President or not, but those of us who can tell the difference would prefer the lesser evil.

Update: Chris Berg picks up the story at The Drum.

Strictly, libertarianism is only a philosophy of government. It does not offer a vision of the good or moral life. A libertarian can, in theory, hold any social belief they like. All they have to do is oppose the government forcing those beliefs on others.
…
And libertarianism is about more than Ron Paul.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

January 2nd, 2012 at 9:36 am

Posted in Uncategorized

584 Responses to 'Two views of Ron Paul'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Two views of Ron Paul'.

Now its Ron Paul’s turn in the spotlight. He articulates his postions forcefully and logically. You say some of his positions are “untenable” whatever that means. Perhaps you just mean unelectable, a presumptuous position. Or do you mean they wouldn’t get through congress? Let congress thrash it out then. Would the world really come to an end if the US took on some of his policies? I don’t think so.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 10:19 am
Would the world really come to an end if the US took on some of his policies?
No. Of course not.

But he is soft on national security, soft on terrorism, soft on guns, and voted for a tax increase. These are untenable. A return to the gold standard? Really?

Sinclair Davidson

2 Jan 12 at 10:24 am
But he is soft on national security, soft on terrorism, soft on guns, and voted for a tax increase. These are untenable.

These sound like Democrat positions, so they are not “untenable”. They are difficult for a large part of the GOP to accept, but OK for the other 50% when it comes time for election. Probably a gold standard debate in OT.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 10:33 am
He’s also a pork addict.

Loves his earmark-flavoured pork.

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 10:33 am
These sound like Democrat positions, so they are not “untenable”.

Perhaps, but I suspect not. Either way some of his views are untenable and he is unelectable to higher office (than he currently holds).

Sinclair Davidson

2 Jan 12 at 10:38 am
Quite apart from his woefully delusional foreign policy considerations, there is no way known that he could head competently run executive administration whatever the (dubious) pros of his domestic policies.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 10:46 am
One thing worse than the ‘wrong’ types being elected is when the ‘right’ type gets elected and makes a hash of it. Thatcher, Reagan, Kennett and Hawke were the ‘right’ types who were also very effective politicians. They advanced their cause.

From a differnt perspective, some would regard Juliar, Krudd and Whitlam as the ‘right’ type, but because they are incompetent politicians, they have probably set back their cause.

Ron Paul, as much as I like the man’s message, does not appear to be a Reagan or a Thatcher. If he were to win, he may do his cause more harm than good.

johno

2 Jan 12 at 10:49 am
He has a lot of decent instincts but his views on Israel should disqualify him from the presidency.

Fisky

2 Jan 12 at 10:54 am
Ron Paul’s liabilities in the presidential race would be more in the slashing of benefits IMO, as the left would see this as slashing what little they do get from the rich, and destroy that part of the vote. I think a lot of the right would accept his non-interventionism if it came to a choice.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 10:56 am
Sinc, do you think Ron Paul would make a useful running mate for Romney?

Skuter

2 Jan 12 at 11:07 am
As president, Howard said, Paul would “allow Israel to defend herself as she sees fit, without the permission and interference of the U.S. or the United Nations.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/goldwater_is_to_reagan_as_ron.html

So you are the umpire Fisky?

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 11:14 am
Gawd, why do the Libertarians here believe in foreign wars? Surely that is the ultimate act of government destruction. Paul’s views on the US’s permanent deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world is a welcome relief. If the US wants to balance their budget reducing DoD spending should be part of the package.

Green Greenwald has an interesting piece on Paul :

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

The money quote for people on the Left who loathe Paul is this:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Karl Kessel

2 Jan 12 at 11:16 am
Ooppps, typo – that should be Glen Greenwald of course in para 2 of the previous comment.

Karl Kessel

2 Jan 12 at 11:17 am
…Paul would “allow Israel to defend herself as she sees fit, without the permission and interference of the U.S. or the United Nations.”

Gee, that’s big of him.

It is, of course, boilerplate Ron Paul code for: ‘the United States won’t stand by its ally.’

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 11:21 am
Karl, interesting article on salon.com. I wonder if the quote below could equally apply to conservatives:

“the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.”

Paul does provoke strong feelings on both sides.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 11:37 am
I see the utopian isolationists are out in force.

Hey KK and laterite: was 9/11 an inside job?

and how about the Madrid train bombings or the Beslan school shootings or the London Tube bombings or the Bali bombing or the Mumbai bombings etc etc?

Hey Israel and Iran is a no-contest.

So let’s go Ron Paul -make it interesting – and let Iran go nuclear?

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:40 am
Paul would also allow Australia ‘to defend herself how she see fit’.

Chris M

2 Jan 12 at 11:42 am
OK on second thoughts maybe it doesn’t matter seeing as Gillard has opened the borders to all and sundry anyway… there pretty much is no defence.

Chris M

2 Jan 12 at 11:45 am
JK: talking about Paul doesn’t make me xy or z. Paul is non-interventionist, not isolationist (look it up). What gets me is that Paul’s positions are so willfully misconstrued, in order to write him off.

There is not a chance that Israel will let Iran get a nuclear weapon IMO, and correct that they should be primarily responsible for defending their own national security, not the US.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 11:47 am
Paul has called Gaza a “concentration camp”.

He a revolting little turd.

He won’t win the nomination or even come close. He is a novelty candidate, the Screaming Lord Such of US politics.

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 11:50 am
Is laterite saying Martin Luther King didn’t have sex with under-age boys cos a first person writer in a Ron Paul newsletter misconstrued Ron Paul?

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:53 am
Paul would also allow Australia ‘to defend herself how she see fit’.

You can’t answer that unless Paul has said something about bilateral defense agreements? I doubt his policy involves breaking all bilateral agreements. And why shouldn’t Australia defend itself?

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 11:53 am
I find it hard to understand how self described libertarians and classic liberals can overlook RP based on a few perceived flaws and in the same instance support Perry or Romney who are all over the map on pretty much everything.

JNR

2 Jan 12 at 11:53 am
Paul is non-interventionist, not isolationist

That’s an important distinction, but I suspect he is an isolationist.

Sinclair Davidson

2 Jan 12 at 11:59 am
A “few perceived flaws”?!!!!

Grow up JNR.

Make an argument if you support him.

Most critics of Paul say he has some worthy polcies but his sheer stupid half-witted parochial foreign policy is a deal-breaker.

And for any adult, it should be.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 12:00 pm
Your reasons are why I’m so upset that Gary Johnson didn’t get a look in for these primaries.

Pity.

JJP

2 Jan 12 at 12:01 pm
I will praise Paul for supporting the idea that religion is central to American politics and for pointing out that opponents of that view hate the Constitution:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs,” he writes. “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Much of what Paul believes is admirable and good. It’s his amoral foreign policy that’s the deal breaker. Just reading the Daily Beast’s “10 Outrageous Ron Paul Quotes,” it occurs to me that most are only outrageous to left-wing statists and bedwetters.

Here’s Paul confronted by “a registered Democrat looking to support a worthy Republican this time around” (that is, a Hi-Alanist phony):

While campaigning in Iowa, Paul harshly told a breast-cancer survivor at one of his stops that insurance companies should not have to sell coverage to people with pre-existing illnesses. “It’s sort of like me living on the Gulf Coast, not buying insurance until I see the hurricane,” he said. “Insurance is supposed to measure risk.” Paul’s comment left the woman—a registered Democrat looking to support a worthy Republican this time around—in tears. “I watched three friends die because they didn’t have insurance,” she said.

Abolutely true. Why the hell should an INSURANCE COMPANY cover somebody who’s already sick? That isn’t insurance, it’s compulsory charity.

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 12:01 pm
Looks like the Hialans are supporting the GOP candidate who would not get elected.

Woolfe

2 Jan 12 at 12:03 pm
Paul is non-interventionist, not an isolationist…

This is meant to be a defence?

Isolationism is an old American outlook. If he was an isolationist, that would at least be traditionally defensible. A “non-interventionist,” however, is simply a coward.

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 12:04 pm
This is meant to be a defence?

No, you can disagree with non-intervention, but people should disagree on his stated views, not what people are trying to make out they are (or imply, like he is a closet isolationist Sinc).

I think getting out of foreign wars could play well with both sides, and getting out of NATO and the UN well with the right.

Hes a free trader (from his website).

Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism,…

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 12:22 pm
Oh no!

Ron Paul supports free trade and rejects protectionism.

That’s terrible.

I could never support apple pie in a million years

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 12:39 pm
“I could never support apple pie…”

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/free-trade/

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that “fast track” powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country’s behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

Seems consistent.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 12:50 pm
Laterite

Paul has voted against free trade agreements. This makes him protectionist.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 1:05 pm
Sinclair,
Ron Paul makes a common libertarian foreign policy mistake of minimising the problem or denying there is a problem such as with Iran.

He should instead say why his non-interventionist approach is the superior response to an uncontrollable world taken as it is warts and all.

Rothbard did the same: belittling the soviet threat rather than explaining, as he also did well, the conservative nature of soviet foreign policy and the many divisions inside the communist bloc that made vast differences to the lives of its subjects and the threat to other countries.

Libertarians also failed when they say that governments should only defend against attack on their own nation, but when these attacks did occur, such as on 9/11, they are lost as to what to do expect fight sectarian battles among themselves.

Paul would do better to remind that the US successfully deterred Stalin, Mao and Khrushchev and other hot-heads, who at the moment of truth were rational. The current Iranian oligarchy also responds to incentives and threats including being afraid of Bush but not Obama.

You cannot stop a country from acquiring weapons of mass destruction including chemical and biological weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are far more dangerous in the hands of terrorists and far easier to make and transport.

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 1:07 pm
James K – don’t get yourself too worked up.

Here’s my argument for RP.He is in favour of small govt and individual and economic freedom. Can you honestly say the same of your preferred GOP candidate?

JNR

2 Jan 12 at 1:09 pm
Seems consistent.

Consistent inconsistency is not generally considered a virtue, laterite.

Ron Paul also voted against
Fast Track Authority
a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile
free trade with Singapore
free trade with Australia
the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement
the Oman trade agreement
normal trade relations with Vietnam

Tell us all how that’s “consistent” with supporting free trade and rejecting protectionism.

Not that any of this dross is particularly relevant to his breathtakingly dangerous policy deficiencies

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 1:10 pm
JNR

RP has voted against free trade and he has inserted numerous earmarks to spending bills.

He’s dishonest.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 1:14 pm
Can you honestly say the same of your preferred GOP candidate?

Even Romney fulfills those criteria, JNR.

Pity Mr Chamberlain didn’t get “worked up” about Herr Hitler in the mid 30′s the way Mr Churchill did, eh?

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 1:15 pm
JK&JC: Saying a free trade agreement is free trade is like saying price fixing agreement is a free market. The free market, and free trade, simply exist as the natural state of things. PRs view, from reading the link, is that such agreements impose barriers to the non-included nations. It seems to me his opposition to so-called “free trade agreements” is entirely consistent with free trade, as his catchcry says “Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none.” The idea that we need these agreements is another instance of bureaucrat-promulgated myths.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 1:18 pm
“JK&JC: Saying a free trade agreement is free trade is like saying price fixing agreement is a free market.

Nonsense.
It’s certainly incremental but if you’re offered a dollar for doing zilch you take it.

This holier than thou bullshit doesn’t work in politics of the present time.

And if he’s so holy you then have to explain his not so holy action of inserting his own earmarks to bills he then voted against.

The guy is fucking dishonest.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 1:23 pm
The free market, and free trade, simply exist as the natural state of things … only in lala land laterite.

And none of that last post answers my question laterite.

Specifically you saying: “It seems to me..” doesnot constitute an explanation

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 1:25 pm
“The idea that we need these agreements is another instance of bureaucrat-promulgated myths.”

the legalistic ritual crap that goes with these agreements is annoying, however the end result is to actually open trade between nations even though it’s bi-lateral and therefore incremental. It’s still better we for instance have a FTA with the US than not.

Paul is a freaking wanker for voting against them.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 1:26 pm
Yes James K, Mitt Romney is a fearless defender of the principles of small govt and individual liberty.

Didn’t take you long to get to Hitler. I know,I know Saddam was the next Hitler hell bent on world domination yadda yadda…

JC – you make fair points but haven’t the other GOP candidates proven themselves more illiberal than RP on economic matters?

JNR

2 Jan 12 at 1:27 pm
First on some doctrinal grounds I disagree with him but secondly, I don’t think he could ever win; so the only role he plays in running for higher office is as a spoiler.

If you were a Gingrich supporter this concern about him being a spoiler might add up. However as you seem to be a Romney supporter I don’t see the logic. Ron Paul has yet to spoil anything for Romney. And as for whether Romney is a superior candidate surely that is what the Primary process is intended to test. The spoiler argument can be turned against anybody. It is a rather hollow criticism.

As for your doctrinaire grounds for disapproval of Ron Paul it is hard to debate them if you don’t enumerate them. And his oft state view of how society should be ordered need to be qualified by:-

1. His more limited agenda as President.
2. His plans regarding transition.
3. His obstacles such as congress.

TerjeP

2 Jan 12 at 1:27 pm
At least John Kerry was ‘for before he was against’.

Ron Paul is both simultaneously

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 1:28 pm
JC: You can question the wisdom of his policy but I was asked to explain how a free trader can consistently oppose “free trade policies”. Opposition to price-fixing schemes, industry support, tariffs, etc. doesn’t make him isolationist.

If earmarks are going to be the criterion for a candidate then you would wipe out most of the US politic.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 1:30 pm
“JC – you make fair points but haven’t the other GOP candidates proven themselves more illiberal than RP on economic matters?”

To some degree.

However Paul’s advocacy of closing down the Fed and having a gold standard is pie in the sky crap. He must have read mises 40 years ago and thinks he’s now an expert.

Paul’s monetary economics would slide the US into Depression and make the likelihood the next prez is Dennis Kunich.

I can’t fucking believe how some Australians are advocating Paul’s foreign policy when it would mostly likely fuck us up.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 1:33 pm
Is JNR asserting that:
1. Ahmadenjad is no Hitler or
2. Ron Paul is no Neville Chamberlain?

Two Mitt Romney quotes:

“The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.”

“The answer for healthcare is market incentives, not healthcare by a Godzilla-sized government bureaucracy”

I’m not a Romney supporter but quite frankly I’d believe what he says over what Ron Paul says any day.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 1:38 pm
You can question the wisdom of his policy but I was asked to explain how a free trader can consistently oppose “free trade policies”.

Fair enough. However unlike you I’m not buying it. but no great shakes.

“Opposition to price-fixing schemes, industry support, tariffs, etc. doesn’t make him isolationist.”

True, but I certainly didn’t say it did and I don’t think anyone else did.

“If earmarks are going to be the criterion for a candidate then you would wipe out most of the US politic.”

Except there’s one small difference here. He’s the one preaching the Gospel.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 1:40 pm
JC, James K, ‘free’ trade agreements are more often than not ‘preferential’ trade agreements, in reality. They tend to lead to trade diversion rather than trade creation. They also tend to increase regulation and state intervention in supply chains due to hideously complex rules of origin that tend to negate any benefits via increased complexity for suppliers of imported goods. Ron Paul and Laterite are correct. The complexity itself is desgined as a more subtle quasi-protectionist device. True libertarians need to support multilateral reductions in trade barriers. Only big government conservatives and socialists could possibly support bilateral agreements that tend to enlarge and enhance the influence of the state on international trade.

Skuter

2 Jan 12 at 1:46 pm
“True, but I certainly didn’t say it did and I don’t think anyone else did.”

JamesK referred to “utopian isolationists” and Sinc thinks he is a closet isolationist. I’m assuming his opposition to free trade agreements is where this comes from. His positions seem more consistent than most to me, but you can call it naive or not adequately nuanced. I am not an RP supporter, but I can understand the appeal of his ideological purity. I mainly want to see a Republican in the White House.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 1:49 pm
Skuter

I agree with most of what you said. But however imperfect they are trade agreements seem to foster higher levels of trade. To be honest I don’t see how they are “subtle quasi protectionist”. Do you have a specific example keeping in mind that these agreements also occur with WTO members, which is supposed to hinder protectionism of this nature.

Laterite:

yep, that’s fine.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 1:57 pm
JC: I looked up RPs views on earmarks, and I think its a misrepresenting him to call him a pork-barreller. His view is earmarks show where the money goes and keep it from shady Government programs http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/:

… designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes. This has been a major problem with TARP funding.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 2:11 pm
The idea that Paul will be a spoiler for the Republicans, in particular Romney I think is debatable.

There was a poll a few months ago who asked voters the following:

(1) Obama v Romney
(2) Obama v Romney v Paul

On the second question, Paul got 18% (this was before his recent surge). Romney’s vote was reduced by around 10%, Obama’s by 5%, and 3% from undecided. With Paul at 18% before he’s even declared a third party run, you could say that the Republicans would be spoiling Paul if he goes third party.

Whilst I could concede that it is perhaps more likely that Romney will beat Obama, Paul has come second to Romney in one v one matchups against Obama.

I think he’d do better during a general once Democrats get to know him, particularly his stance on the drug war and foreign policy, and his lack of cuts to social security and Medicare.

Lets say Romney has twice as much chance as beating Obama than Paul. Even so, I think the difference between Paul and Obama is far more than twice the difference between Romney and Obama, particularly when it comes to smaller government and civil liberties, including the right to bear arms.

The expected value is better with Paul. A 25% chance to win $10 is better than a 50% chance of winning $1.

Clinton Mead

2 Jan 12 at 2:15 pm
JC, aggregate levels of trade are not the issue, but rather the direction of trade for specific commodities, goods and services. The problems arise when imports are sourced from countries that aren’t the most efficient producer. Resources are misallocated.

Also, rules of origin tend to distort decisions of domestic producers regarding the source of their inputs. Politicians and bureaucrats have a greater ability to have an influence on production processes and entreprenuerial decisions because of these rules – it is in this sense that I use the term ‘quasi-protectionist’. Having lived in Canberra and being involved in the bureaucracy for nearly 10 years has given me a fairly radical anti-government perspective. I wouldn’t trust our political and bureaucratic elites with running a dog kennel. I know some quality individuals, but the incentives in the system and the outcomes they produce are seriously fucked in the head. You have to observe some of this shit in person. Generally speaking, my philosophy on Canberra is: give ‘em nothing – they feed on denying individuals freedom.

I’m not a specialist in this area, so I am relying on broad principles rather than having any specific examples in mind.

Laterite, I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I too just desperately want to see a republican in the White House. If that means Romney, then so be it. However, I think Paul could be a useful running mate for Romney to counter some of the perceptions that he is, at his core, an interventionist with no principles…

Skuter

2 Jan 12 at 2:20 pm
Paul’s views are able to be “misconstrued” because he deliberately sets out to send out *winks* to conspiracy theorists, racists and other lunatic fringe elements to get their support help them against “The Government”. When called on this bullshit he then uses weasel words and tactics, not flat out confirmation or denial.

For over 10 years Paul has played this game, pandering to the lunatic fringe who constitute his base. He votes no to big government, all the while increasing government by taking home the pork.

Azrael

2 Jan 12 at 2:21 pm
Gingrich/Paul is the new McCain/Palin.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 2:26 pm
Ignore the troll people. After observing m0nty’s performances on the NYE open thread and others, I’ve concluded that he’s merely taking the piss. It is not worth responding to his inanity and therefore derailing the thread. He’s not a republican supporter so who cares what he fucking well thinks?

Skuter

2 Jan 12 at 2:31 pm
once Democrats get to know him,

He was a congressman a quater of a century ago and he runs for President every 4 years.He has high name recognition.

Whaddya mean ‘once they get to know him’?

Once anyone with anything resembling a conscience actually examines his policies they are repulsed

His only ‘spoiler’ function will be if his thinly veiled threat to run as an independent is acted on.

The only reason he’s treated kindly by the leftist MSM is that he’s a useful idiot.

He’s examined about as closely as Bob Brown is here.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 2:33 pm
“Whaddya mean ‘once they get to know him’?”

Not enough people know about his newletters yet. If the average voter knew what was in them, his polling would be lower than Ralph Nader’s.

Alex Pundit

2 Jan 12 at 2:36 pm
What possible qualities could Ron Paul bring to a Romney ticket? He actually sounds like a croakey old snake oil salesman. How is Romney going to appeal to the electorate with a running mate who advocates untried, extremist policies like closing down the federal reserve? Then there’s his jihad against Israel, which will further alienate people. He has some good ideas like cutting off the UN but there is far too much baggage. He is unelectable.

Fisky

2 Jan 12 at 2:36 pm
Krauthammer predicts it will be Romney/Rubio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/31/krauthammer_predicts_romney-rubio_in_2012.html

Dangerous I think. Why pick a guy who hasn’t taken the time to brush up on the issues and who was only elected to the Senate last year?

Ay ay ay.

Alex Pundit

2 Jan 12 at 2:48 pm
Its been fun flirting with the others but Romney will probably be the one who gets taken home to meet the parents.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 2:53 pm
I’m assuming his opposition to free trade agreements

I’n not surprised laterite plays dumb even after I said:

“Not that any of this dross is particularly relevant to his breathtakingly dangerous policy deficiencies”

Eric Dondero a former staffer of Paul who penned many newsletters wrote recentl in a defence of anti-semitism charges against Paul:

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/

“Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.”

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 2:54 pm
Why pick a guy who hasn’t taken the time to brush up on the issues and who was only elected to the Senate last year?

Because Rubio is brilliant and is a star.

Because Rubio is a future President.

Because it will calm down conservative disquiet.

Because Rubio will help deliver him Florida.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 2:57 pm
Eric Dondero is a disgruntled ex-employee.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 2:59 pm
Even if you don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues, is he not by far and away the lesser of all evils? Consider where your priorities are! Any other candidate will continue the wars, the intervention, the killing and murdering of millions of innocent people. Ron Paul will put a stop to all the killing! Even if it’s just for 4 years, 4 years without killing! what a thing that would be! why are you against him? what is your opposition to Paul? it must be something truly great to justify the endorsement of any other candidate who will continue killing innocents vs Paul who will put an immediate end to the senseless violence..

DaveC

2 Jan 12 at 3:10 pm
A “disgruntled ex-employee” :

“I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.

He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.”

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 3:10 pm
The conversations of a former employee are not a reliable source for writing off his candidacy.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 3:28 pm
Ron Paul is the only sensible choice for US President. The only one who wants to cut spending. The only one who recognises and considers correct statements by CIA etc. that if you occupy countries then people in those countries might get angry. The US is broke and to just say that they are less broke than European countries does not make it good. We are better than US so on that arguement the ALP is doing a great job. To not occupy 130 countries to some degree by having bases there is not isolationist. Australia only has one military base outside the country and we should have about 10 to catch up to the US on a per capita basis. So Australia is very isolationist then. This type of arguement is totally stupid. Cutting many of the duplicating departments is common sense why do you need 2 environment departments and 2 education departments etc.? Australia should do the same otherwise what is the purpose of having states. Releasing non violent drug related prisoners makes sense also (25% of world prisoner population and 5% of world population) and is simular to Australian policy regarding drug use. Although I may not agree with everything he says, he is a much better choice than any of the other candidates.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 3:35 pm
@JamesK

The first three points you raised were applied to Sarah Palin in 2008, and say what you will about her (I myself think of her in a positive manner), thrusting her on to the national stage in such a hurried manner didn’t pan out so well.

I envision the same thing could happen to Rubio. I agree, he is a dynamic and uplifting figure, but I think his candidacy will again be more of the experimental type and quite frankly now is not the time for experiments.

Alex Pundit

2 Jan 12 at 3:41 pm
Byron York Chief Political Correspondent of the Washington Examiner:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/mischief-voters-push-paul-front-gop-race/276751

“In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it’s 85 percent.

So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.”

How about Ron Paul himself?

Is he a reliable source to write of his candidacy?

Mind you he won’t write off his candidacy even when he gets defeated in the GOP Primaries

What Ron Paul says:

NAFTA ‘Superhighway’

“This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside…

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union–complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.”

9/11 Conspiracy:

“Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq,”

Southern Border Fence:

“I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital. And there’s capital controls and there’s people control. So, every time you think of the fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.”

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 3:46 pm
>Australia’s leading progressive and centre-left blog

Keep up the great work, goyim. Ron Paul is “unelectable” because he won’t send America’s children to die for Israel.

Rabbi Schlomo Goldberg

2 Jan 12 at 3:50 pm
Frankly James , the NAFTA highway itself sounds like a great idea if it didn’t mean co- mingling government.

I also have some sympathy to what he says about the border fence as US now dictates to countries as far a Switzerland who they can do banking with.

911 shows he’s a kook.

Jc

2 Jan 12 at 3:55 pm
@Alex.

I consider Sarah Palin the success and McCain the failure of that Presidential campaign.

Here’s Rubio challenged by John Kerry in the US Senate:

http://dougpowers.com/2011/07/30/marco-rubios-terrific-senate-floor-speech/

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 3:58 pm
I agree JC, it’s very very difficult to take an unequivocal stand against a fellow libertarian but Ron Paul is joke and his nonsense should not be tolerated.

I agree with much of his first principles.

The problem is his policies end up being unpredictable because apparently rather despite of his ‘principles’.

Some of those ‘policies’ disqualify him from serious consideration.

His son Rand on the other hand has a very distict possibility of being a future President.

I don’t want to see Ron Paul ruin that.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 4:04 pm
““Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq,””

That’s not conspiracy theory, that’s fact. Well, maybe not ‘glee’ as such, but 9/11 was certainly recognised as an opportunity. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza all said so publicly.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 4:06 pm
*yawn*

More drivel from Jarrah.

Well…. what else?

Evidence please where “Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza all said” “an opportunity” no existed to invde Iraq.

You clown

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 4:12 pm
i am not sure on what doctrinal grounds I would find fault with him. Even his “controversial” gays-should-pay-for-their-own-health-bills is defensible within the libertarian framework which many of us share.

If only he would recognise that not all states, even not all states whose leaders have popular appeal, are decent and want to let us live in peace.

So, with Bachmann fading and offering off-beat views on some issues, and Santo a Washington earmark insider, we have to retreat to the Steve Kates mediocrity of Romney.

Alan moran

2 Jan 12 at 4:12 pm
Jazza

Why the stupid conspiracy theories. Americans were sickened by 911 including da evil bush and Cheney.

Stop trolling.

Jc

2 Jan 12 at 4:15 pm
Alan to dismiss Santorum as “a Washington earmark insider” says much about your prejudice and little about Santorum.

That he’s an experienced legislator is true but charges that is a ‘Washington insider’ are as plausible as Ron Paul being one.

That he achieved much more than Paul in less than a third of the time in Congress is also true.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 4:17 pm
“Americans were sickened by 911 including da evil bush and Cheney.”

Of course they were. They’re not monsters. But they weren’t going to mourn forever. At some point the geo-political implications were going to be considered.

“Evidence please where “Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza all said” “an opportunity” no existed to invde Iraq.”

Rumsfeld: “But it happened afterwards because there was an event that permitted it. And there was a war that shifted relationships between nations dramatically. That created new institutions that grew out of that conflict.

It is easier to do it if there’s an event.

So the question is, can we do it before an event like that? And is it possible that what took place on September 11th, as one of my interlocutors on this last trip overseas said, that maybe out of this tragedy comes opportunity. Maybe, must maybe, the world will sufficiently register the danger that exists on the globe and have this event cause the kind of sense of urgency and offer the kind of opportunities that world War II offered, to refashion much of the world.”

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2097

(More to follow. Splitting comments to avoid walls of text and auto-moderation)

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 4:25 pm
So Jarrah….. no ‘evidence’ huh?

Just more Jarrahesque perverted versions of reality.

Wot a surprise!

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 4:28 pm
Jarrah, what has any of that to do with this thread’s topic?

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 4:29 pm
I don’t know why people are worried about Rubios experience. He spent longer in state parliament than Obama and as long as Obama in the Senate. The differences are that Rubio is going in on the second, not top slot and Rubio seems to be smart. Rubio, unlike Obama, probably also knows there are 50 States in the USA, that Austrians speak German and that the Germans, not Americans, invented the automobile.

John comnenus

2 Jan 12 at 4:33 pm
Not only that Rubio was a significant leader: House Speaker in Florida and he defeated a sitting Governor for his Senate bid.

Contrasts markedly with Obummer ‘s lack of preparedness and his surreally easy ‘waft’ ever upwards on the back of the infamously corrupt Chicago machine

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 4:40 pm
I think you’re reading opportunity in a skewed context, especially from an American perspective. There were many voices well before 911 that felt the first gulf war was a lost opportunity to try and change things there once and for all.

Its clear to me that’s what Rumsfeld is referring to.

It’s the out of the bad may come the good sort of view that we also saw after WW2 with the opportunity to create a better world.

There is nothing sinister in what rumsfeld was suggesting.

Jc

2 Jan 12 at 4:45 pm
Bush: “Let me say that, in terms of foreign policy and in terms of the world, this horrible tragedy has provided us with an interesting opportunity. One of the opportunities is in the Middle East. … I think there’s some interesting opportunities to shake terrorism loose from sponsor states. And this government, working with Congress, are going to seize the moment.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010919-8.html

Condoleeza: “If that is right, if the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 bookend a major shift in international politics, then this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity. Before the clay is dry again, America and our friends and our allies must move decisively to take advantage of these new opportunities.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020429-9.html

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 4:48 pm
“Jarrah, what has any of that to do with this thread’s topic?”

Fisky brought it up.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 4:50 pm
“Jarrahesque perverted versions of reality”

LOL. I quote defense.gov and whitehouse.gov, and apparently it’s ME who has a perverted version of reality.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 4:51 pm
No he didn’t, Jarrah. I can’t find any reference from Fisky on the matter.

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 4:53 pm
“No he didn’t, Jarrah. I can’t find any reference from Fisky on the matter.”

So sorry, JamesK did.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 4:56 pm
Okay. Go ahead. Make a federal case of it on this thread then. It was an interesting thread, ’til now.

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 5:00 pm
JC
So lets go with your theory about wars ending up good so when Saddam Husein the friendly dictator invaded Iran with US support why wasn’t it all sorted out then? Or maybe when the Shah was installed in Iran. Or maybe that the nuclear reactor that is in use at the moment was being built from 1975 with US support. Better if US just goes home as their success rate is 0.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 5:06 pm
Gab, I corrected JamesK, no more need be said.

Back on topic, I think Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy will count heavily against him. People with power tend to want to use it for what they think is a good cause. The US has a tremendous amount of power, so a politician telling Americans that they should pull their head in is going to get a lot of people offside.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 5:08 pm
” I corrected JamesK, no more need be said.”

lol sure, that’ll be the end of that then. hahaha

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 5:09 pm
Jarrah you are correct that non intervention gets a lot of people off side but it does also get a lot of people on side.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 5:11 pm
Kelly:

I have no real idea of what you’re trying to say. The US has had some successes in the Mid East as well as some failures. That’s life.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 5:23 pm
For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII.

FDR and Churchill – like Bush – saw an opportunity in Pearl Harbour to combat and defeat evil.

It’s incredible to think that Paul is to the (far) left of Roosevelt and would have allowed Hitler to take over Britain.

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 5:24 pm
Paul had a nice run last time around, and his donations keep flowing in, and not from the usual bankrollers of campaigns. That’s what really makes people nervous. I’m not sure however if many of the original tea partiers are going to support him this time, having seen their movement co-opted by the republicans, and Paul is part of all that. Many disappointed tea partiers will be looking to go elsewhere. Probably to the libertarian party, where they will have no effect whatsoever.

No Worries

2 Jan 12 at 5:31 pm
JC Name the success and you can’t name Kuwait as a success as it was their dictator who invaded. Was Mubarak a success? The late Osama suggests that the reason for his followers is because of US actions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlo1VQxgDk

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 5:33 pm
I can’t name Kuwait? Why would I, Kelly as I wasn’t offering specific examples.

Read carefully what I said… the US has had some successes and failures.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 5:40 pm
I want one example of success.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 5:43 pm
Paul says we shouldn’t have gone into WWI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0u_v9T0F8, and it was the punitive treaties that led to the rise of Hitler, and many other problems, and that means he would have allowed Hitler to take over Britian….sheesh.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 5:45 pm
Ron Paul says in the past few weeks:
“Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq,”

Jarrah aka Dunce Leftist says:

“That’s not conspiracy theory, that’s fact…….but 9/11 was certainly recognised as an opportunity. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza all said so publicly.”

1. The when challenged perennially perverted liar Jarrah makes sh1t up so this quote from Rumsfeld about new alliances in the war in Afghanistan is magically transformed in Jarrah lying retardred brain to “Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza all said” “an opportunity” now existed to invade Iraq.

Rumsfeld Oct 12, 2001 two years before the invasion of Iraq :

“And it is hard for people to put themselves forward in time. Looking back, we can look back to World War II and say isn’t that amazing what those folks did? We ended up with NATO, we ended up with the World Bank, we ended up with the OAS, we ended up with the various ANZUS Treaty, the relationship with Japan –

Q: You’re talking about post-war.

Rumsfeld: That’s what I’m saying. But it happened afterwards because there was an event that permitted it. And there was a war that shifted relationships between nations dramatically. That created new institutions that grew out of that conflict.

It is easier to do it if there’s an event.

So the question is, can we do it before an event like that? And is it possible that what took place on September 11th, as one of my interlocutors on this last trip overseas said, that maybe out of this tragedy comes opportunity. Maybe, must maybe, the world will sufficiently register the danger that exists on the globe and have this event cause the kind of sense of urgency and offer the kind of opportunities that world War II offered, to refashion much of the world.”

2. Jarrah’s hyperlink to Bush’s supposed ‘mea culpa’ quote again 2 years before the invasion of Iraq doesn’t work so I can’t check the context but again what the ever inane liar Jarrah’s quotes clearly does not support his wild conspiracy allegation that “Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza all said” “an opportunity” now existed to invade Iraq.

3. Jarrah’s hyperlink to Rice’s supposed ‘mea culpa’ quote is at least only a year before the invasion but again it doesn’t work and again the quote does not support the demented leftist liar Jarrah’s wild conspiracy allegation that “Bush, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza all said” “an opportunity” now existed to invade Iraq.

Does Jarrah even realise that he’s an inveterate liar (sociopathic) or is he just really really stupid?

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 5:53 pm
“I want one example of success”

Japan.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 5:53 pm
Japan isn’t in the Mideast, cohenite.

As it happens, I agree with JC. The US has had some successes in the Mideast. They’re aren’t unalloyed successes, and some contributed to later failures, but that’s life.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 6:16 pm
Cohenite I was talking about middle east. In the case of Japan the US was not interventionist at all only joining long after the war started and they were invaded. With Ron Paul even if he went back to a simular stance to US pre WWII what is so scarey about that. Iran for example has never invaded any country in the last 200 years and the US has invaded them in different ways 2 times with the instalation of a dictator and via Iraq and now we are talking about trying that idea again Ron Paul is the only sane one.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 6:17 pm
Paul says… it was the punitive treaties that led to the rise of Hitler.

Really?

Thanks, Ron.

Nobody had thought of that before.

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 6:40 pm
You try to demonize him for saying the obvious, that there are long term consequences to types of intervention. Yeah the hawks will never go for the “anti-war candidate”.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 6:59 pm
The greatest threats to the world always come from supremacist ideologies, Nazi racial supremacy, communist social scientific supremacy, Islamic religious supremacy. Unfortunately RP thinks that the pretty benign US economic and military supremacy causes all the problems in the world. At heart RP is a western cultural loather like most on the left. So when Bachmann points out the IAEA recently reported that Iran was developing nuclear weapons Ron dismissed Bachmann despite the fact that she was right and he was wrong. RP is blinded by his own ignorance and naivette. I think in an election between RP and Obama – wouldn’t that be a dumb and dumber election – a lot of Republicans will vote for O.

John comnenus

2 Jan 12 at 7:01 pm
The US, or anyone else for that matter, will never succeed in the middle East because ridding the world of creatures like Saddam misses the point; the point is Islam; as long as Islam prevails removal of despots and group madness like the Taliban, which Islam inevitably throws up, will not resolve the problem; it is treating the symptom not the disease.

Elsewhere of course the yanks got rid of communist Russia so most of Eastern Europe now owes its varying state of freedom to them.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 7:18 pm
“as long as Islam prevails”

More like, as long as Islam goes without a Reformation, and as long as Islamic societies go without an Enlightenment.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 7:27 pm
“existence of possible military dimensions” this is the sort of language used by IAEA. It is not evidence only they think maybe. I think a lot of things about people like that some of the comentators here might enjoy pulling wings off butterflies and my evidence is simular to that of Iran currently persuing nuclear weapons. It should be remembered that Christians used to burn witches and that sort of practice still happens in the Niger Delta. Higher living standards will achieve an end to extremists to a large degree.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 7:29 pm
Wow…..

Another deepn’meaningful from leftist misanthrope kelly apropos of nothing and – as usual – signifying nothing

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 7:34 pm
“Higher living standards will achieve an end to extremists to a large degree.’

Osama bin Laden came from a family of billionaires. The 9/11 terrorists were all well educated, middle class brats with shaved scrotums.

Infidel Tiger

2 Jan 12 at 7:39 pm
“Higher living standards will achieve an end to extremists to a large degree.”

No that is just insidious crap, along the lines of that other bit of apologia that Islamic terrorists only do what they do because of Western oppression.

Bin Laden was very wealthy. So are most of the royal family of Saudia Arabia but they still source a fair proportion of the rabid ratbags of islam.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 7:40 pm
The panty bomber was the son of a multimillionaire with a first class western education.

The loons that attempted to bomb Glasgow airport were doctors.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 7:42 pm
Whatever your disagreements with Paul – and I’ve got my share – he would make a better president than either Romney or Gingrich.

If Romney gets through he will end up as a slightly rightward-tweaked, lighter coloured Obama. There’s nothing for America’s future in that, and frankly, if the ship’s going to founder I’m just as happy with Obama at the helm.

annomer

2 Jan 12 at 7:47 pm
jamesk, see http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist

• participation in terrorism is just a special application of the economics of occupational choice

• in the case of the supply of terrorists, while consideration of opportunity cost is not irrelevant, it is outweighed by other factors, such as a commitment to the goals of the terrorist organization and a desire to make a statement.

• Political involvement requires some understanding of the issues, and learning about those issues is a less costly endeavor for those who are better educated.

• On the demand side, terrorist organizations want to succeed. The costs of failure are high. So the organizations select more able participants—which again points to those who are better educated and better off economically.

• People who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause have diverse motivations. Some are motivated by nationalism, some by religious fanaticism, some by historical grievances, and so on.

• If we address one motivation and thus reduce one source on the supply side, there remain other motivations that will incite other people to terror.

• The evidence suggests that terrorists care about influencing political outcomes. They are often motivated by geopolitical grievances.

• To understand who joins terrorist organizations, instead of asking who has a low salary and few opportunities, we should ask: Who holds strong political views and is confident enough to try to impose an extremist vision by violent means?

• Most terrorists are not so desperately poor that they have nothing to live for. Instead, they are people who care so fervently about a cause that they are willing to die for it.

• it makes sense to focus on the demand side, such as by degrading terrorist organizations’ financial and technical capabili¬ties, and by vigorously protecting and promoting peaceful means of protest, so there is less demand for pursuing grievances through violent means.

• Policies intended to dampen the flow of people willing to join terrorist organizations, by contrast, strike me as less likely to succeed.

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 7:55 pm
JamesK is making a lot of sense in this thread

Oh come on

2 Jan 12 at 7:58 pm
The company Ron Paul keeps is a deal breaker for me.

Oh come on

2 Jan 12 at 8:00 pm
“So are most of the royal family of Saudia Arabia but they still source a fair proportion of the rabid ratbags of islam.”

So ok then I will give Ron Pauls arguement. It must be blowback. Watch from 3.00 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm2oyUzJris

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 8:01 pm
RP also talks sense on global warming http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 8:35 pm
You know, this has been a very informative thread. I mean that sincerely.

(Perhaps Sinclair might consider a thread on Rubio, with lots and lots of pictures)

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 8:38 pm
This thread has not been very useful. I learnt what JC and JamesK think but I don’t much care what they think on this topic. I do care what Sinclair Davidson thinks but he has gone to ground.

TerjeP

2 Jan 12 at 8:46 pm
Terje

I’m hardly trying to change your mind as I really don’t give a shit.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 8:50 pm
Perhaps Sinclair might consider a thread on Rubio, with lots and lots of pictures

Is Gab enamoured of the junior senator from Florida?

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 8:55 pm
The remarkable news is that TerjeP claims he cares, JC.

Though not about us.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 8:57 pm
Mais oui! James. But he’s not just a pretty face with a pleasant physique. He has brains and charm too. And a book deal.

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 8:58 pm
Thanx for that reference Jim Rose.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 9:01 pm
He is very impressive Gab.

I wish I could think as clearly as he does on his feet.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 9:02 pm
“Paul says… it was the punitive treaties that led to the rise of Hitler.”

Paul must have missed the relevant chapter in Mises or Hayek that completely demolishes the idea that punitive treaties such as reparations caused the rise of Nazism. They were around 2% of GDP and hardly a poverty machine.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 9:04 pm
And he’s not going to be VP candidate this year, which is a good thing. He needs to go straight to running for Prez in 2016.

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 9:05 pm
candidate…running mate, whatever the terminology.

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 9:06 pm
“The remarkable news is that TerjeP claims he cares, JC.

Though not about us.”

As soon as I read that, I immediately asked the family to remove all sharp objects, hide the cars and put me on suicide watch. I can’t imagine living without his approval.

JC

2 Jan 12 at 9:06 pm
JC that misses the point, which is that hes being demonizing over debatable views, that when you go to the original quote, are reasonable and debatable. Nothing I have seen is “untenable” except to hawks and looters.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 9:10 pm
And he’s not going to be VP candidate this year, which is a good thing. He needs to go straight to running for Prez in 2016.

He will be VP Gab.

That’s a done deal even if it’s a Gingrich, Santorum or Romney as nominee

Asssuming they don’t f-ck up, the GOP candidate will win (the Obummer cake is baked) and Marco will be President in Jan 2021

You read it here first

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 9:19 pm
KL, ivan eland says it better:

• The republic’s founders realized that America’s geographical remoteness vis-à-vis other nation-states allowed it the luxury of distancing itself from entangling alliances and foreign quarrels, defining its vital interests narrowly, and adopting a policy of military restraint.

• In an age of catastrophic terrorism, the founders’ original foreign policy is more relevant than ever.

• Profligate intervention overseas is not needed for security against other nation-states and only leads to blowback from the one threat that is difficult to deter—terrorism.

• Because intelligence is imperfect and America—the largest truly open society in the world—is very vulnerable to terrorism, improved homeland security can go only so far in protecting Americans from future catastrophic terrorist attacks.

• A better solution is to white out the bull’s-eye painted on America by dismantling its empire and scrapping its interventionist foreign policy.

HT: http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=74

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 9:22 pm
“It must be blowback”

No. Paul says he doesn’t want to go into things half-heartedly; that is correct, and explains the US failures in the Middle East, but I don’t think he understands what that means in respect of Islam which is diametrically opposed to Western and in particular, American society.

Nothing Paul says disavows Huntington but the best slant I can put on his attitude is that as a strategic approach he has missed the boat given the substantial Islamic populations already living within the West, all of which in varying ways, demand Sharia law.

And this is the point of Islamic occupation; it works by both terrorism and incrementation which itself has different approaches ranging from reasonable to strident.

What does Paul have to say about this?

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 9:23 pm
Rubio is not inclined to be anyone’s runner up. Besides, he has stated on numerous occasions that he’s not interested in VP.

Rubio will be Prez in 2016.

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 9:24 pm
So when will the outcome of the Iowa caucus be settled? Late on Tuesday night? Anyone know?

Gab

2 Jan 12 at 9:26 pm
cohenite, demands for sharia law will decline as incomes increase.

the demand for time-intensive religions decline as incomes rise

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 9:27 pm
Yeah.

Wednesday afternoon our time

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 9:31 pm
“Islam which is diametrically opposed to Western and in particular, American society.”

Islam isn’t monolithic. There are various sects, and various levels of fervour and tolerance.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 9:33 pm
“cohenite, demands for sharia law will decline as incomes increase.

the demand for time-intensive religions decline as incomes rise”

I don’t share your optimism Jim which I think misses the point that what is considered to be a reasonable progression in a Western value based society has no applicability to the values of a non-Western culture.

In fact I see the opposite with, in Australia, 2nd generation muslims generally being more strident than their parents.

One of the more egregious mantras of the Muslim ‘debate’ is that this wave of new, Islamic immigration will go through the same pressures and problems as previous waves of Italian, Veitnamese etc immigrants; this is completely wrong and misunderstands the imperatives of Islamic immigration which is actively opposed to Western values.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 9:40 pm
A better solution is to white out the bull’s-eye painted on America by dismantling its empire and scrapping its interventionist foreign policy.

That’s a fantasy.

Sure, America could certainly rationalise its overseas operations, particularly those in Western Europe which are a legacy of the cold war and serve little purpose.

But America has a ‘bullseye’ because it’s a superpower.

Nations don’t get to retire and buy a house by the sea. It doesn’t work that way. If America vacates the stage then its enemies become ascendant.

Take the Asia-Pacific, for example. If the US winds back its interests in that region, do you think the Asia-Pacific will revert to some elysian paradise of independent but friendly nation-states all trading with each other and having multilateral talkfests, or do you think something else might happen? (Yes, that is a trick question.)

daddy dave

2 Jan 12 at 9:40 pm
Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of 2012 and just as relevant. Why all this solemn discussion about what the man does or doesn’t stand for?

Viva

2 Jan 12 at 9:42 pm
“There are various sects, and various levels of fervour and tolerance.”

That is what I said; but they are all antithetical in substance to the West; what you are merely talking about is the intensity of opposition, which varies from group to group and within groups.

In this fundamental point Islam is monolithic.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 9:42 pm
jarrah, Islam is like the Catholics 60 years ago.

Strict rules in marriage, Puritanism, and separate schools for their big families.

How is the popish plot to take-over going these days?

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 9:44 pm
thanks cohenite,
my reply to jarrah applies to you with the addition irish catholic.

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 9:46 pm
cohenite: “What does Paul have to say about this?”

He doesn’t talk much about religion, but given he is one of the few to really oppose the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill 2012, calling it the introduction of martial law in the US, I think its a fair bet he is for traditional freedoms, rule of law and he would be against sharia law too.

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 9:58 pm
RP to win Iowa. http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2012/01/02/ron-paul-to-win-iowa/

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 10:04 pm
Jim, the comparison between ‘strict’ catholicism and Islam has no legs; Christianity went through a reformation; Islam has no such capcity for self-criticism; the reform [sic] which Islam has gone through, while nominally similar to the Prostestant reform which took the Catholic church back to its pure roots, is fundamentally different because unlike the “liberation discourse” of the Christian reformation, the Salafistic reform of Islam, which produced the Wahhabi sect, was based on people being ibad, or slaves of Allah.

Islam is based on submission not liberation; it is the ultimate hegemonic cult. Nothing is going to change that except the elimination of Islam; anything else is delusional.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:06 pm
And how exactly can we eliminate Islam, cohenite?

Fact is, we can’t, even if it were the right thing to do, which it isn’t. So what’s plan B?

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 10:09 pm
Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of 2012 and just as relevant. Why all this solemn discussion about what the man does or doesn’t stand for?

It’s the two minutes hate session. It just runs over time because there are no buttons. Another serious impact of buttongate.

No Worries

2 Jan 12 at 10:13 pm
Islam is not diametrically opposed to western values and if that is the case then it will have to change like christianity otherwise it is not likely to survive. Indonesia and Malaysia predominantly have the same values as us especially the middle class and I can’t see the majority in those countries giving up their freedoms to go to Sharia law nation wide. The muslims hate the terrorists as much as anyone. If they didn’t Indonesia for example would turn extreme really quickly as the only way to catch terrorists is through tip offs, survelance and using a majority muslim police force and sometimes military. The police are unlikely to be that smart they can catch maybe 100 bad guys out of 200 million without tip offs. Malaysia is particularly close to us with Australia fighting with them against Indonesia and still have some military stationed there in what can now be called an ex Australian military base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements The reason this is not a problem is because we came to their help not to invade.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 10:14 pm
Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of 2012 and just as relevant. Why all this solemn discussion about what the man does or doesn’t stand for?

That’s the real question, Viva. It’s a measure of how weird and disorganised the GOP race is that Paul can get an OP like the above devoted to him on this blog. There’s something similar over at RedState, though they aren’t afraid to call RP “completely insane”.

The reason people are talking about him is that the primaries are coming, and the race is supposed to narrow, so there’s pressure from certain quarters on all the “minor” candidates to withdraw to suit various of the “major” runners.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 10:15 pm
cohenite,
the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church, to the entry of rivals, Protestant sects, is called the Counter-Reformation as was in the form of predictable economic responses, including

(a) lowering the average price of the religious good;

(b) vigorous competition in the neighborhood of the entrants’ “price”;

(c) raising rivals ’ marginal costs to motivate demanders return to Catholicism, and

(d) attempts to enhance demand in the “retail ” market while simultaneously protecting rent-seeking practices in the “wholesale ” market.

The advent of Protestant entry (despite conflicting adjurations of the Council of Trent) was met with violent, and nominal rather than fundamental, doctrinal alterations.

The Catholic Church reacted to the Protestant Reformation by taking on the defensive posture of an incumbent-firm monopoly fighting to survive in the face of new competition.

Contemporary firms typically respond to rival entry by rewriting their corporate charter. So did the medieval Catholic Church.

But the Council of Trent failed as a reorganization plan because to keep economic rents flowing as before, it left intact the distribution of powers and property rights among the governing body of pope and cardinals demonstrating that entrenched economic interests are powerful inducements to behaviour, even in spiritual institutions.

HT: The Economics of the Counter-Reformation: Incumbent-Firm Reaction to Market Entry by Robert B. Ekelund Jr., Robert F. Hebert, and Robert D. Tollison

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 10:16 pm
“And how exactly can we eliminate Islam, cohenite?”

Not easily; the burqa must be banned because it is an infringement of the social contract between individuals in a free and open society; that is, the burqa is an infringement not of the rights of the women wearing them but of the people who have to deal with the people who wear them.

Be tougher on mosques and what happens there.

Ban multiculturalism as the Dutch are now doing:

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/the-netherlands-to-abandon-multiculturalism/

Work incrementally.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:23 pm
Des Moines Register Poll Saturday:
http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2012/01/02/ron-paul-to-win-iowa/

Romney leads Paul in Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges

“In four days of polling, Romney leads at 24 percent, Paul has 22 percent and Rick Santorum, 15 percent.

But if the final two days of polling stand alone, the order reshuffles: Santorum elbows out Paul for second.”

If you follow laterite’s hyperlinkwhich isn’t a poll but a stock market analyst who says:

“If Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, he’ll be the favorite heading into New Hampshire. If he loses Iowa, then his campaign for the nomination will likely fade to black.
I suspect Paul will win and send the market whipsawing into the days leading up to New Hampshire. In such a scenario, I can virtually guarantee the volatility will ultimately result in more selling than buying.”

No shit.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 10:23 pm
That’s right Jim; the reformation was not perfect but the catholic church is now subservient to its democratic hosts.

Can the same be said about Islam in the usual suspects such as Malaysis, Indonesia and Turkey?

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:25 pm
Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate today voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans.

Who wants to preside of America.. Hands up..
BO signed this “with reservations”. 86 Senators, sworn to defend the Constitution ratified it.
America is over. 86 traitors have consigned America to the scrap heap. The rest of us better adapt.

No Worries

2 Jan 12 at 10:26 pm
Oops. correct link:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111231/NEWS09/111231024/Romney-leads-Paul-Des-Moines-Register-Iowa-Poll-Santorum-surges?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext%7CFrontpage

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 10:26 pm
cohenite, ever heard of ireland, italy and south america?

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 10:29 pm
Cohenite,

Banning multiculturalism is tantamount to rejecting egalitarianism – and I’m a Dutch as well – so it’s perhaps impossible? It requires a massive re-education project and when the multiculturalists control the education system, this is achievable?

Louis Hissink

2 Jan 12 at 10:30 pm
NW, on allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans, the laws of war apply so internees are released at the end of the war.

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 10:31 pm
No Worries
It is interesting how easy it is to become a semi-legal dictatorship. Most dictators don’t actually put the oppressions into law they just do it. Some how if it is in law it is ok.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 10:33 pm
“the burqa must be banned because it is an infringement of the social contract between individuals in a free and open society; that is, the burqa is an infringement not of the rights of the women wearing them but of the people who have to deal with the people who wear them.”

Are you serious? Clothing is now part of the social contract? I hate talking to people who don’t take off their sunglasses, but I don’t consider it an infringement.

“Be tougher on mosques and what happens there.”

Freedom of conscience and religion mean nothing to you?

“Ban multiculturalism”

?? Mate, you’re off the planet.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 10:34 pm
13 Courageous Votes

Nay ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Nay ID Risch, James [R]
Nay IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Nay KY Paul, Rand [R]
Nay MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Nay MN Franken, Al [D]
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]
Nay OR Merkley, Jeff [D]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Nay SC DeMint, Jim [R]
Nay UT Lee, Mike [R]
Nay VT Sanders, Bernard [I]

No Worries

2 Jan 12 at 10:34 pm
Hi Louis, could you elaborate this one?

“Banning multiculturalism is tantamount to rejecting egalitarianism”

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:35 pm
Yes Jim a great system, not. Anyone can be called an enemy, without charge, trial. This might not bother you, but it should bother US Senators.

No Worries

2 Jan 12 at 10:37 pm
Ron Paul still leads in latest poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/headed-for-a-photo-finish-in-iowa.html

Lets not be childish JK

laterite

2 Jan 12 at 10:38 pm
““Ban multiculturalism”

?? Mate, you’re off the planet.”

Don’t be stupid jarrah, the Dutch are doing it; did you read the link?

And comparing sunglasses to a burqa; that is stupid.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:39 pm
You can’t ‘ban’ multiculturalism. Unless you mean “as government policy” or similar. There’s no such thing as monoculturalism except in isolated hill tribes.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 10:41 pm
“cohenite, ever heard of ireland, italy and south america?”

Really, do you rate them with, well pick your own 3 Islamic nations, preferably one with La Dolce Vita.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:42 pm
No worries,
I am sure you join with me and insist that that al-Qaida francs tireurs should be dealt strictly in accordance with international law, which provides that they can be court-martialled and shot at dawn.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostages_Trial

Regarding hostage taking, the Nuremburg tribunal came to the conclusion that under certain circumstances, hostage taking and even reprisal killings might constitute an allowed line of action against guerrilla attacks

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 10:45 pm
Jarrah, you are nitpicking, of course I meant government policy; rights of assembly and association are light years away from government subsidisation of enclaving and opposing, parallel legal systems.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:45 pm
“government subsidisation of enclaving and opposing, parallel legal systems.”

That’s not multiculturalism, that’s multilegalism (or something).

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 10:48 pm
NW, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal

where the military uses them to make determinations in compliance with the Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention (that states “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 10:48 pm
The problem with the burka which is a full face covering is that you can not id the person and it is sometimes used in terrorist or criminal activities. So when something bad happens what will be the reaction of the wider society if they used a burka. I don’t believe that any private enterprise should have to allow entry of a person with a burka because it is a security risk. So if a burka is allowed in a bank then a person should be allowed to wear a balaclava. Hijab or just a head scarf is fine. It would be best to find out in the muslim community what the majority would prefer (a ban or not) as the number who wear the burka is only about 1.5%

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 10:49 pm
LOL at cohenite using social contract theory to argue on behalf of libertarianism.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 10:49 pm
““government subsidisation of enclaving and opposing, parallel legal systems.”

That’s not multiculturalism, that’s multilegalism (or something).”

No, they are the result of multiculturalism as a policy.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:51 pm
He’s not arguing for libertarianism. He’s engaged in a cultural war.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 10:51 pm
I’m not sure he knows what he’s doing, Jarrah.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 10:52 pm
I didn’t say he was a good cultural warrior

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 10:53 pm
No Worries,
Should not have the 11 million axis prisoners of war captured by the end of world war 2 being charged and tried? Would that have been a breach of international law?

If al-Qaida francs tireurs qualified as prisoners of war, they would be subject to indefinite detention without trial until the end of the war! Is this what you want?

Jim Rose

2 Jan 12 at 10:55 pm
“LOL at cohenite using social contract theory to argue on behalf of libertarianism.”

Is that what I’m doing? The thing about Islam is that it does not accept any social responsibility compatible with Western democratic society but similtaneously, as the Steyn prosecution in Canada and several here in Australia show, demands the rights offered by the Western social framework.

That is not fair.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 10:55 pm
Jim,
I’ll let Rachel explain….
interspersed with BO singing you to sleep, while Americans can be detained indefinitely without charge.

Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment intended to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and even that amendment was rejected by a vote of 38–60.

No Worries

2 Jan 12 at 11:03 pm
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/ Some muslims are trying to fight the stupidity of “Western Values”. They can’t be called anything but western values as they do not exist anywhere else. It is our stupid western framework that is the cause of the problem not multiculturalism. Racism and suggesting that people should be treated differently towards the law based on race or religion. It would be no different to allowing US citizens to carry guns around in Australia because that is their culture.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 11:03 pm
“If al-Qaida francs tireurs qualified as prisoners of war, they would be subject to indefinite detention without trial until the end of the war! Is this what you want?”

How many of the prisoners released from Guantanamo bay went on to commit further terrorist acts?

In the recent case of the Holsworthy base conspiracy convictions and sentences were done in the civil process; will these men have changed their views when released in 15 years.

I don’t know; what would you do with them?

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 11:05 pm
cohenite is right.

There is no equivalency of the role of 1950′s Catholic Church in Ireland, Italy and South America and the instigation of sharia in Islamic countries.

The mere suggestion is facile and ignorant.

In Ireland, the church is recognised as the official religion but that confers no power merely some privilege.

The Irish Parliament – Dail – is westminister system and the Church had a couple of Senate seats but that body that has vitually no role in policyand has considerably less power than the Australian Senate.

The power of the Church was its ability to sway the electorate or embarass MP’s (TD) only.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:06 pm
Monty and jarrah; you are a pair of mugs.

cohenite

2 Jan 12 at 11:07 pm
Cohenite,

Multiculturalism is simply the view that all cultures are equal, and have to be treated as such, and if necessary, by force of law. This is nothing other than cultural egalitarianism.

So in one culture you note that it prescribes the decapitation of a hand or ear as punishment for some action, and it others such punishments are considered barbaric. Are the two cultures equal? According to the egalitarians/multiculturalists, yes. According to me, no.

This egalitarian aberration seems to come from the rejection of individual rights which are subsumed by “cultural rights”. So multiculturalism is simply a collectivist’s understanding of cultural morality in the absence of a moral compass.

And how this thread has drifted into this issue when it started off with Ron Paul’s candidature for US President is another interesting topic. I had no idea it was so controversial, and I hope Ron Paul gets to be president and gets rid of the central bank. (Thinly disguised swipe at the pseudo capitalists).

Louis Hissink

2 Jan 12 at 11:07 pm
Careful cohenite, you are making Islam sound like the ultimate in libertarian purity.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 11:09 pm
“Monty and jarrah; you are a pair of mugs.”

Jeez, and I was just about to say that your comment about fairness was quite reasonable. Some Muslims are trying to have a bob each way – appealing to our freedom of religion but trying to undermine other freedoms, for example.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 11:09 pm
I agreed with what Louis said so brilliantly…… until he advocated for Ron Paul.

I’m staggered intelligent people support him.

And not because he wants the FR abolished.

That was why he used to be dismissed so easily in past Presidential Primaries.

But not this time.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:16 pm
Why then, James?

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 11:17 pm
Read the thread Jarrah.

It’s all in english.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:21 pm
James is a war monger.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 11:22 pm
Because he attracts independents and Democrats as well as Republicans?

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 11:26 pm
And kelly is as thick as two short planks

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:30 pm
No really.

Read the thread.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:30 pm
Particularly the part where I rub your nose in it.

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:32 pm
If Ron Paul became president, which of his policies does everyone think he would actually get passed by Congress?

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 11:32 pm
I think Ron Paul polarises sites like this because he is actually more libertarian than most of you, possibly all of you. Isolationism/non-interventionism, whatever the label, is far more libertarian than American foreign policy since the wars. It is precisely anti-libertarian to be the world’s policeman. Imposing the terms of the Washington Consensus on other countries is against libertarian principle. The War On Drugs is a sick joke to a true libertarian.

His views bring those of you who claim to be libertarian into stark relief, when compared to someone who is uncompromising on following through on the consequences of his basic beliefs. Paul is the politician who is most identifiable as the face of libertarianism, and of the Austrian school of economics. For better or worse.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 11:33 pm
mOnty,

your last sentence is on the money.

Louis Hissink

2 Jan 12 at 11:38 pm
Whoops, second last sentence

Louis Hissink

2 Jan 12 at 11:39 pm
Isolationism/non-interventionism, whatever the label, is far more libertarian than American foreign policy since the wars.

Since the “wars”?

LOL.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are not interchangeable terms. Isolationism has a specific meaning in American history. Do try to apprise yourself of some basics in foreign policy historiography before embarrassing yourself, Monty.

Ron Paul is an amoral abacus who disapproves of ‘foreign wars’ because they’re too expensive. His attitudes to World War II and anti-Israel exterminationism mark not as a genuine American isolationist but as a moral coward. That’s before we even start on a cost-benefit analysis of how much a world dominated by non-American suzerains would disadvantage the US economy.

What does please me, however, is seeing lefties endorse and/or speak warmly of a man who wants to end the travesty of Roe vs Wade (like Sarah Palin) and re-acknowledge Christian religion as fundemental to America’s culture and polity (backing George W. Bush, Rick Perry and Billy Graham).

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 11:44 pm
The War On Drugs is a sick joke to a true libertarian.

Right. That’s why we criticise the Australian left’s escalating Methodist war on cigarettes and alcohol.

C.L.

2 Jan 12 at 11:46 pm
“Ron Paul is an amoral abacus who disapproves of ‘foreign wars’ because they’re too expensive.”

And dangerous to America.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 11:49 pm
His attitudes to World War II and anti-Israel exterminationism mark not as a genuine American isolationist but as a moral coward.

A true libertarian would respect the sovereignty of foreign nations (including Iran) and not intervene. Morality is not the main guiding force behind Paul’s foreign policies. Libertarianism is. American citizens’ freedom not to be killed in reprisals for their government’s actions is his main concern.

I am not speaking warmly of him, to be clear. Just reminding you that his platform is the apotheosis of the beliefs you claim to hold.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 11:52 pm
“Just reminding you that his platform is the apotheosis of the beliefs you claim to hold.”

Newsflash, m0nty – very few people on Catallaxy are libertarians, despite its motto.

Jarrah

2 Jan 12 at 11:55 pm
CL Teach me about history what has been the big gains in say Vietnam 50 000 dead, Iraq 5000 dead plus the millions that have died on the other side and by the hands of dictators supported by US. The suggestion that any country (not terrorist) would attack the US is laughable. Just as no one is lining up to attack China who does not intervene.

kelly liddle

2 Jan 12 at 11:56 pm
Ooh, nice troll Jarrah.

m0nty

2 Jan 12 at 11:56 pm
Maybe three or four short planks

JamesK

2 Jan 12 at 11:59 pm
“Monty and jarrah; you are a pair of mugs.”

Is this an example of

a) insult
b) ad hom
c) fact

Gab

3 Jan 12 at 12:02 am
Could be all three, Gab.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 12:11 am
And dangerous to America.

Really? Several years of Clinton’s non-committal ‘foreign policy realism’ ended in 9/11. America wasn’t attacked at all during Bush’s administration – which is why Obama has surrendered and admitted that Bush and Cheney were right on every single aspect of their national security infrastructure.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 12:13 am
9/11. America wasn’t attacked at all during Bush’s administration

LOL

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 12:18 am
…his platform is the apotheosis of the beliefs you claim to hold.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Given that he’s an anti-Zionist lunatic, 9/11 Troofer and newsletter nutball and racist, that kind of goes without saying.

To keep things positive, however, I’d like to reiterate what heartens me and draws us all closer to agreement: it’s good to see lefties endorse a man who wants to end the travesty of Roe vs Wade (like Sarah Palin) and re-acknowledge Christian religion as fundemental to America’s culture and polity (backing George W. Bush, Rick Perry and Billy Graham).

It’s less encouraging, though, to see them hail Ron Paul’s stance on drugs while being wide-eyed zealots for Methodist morals campaigner Nicola Roxon and the Australian left’s escalating Quest For Temperance.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 12:18 am
LOL

LOL.

Monty is now arguing secret attacks on the United States took place after 9/11 and were covered up by Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers.

Time to get down to your local store, Monty.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 12:22 am
9/11 happened during the Bush administration, CL. You contradicted yourself in the same line. That is what I was laughing about.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 12:23 am
Given that he’s an anti-Zionist lunatic, 9/11 Troofer and newsletter nutball and racist, that kind of goes without saying.

Those are special Ron Paul bonuses on top of his libertarian beliefs. They do not put a lie to my statement above that Paul is the most libertarian politician in the world right now. Which, as per usual, you completely fail to refute.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 12:26 am
Monty with another breathtaking observation:

9/11 happened during the Bush administration, CL.

Thanks, Mont.

Things like the WTC bombing, the African embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole and the refusal to kill Osama bin Laden or smash his enablers were the prologomena to 9/11. George Bush was Governor of Texas at the time.

But if I’m to understand you correctly, Bush took his eye off the ball in Austin, is that right?

…Paul is the most libertarian politician in the world right now. Which, as per usual, you completely fail to refute.

It’s a nonsense assertion unless you post summaries essaying who the libertarian politicians of the world are and what they’re currently advocating. This you haven’t done. Please provide the information and we’ll work out who deserves the title.

I think we can safely assume that all backers of the North Korean-like NBN are not qualified to serve on the judging panel.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 12:43 am
I was just laughing at your assertion that America was not attacked during Bush II, CL, right after mentioning 9/11. Don’t get so defensive, try to move on.

Feel free, CL, to put forward your list of elected libertarian politicians who have been more consistent and more principled over the last 35 years than Paul. Go!

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 12:54 am
Newsflash, m0nty – very few people on Catallaxy are libertarians, despite its motto.

At times it seems that way. However to answer the question properly you would need to qualify whether you mean writers (eg Sinclair Davidson), commenters (eg JamesK) or readers who don’t comment so much.

I would generally regard Sinclair as a libertarian even if he would not vote for Ron Paul. Although his “soft on guns” comment did cause me to raise an eyebrow.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 1:30 am
Classical Liberal, myself. I have never claimed to be a Libertarian.

wreckage

3 Jan 12 at 1:40 am
Monty, not even the biggest nutballs amongst your far-left compadres argue that Governor Bush was responsible for 9/11 (whose antecedents took place during the Clinton Administration).

Stop. Wait. Yes they do, of course.

9/11 was the end-game in Clinton’s mismanaged, bungled national security debacle.

That’s what I meant. Apologies for the miswording.

Subsequent to the advent of Bush’s national security apparatus – and contrary to the predictions of just about everybody – there have been no attacks on the United States. Even a humbled Obama agrees, having now embraced Bushism in toto.

I note you haven’t presented detailed information on all of the world’s libertarians, as I requested. So we’ll agree your assertion re Ron Paul is laughable nonsense.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 1:48 am
consistent

It’s true that Ron Paul has consistently slimed Israel, accepted earmark pork for his constituents, published newsletters that would be embarrassing to Pauline Hanson and been laughed off the presidential stage.

At times it seems that way.

Why’s that, Terge? Not enough Sarah Palin hatred?

I’d like you to explain why Catallaxy’s commenters are not libertarian – a cohort that opposes virtually every nanny state initiative that comes up for discussion, that mocks Liberal Party statism, that opposes the failed ‘stimulus,’ that tends to oppose the left’s now lost Good War in Afghanistan, that opposes the lost ‘war on drugs’ (excepting Labor supporters, who invariably defend party icon, Nicola Roxon), that opposes censorship (including the left’s war on blogs, small boobs, News Ltd and anyone not liked by the Mordy Mafia) etc.

Feel free to enlighten us.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 1:55 am
Also Terge, do you agree with Ron Paul that thanks to Israel Gaza is a “concentration camp”?

Do you agree with him that the US was responsible for 9/11?

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 1:58 am
Here is my list, CL.

Ron Paul.

Your turn! Go!

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 2:09 am
So you admit defeat for a change.

Thanks.

Wasn’t that hard was it?

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 2:17 am
Jon Huntsman makes a pretty good ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WGcy8MhJo9w

Do do do do. Do do do do.

Alex Pundit

3 Jan 12 at 2:26 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGcy8MhJo9w

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 2:42 am
I am amused to see m0nty channelling Fran Barlow and asserting that the War On Drugs is favoured policy ’round these parts.

m0nty, now do pay attention. Most people here are in fact libertarians (for the reasons CL stated above) and thus do not support the War On Drugs.

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 3:55 am
Paul is a “True Sccotsman” style purity test for libertarians. Something like this.

“All Libertarians support Paul.”
“Hang on. I’m a libertarian, but I don’t support him.”
“Then ye canna be a true libertarian.”

daddy dave

3 Jan 12 at 8:20 am
“Multiculturalism is simply the view that all cultures are equal, and have to be treated as such, and if necessary, by force of law. This is nothing other than cultural egalitarianism.”

I see Louis, what you call egalitarianism I call cultural equivalence or relativism. We are on the same page there.

For too long, sundry parasites in the West have denigrated their own culture while extoling the ‘virtues’ of cultures like Islam. Popper attacked such relativism but the poison of idiots like Foucault has dominated both the secular left and religious left of the West who regard Islam as their friend for no more justification then the Western establishment is at odds with Islam and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It should always be rememebered that when Khomeini came to power Iran’s left were executed en masse.

cohenite

3 Jan 12 at 8:28 am
Ron Paul is the poster boy for the space cadet wing of libertarianism.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 8:33 am
CL – you left out the rest of what I said. Here is the full quote:-

At times it seems that way. However to answer the question properly you would need to qualify whether you mean writers (eg Sinclair Davidson), commenters (eg JamesK) or readers who don’t comment so much.

I would generally regard Sinclair as a libertarian even if he would not vote for Ron Paul. Although his “soft on guns” comment did cause me to raise an eyebrow.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 8:45 am
To answer the question myself I do think Catallaxy is libertarian even though it tears into libertarians more regularly than seems warranted. However I can see why other libertarians question it and they do.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 8:48 am
Chris Berg has additional commentary at The Drum.

Sinclair Davidson

3 Jan 12 at 9:40 am
There was a comment on the Drum article that mentioned the phrase ‘World Jewry’, and how every presidential candiate other than Ron Paul was suppoedly in the pay of this Zionist conspiracy.

Not only that, but there were two replies agreeing with the sentiments. I was going to post a reply myself but the comment got pulled.

Imagine how nuts the ABC would have gone if something like that had slipped through on Bolt’s blog, about, say, Muslims?

papachango

3 Jan 12 at 9:55 am
I agree with Chris Berg but it does not dent my desire to see Ron Paul become President. It probably won’t happen but lots of things I would like to see happen on the libertarian front probably won’t happen as soon as I would like.

Gary Johnson will hopefully still be an option in 2016 (assuming the GOP lose in 2012). And hopefully Rand Paul, free from the sins of the father, will be also.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 9:56 am
papa – there is a nasty comment above from a ‘rabbi shlomo’ too. Very ugly – but that is the mark of Ron Paul’s supporters.

Sinclair Davidson

3 Jan 12 at 9:58 am
Thanx Sinc.

That Chris Berg piece might be one of the most thoughtful, educational and unprovincial op-eds from an Australian public intellectual that I’ve read in a very long time.

He doesn’t really examine Paul’s foreign and defence policy though.

Marc A. Thiessen has another excellent op-ed in the Wa-Po:
‘Seriously, Iowa? Ron Paul?’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/seriously-iowa-ron-paul/2012/01/02/gIQAIAJGWP_story.html

So Iowa Republicans, if you are okay with a nuclear Iran and believe we should not be sending drones to spy on that country, please cast your vote for Ron Paul.

These are not conservative positions. They are not libertarian positions. They are nutty positions. It would bring discredit on the state of Iowa if Hawkeye Republicans make their choice for president of the United States a man who opposes the killing of bin Laden, blames the United States for 9/11 and says we should not even spy on Iran, much less stop it from getting the bomb.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 9:59 am
However I can see why other libertarians question it and they do.

You’re simply doubling down.

What about answering my question?

Australian ‘libertarians’ seem to reflexively resent anyone who preponderantly criticises the ALP and the Democrats.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:15 am
FFS, as Huntsman’s video shows the man believes the Skull & Bones Society is Secretly Running Things.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:17 am
Ron Paul is the poster boy for the space cadet wing of libertarianism.

Am I the only one who remembers back in 2007-2008 the mass Ron Paul hysteria that hit internet boards and blogs all over and had even pop-leftists on my stomping grounds swooning (mostly due to his pro-drug, anti-war, 9/11 truther courting)?

The “Money Bombs” the “Ron Paul raised more in a single day than any other candidate” Spam, the stupid blimp they raised enough money to hire.

Everybody on the Internet was absolutely and totally sure he’d be the Republican candidate.

Then Obama came along, and it was all “Oh remember Ron…Barack Obama?! Why he knows what Bubble Sort is, he says Abortion is above his pay grade, isn’t he clever? He’s going roll back the drug laws, he’s going to close Guantanamo, he’s going to end the wars, isn’t he just wonderful? the next JKF times 10!”.

Poor old Ron Paul got 5.57% of the Primary Vote.

twostix

3 Jan 12 at 10:19 am
Last time I checked Ron Paul was contesting the Republican Party presidential primaries, not those of the Libertarian Party.

Berg’s piece is slime and marks him out as a leftist of the New York Times variety.

New Gold Dream

3 Jan 12 at 10:20 am
JKF
JFK

twostix

3 Jan 12 at 10:22 am
Australian ‘libertarians’ seem to reflexively resent anyone who preponderantly criticises the ALP and the Democrats.

I assume you mean the Australian Democrats and not the (Australian) Liberal Democrats. If so your assertion isn’t one that resonates for me.

As for your question that you would like me to answer can you please repeat it.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:22 am
NGD: Agreed, and what the hell does “And libertarianism is about more than Ron Paul.” mean? Hes not qualified cause hes not a libertarian, but he wouldn’t be qualified if he were?

laterite

3 Jan 12 at 10:25 am
No, I mean the US Democrats.

As for your question that you would like me to answer can you please repeat it.

You wrote:

At times it seems that way. However to answer the question properly you would need to qualify whether you mean writers (eg Sinclair Davidson), commenters (eg JamesK) or readers who don’t comment so much.

You imply the great unwashed of the comments threads aren’t really libertarians (naming one commenter).

The question:

Why’s that, Terge? Not enough Sarah Palin hatred?

I’d like you to explain why Catallaxy’s commenters are not libertarian – a cohort that opposes virtually every nanny state initiative that comes up for discussion, that mocks Liberal Party statism, that opposes the failed ‘stimulus,’ that tends to oppose the left’s now lost Good War in Afghanistan, that opposes the lost ‘war on drugs’ (excepting Labor supporters, who invariably defend party icon, Nicola Roxon), that opposes censorship (including the left’s war on blogs, small boobs, News Ltd and anyone not liked by the Mordy Mafia) etc.

Feel free to enlighten us.

Just to clarify: I’m not asking for the names of people who fail your purity test but a list of issues about which commenters are non or anti-libertarian.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:32 am
Any Ron Paul supporters backing his Skull & Bones Society/Bilderberg conspiracy theory?

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:34 am
Here is why I like Ron Paul:-

1. He is in it with a chance even if remote. I would happily back Gary Johnson but he was never in the running.
2. He is openly in favour of ending the war on drugs. Few others on the conservative side have the guts to say so. Sarah Palin did take a position by proxy by saying she agreed with Ron Paul but she isn’t running.
3. He is only in favour of abolishing federal departments. I don’t think any small government agenda can be achieved without reducing the role of government. Tinkering with spending is at best a way to slow the growth not cut the size of government. Nobody else comes close to this sort of agenda, except perhaps Gary Johnson.
4. He wants to cut the overseas deployment of US troops. I’m not as absolutist as Ron Paul but I do think there needs to be a serious reframing of strategy. It is one thing for the US to stand behind allies and to be temporarily in extreme hot spots but it is too much “policing” the world rather than playing night watchman.
5. He is crystal clear in his opposition to gun control.
6. He is a doctrinaire constitutionalist. The US constitution needs a dusting off and a revival.
7. He is against the president having the power to lock people up forever without trial.

I agree with many of the criticisms regarding the newsletters and some of the nutty stuff some followers say. However every popular political figure has nutty followers. They are just nutty in different ways. And most of his followers are mostly terrific. For all his faults he is by a long shot the lesser evil.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:36 am
“the Australian left’s escalating Quest For Temperance.”

Well put, CL.

The left are the new puritans. However, they manage to hide it behind a superficial belief in sexual licence and non-judgmentalism of real evil.

Rococo Liberal

3 Jan 12 at 10:39 am
I’d like you to explain why Catallaxy’s commenters are not libertarian

I can’t explain that generalisation because I don’t believe the generalisation to be true. I simply said that with some commenters it is easy to sometimes draw that conclusion. And I gave an example.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:40 am
I had to smile when I saw your bit on the Khomeini takeover of Iran, Cohenite.
“It should always be rememebered that when Khomeini came to power Iran’s left were executed en masse.”
Point that out to the Left and watch as verbal defense mechanisms come into play.
The Left can learn the hard way, or the other hard way.

Winston Smith

3 Jan 12 at 10:41 am
Point 3 above should say he is the only “one” in favour of abolishing federal departments.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:42 am
Terje has finally gone for you ain’t libertarian like me schtik. I was wondering how long that would take.

He’s one of sukrit’s sixteen libertarians too I guess.

Jc

3 Jan 12 at 10:43 am
So Rick Perry’s promise to close 3 federal government departments means nothing to TerjeP who supports a Bildebergian conspiracist theorist who plans to withdraw into Fortess America to the distinct disadvantahge of the Asia-Pacific and to the drooling delight masking contempt of islamic extremism.

It frightens me that lunar conspiracist twits can ‘win’ elected office in Australia as well as the US on the coatails of a mainstream political party.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 10:48 am
JC – I recently met Sukrit. I’m pretty sure I don’t qualify in his eyes.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:49 am
JamesK – I like Rick Perry.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:50 am
Cohenite,

Not so much my take on cultural relativism but the left’s take on it based on their Jacobin antecedents in France centuries ago. The left can’t abide anyone being “better” – I suspect they would, in order to bolster the self-esteem of a paraplegic swimmer, break Ian Thorpe’s legs and arms to make any race more equitable. Same logic behind the Melbourne cup, I suppose – not fair for someone to have the fastest horse.

Louis Hissink

3 Jan 12 at 10:50 am
Laterite: It’s damn awful to see war pigs like Dorothy Rabinowitz at the Wall Street Journal engaged in a similar campaign of smear and innuendo.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577112761003972028.html

Berg should join a nice Women’s Studies Department somewhere IMO.

New Gold Dream

3 Jan 12 at 10:52 am
TerjeP – you like pretending that you’re perfectly reasonable too.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 10:52 am
The problem for Rick Perry is that when he couldn’t name the departments he would close during the GOP debate it damaged his credibility. However I am guilty of forgetting his position also.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:53 am
TerjeP – you like pretending that you’re perfectly reasonable too.

JamesK – meanwhile you pretend that you’re perfectly unreasonable. And you do it so well.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 10:55 am
Conspiracy theories have never really fazed the Terjester into supporting people. In fact it appears to be a requirement for him.

Terje is a graduate of Jude Wanniski university which taught and tested people on their knowledge of the gold standard.

Throughout the 90′s Wanniski became a total kook, supporting the Saddam regime and actually having discussions with some of Saddam’s henchman in New York working for Iraq’s UN delegation and taking… yes taking their word at face value on everything they said against the US.

So if the Terjester has no problem with a kook like Wanniski, Ron Paul would be a shoe in for him.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 10:57 am
JC – Wanniski didn’t think the US should go to war with Iraq. Ron Paul did not think the US should go to war with Iraq. I didn’t think the US should go to war with Iraq. You disagree. When you disagree with people you call them names and misrepresent their position. It’s your burden not mine.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 11:03 am
“The problem for Rick Perry is that when he couldn’t name the departments he would close during the GOP debate it damaged his credibility.”

Wow. That’s harsh.

Gab

3 Jan 12 at 11:09 am
Terje

You need to be accurate. That means no lying or deception.

Wanniski didn’t think the US should have gone to war with Iraq twice.

Being against the Iraqis wars is an okay position to take. I have no real problem with that. I disagree with it but that’s it.

However, you are being dishonest here as usual. Wanniski wasn’t just against the both wars, he had fucking discussions with Saddam’s thugs, took their word verbatim on everything and then began to attack the US with those positions. He wasn’t just having discussions, he was on friendly terms with them.

Recall when Wanniski took their word that the Kurdish massacre was just “a accident”.

In other (as I said ) he was a kook.

I didn’t misrepresent your position at all. I mean when that idiot (wanniski) had a heart attack and croaked it you came here on Catallaxy and did a euology on the lunatic by singing his praises. Remember? I do.

Finally I don’t call everyone I disagree with names. That’s only for a select few.

As said , you really have no problem with Paul, because conspiracy theories and kookiness don’t really faze you.

Who do you think caused 911, terje? Wanniski believed it was the US government. Do you?

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:17 am
Who thinks we should have primaries in Australia?

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 11:20 am
“Not really but sorta” is TerjeP’s likely response JC.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 11:21 am
J: Totally. I have been following US primaries for 30 years and they are the most exciting part of politics, as you really get some good ideological debates.

laterite

3 Jan 12 at 11:22 am
Yeah, we don’t have enough publicly funded elections for 20 million people, Jarrah.

We need more.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 11:22 am
Would only become worthwhile if Labor abandoned its insistence that caucus votes uniformly Jarrah.

Those in Labor attempting to break the stanglehold of unions support it.

The trouble is once the unions are confident of gaming the system they’ll ‘concede’.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 11:25 am
Can’t resist this tweet, but all Iowans think about Rick Santorum. Only candidate with genuine big vision for country.

@rupertmurdoch

Woolfe

3 Jan 12 at 11:29 am
My view on libertarianism is that it unfortunately attracts a lot of undesirable elements under the tag line because it sounds cool.

What you end up with are a bunch of Kooks and leftwingers posing as Libertarians. FFS the repugnant Bill Maher calls himself libertarian and the fucking liar is really on the left of the Demolition party.

My libertarian position is basically close to that of Milton Friedman. I disagreed with Milt’s view about going to war after 911, but that’s about it.

It seems to have got to the point where Milt Friedman type libertarians are being drowned out by the loons.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:31 am
Terje

One other thing.. you seem to be partial to that moron Sukrit. That’s a idiot who thinks the US was acting criminally for attacking the Japanese mainland.

Any other repugnant types I’ve missed that you support, Terje?

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:35 am
Here is why I like Ron Paul:-

1. He is in it with a chance even if remote. I would happily back Gary Johnson but he was never in the running.
2. He is openly in favour of ending the war on drugs. Few others on the conservative side have the guts to say so. Sarah Palin did take a position by proxy by saying she agreed with Ron Paul but she isn’t running.
3. He is only in favour of abolishing federal departments. I don’t think any small government agenda can be achieved without reducing the role of government. Tinkering with spending is at best a way to slow the growth not cut the size of government. Nobody else comes close to this sort of agenda, except perhaps Gary Johnson.
4. He wants to cut the overseas deployment of US troops. I’m not as absolutist as Ron Paul but I do think there needs to be a serious reframing of strategy. It is one thing for the US to stand behind allies and to be temporarily in extreme hot spots but it is too much “policing” the world rather than playing night watchman.
5. He is crystal clear in his opposition to gun control.
6. He is a doctrinaire constitutionalist. The US constitution needs a dusting off and a revival.
7. He is against the president having the power to lock people up forever without trial.

I agree with many of the criticisms regarding the newsletters and some of the nutty stuff some followers say. However every popular political figure has nutty followers. They are just nutty in different ways. And most of his followers are mostly terrific. For all his faults he is by a long shot the lesser evil.

I agree with you Terje, but like others on this thread, I think his foreign policies are of concern and I can see why many on the conservative/libertarian side of politics are reluctant to back him. Nevertheless, I think that his positions on a lot of issues (such as free-trade agreements and isolationism) tend to be misrepresented, wilfully or otherwise…

I also happen to think that if there are concerns about Paul, then there should be massive alarm bells ringing about Romney. At least Paul has reasonably consistent principles which he sticks by, even if it gets him into difficulties. However, Romney has many principles and if you don’t like them he has others…Much like Gillard here, who knows what he really stands for?

Nevertheless, if push came to shove (and I really have no skin in this game as I am not a US voter), I would fall in behind Romney if only to see the back of Obama.

Skuter

3 Jan 12 at 11:40 am
Skuter

On the whole do you think the world is better off having NAFTA or not. Keep in mind that foreign firms are able to operate out of Mexico and export to the US under the agreement.

So is the world better off with NAFTA or not having it at all?

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:51 am
Ron Paul’s proposed cuts to the budget (PDF warning). Interestingly, even he can’t get military spending under the 2001-2008 average (scroll all the way down).

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 11:52 am
Who do you think caused 911, terje? Wanniski believed it was the US government. Do you?

This is why I mostly don’t bother with you JC. You make stuff up to suit your agenda. Wanniski was not a 911 truther. Nor was he confused about moral responsibility. However you happily imply otherwise. You are loose with the truth and lacking in the basic decency required of an intelligent discussion.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 11:53 am
Tough call JC. On balance the world probably is better off having NAFTA than not at all, but your example just illustrates the potential distortionary effects of bilateral trade agreements on global and national production structures. Of course, we can never know the counterfactual of where investment would have occurred in the absence of NAFTA or with more comprehensive multilateral liberalisation. That is why I am hesitant to abandon broad general principles. I think there is substantial merit in Bhagwati’s ‘spaghetti bowl’ argument and by promoting bilateral regionalism we may be forgoing more substantial welfare gains achieveable through multilateral reductions in trade barriers. I do concede that bilateral agreements may be the best we can hope for, so a strict bilateral v multilateral comparison may not be realistic. It may be bilateral v no further progress…I am wary of ‘ideal-type’ comparisons.

Skuter

3 Jan 12 at 12:06 pm
Paul is the closest thing by far that the GOP has ever had to a libertarian candidate. That’s why it’s unfortunate to see limited govt types on this site nitpicking over pork barreling, ear marks and soft on guns?! etc and then turn around and seriously discuss the pros and cons of a Perry,Gringrich or Romney candidacy.

As many commentators here have pointed out it is his foreign policy and his indifference to Israel that makes him untenable to them. Nothing he can do or say in any other area can compensate for this it seems.

JNR

3 Jan 12 at 12:14 pm
From memory, I recall he toyed with Trooferism, terje. I’ll have to dig around to see what I can find. I will later.

I notice you’re not mentioning the loon wining and dining with Saddam’s thugs.

I’m not loose with the truth and it’s you that lacks common decency. Man up and just admit that you find loons attractive.

wanniski

Paul

(and proportionally ant sized) Sukrit.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 12:16 pm
JNR

You highlight the problem with the lunatic, holy side of libertarianism I was talking about earlier.

You honestly think Milton Friedman would support Ron Paul? Or are you suggesting now that Milt was never libertarian. That’s why some of you fuckers are completely over the cliff.

Milt would have supported one of the other GOP regulars and most likely Romney or Gingrich while holding his nose like the rest of us.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 12:20 pm
oops You are…

JC

3 Jan 12 at 12:20 pm
That’s a pretty fair assessment, Skuter. Thanks

JC

3 Jan 12 at 12:22 pm
Well put, Skuter.

“Nothing he can do or say in any other area can compensate for this it seems.”

Apparently he’s not supposed to be running for POTUS, but president of the Israel Fan Club.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 12:23 pm
Two views on Mitt Romney… by Mitt Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9yjhd8b84&feature=youtu.be

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 12:31 pm
Jarrah

Paul’s economic policies would cause a depression in the US and the likely result would be a one termer and a Dennis Kunich becoming president.

Heavy duty fiscal retrenchment would cause the economy to slow down. However to ballast properly the central bank should ease enough to balance the economy.

Paul would be against that Fed action as he prefers liquidationism. That’s all well and good. Liquidationist policy has a seat at the table, but you also need to have an economy that is flexible enough to take the hits, as it would mean massive de-leveraging.

I don’t believe he understands or even cares how one eventually gets to “liquidationism”. You first have to fully privatize the banking system and that would mean much higher capital ratios. It would mean a host of changes before you reach the point where you simply let the economy go it alone.

that’s why I think Paul is just a bomb thrower.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 12:31 pm
No jazz, Paul isn’t running for the Israel fan club. the fucker is running for the Hamas fan club.

You know, those guys that do the Hitler Salute and shit.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 12:34 pm
Jarrah, I must admit some of his foreign policies are worrying to me and seem to show a certain naievete as to why America has enemies. But I think that America needs to radically alter its course in terms of an ever expanding state. I think the US needs to pick and choose its fights much more carefully, if for no other reason than their precarious public debt position.

On this basis, I am prepared to overlook some of Ron Paul’s faults. He is the only candidate seriously looking at altering the status quo. Part of this is that I also just find the other candidates in the Republican field all have other issues of their own. None of the Republicans are perfect. But, like I said earlier, I think the US just desperately needs a Republican President in order to evict Obama from office.

Skuter

3 Jan 12 at 12:37 pm
That view on Paul’s economic policies is quite reasonable, JC, but remember that the US has strong checks and balances. He can’t impose his preferences, he has to work with Congress and get past the judiciary. That will limit the number and size of any bombs he throws.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 12:44 pm
Ron Paul, “not racist” say American Blacks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA

New Gold Dream

3 Jan 12 at 12:51 pm
Paul’s economic policies would cause a depression in the US and the likely result would be a one termer and a Dennis Kunich becoming president.

Heavy duty fiscal retrenchment would cause the economy to slow down. However to ballast properly the central bank should ease enough to balance the economy.

Paul would be against that Fed action as he prefers liquidationism. That’s all well and good. Liquidationist policy has a seat at the table, but you also need to have an economy that is flexible enough to take the hits, as it would mean massive de-leveraging.

I don’t believe he understands or even cares how one eventually gets to “liquidationism”. You first have to fully privatize the banking system and that would mean much higher capital ratios. It would mean a host of changes before you reach the point where you simply let the economy go it alone.

So JC, do you think the US can continue down its current path? I think many of your concerns are valid – particularly around deleveraging – but I think the US needs to take steps in the direction of a highly capitalised private banking system and yes, heavy duty fiscal retrenchment. First, there needs to be a discussion of where the US wants to head – desired ends need to be clearly defined. Second, sequencing of reforms necessary to achieve those ends needs to be determined. Then the plan needs to be carried out with due regard for unintended consequences. This will be a multi-year (perhaps even multi-decadal) process. But just because something is hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tackled…

Skuter

3 Jan 12 at 1:00 pm
I do concede that bilateral agreements may be the best we can hope for, so a strict bilateral v multilateral comparison may not be realistic. It may be bilateral v no further progress…I am wary of ‘ideal-type’ comparisons.

Ron Paul favours unilateral trade liberalization. Another tick.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 1:09 pm
No of course I don’t think the US can go down the same path, Souter which is why I’m always advocating that odumbo has to get the size 10 to save the country.

And yes , the US needs to move towards free banking.

However implementing a gold standard in the middle of that would invariably mean hardenng monetary policy at the same time. That’s a recipe for disaster.

Jazza says the congress would be involved. However the prez doesn’t have to go to the congress for authorization. Te prez can implement a gold standard unilaterally. In fact he can basically dictate monetary policy.

As for closing down entire departments … Go for it.

Jc

3 Jan 12 at 1:17 pm
Apparently he’s not supposed to be running for POTUS, but president of the Israel Fan Club.

What a childish comment. He’s running for President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

So yeah, it’s pretty damned important that he regards America’s most important ally in the MIDDLE EAST as not worth fighting for.

—————————

Sarah Palin was easily the GOP’s most libertarian notable in recent years. Paul agrees with her on abortion and on the centrality of religion in American public life. On the other hand, she doesn’t agree that the Skull ‘n Bones Society is secretly running the world.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 1:18 pm
Ron Paul, “not racist” say American Blacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHFUH_frhBw

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 1:21 pm
However implementing a gold standard in the middle of that would invariably mean hardenng monetary policy at the same time. That’s a recipe for disaster.

On this point you are correct. A gold standard (or whatever ‘standard’ the market determines) needs to emerge spontaneously out of a free banking system…it cannot be imposed by the state. Otherwise, there is a risk that the experience of the interwar gold standard will be repeated…

I suppose my question to you is that do you think ‘moderate’ Mitt will see a change in direction or more of the same? If not Mitt, then who else do you think is the best candidate to achieve real change?

Skuter

3 Jan 12 at 1:23 pm
Another tick.

From China presumably.

Shit. imagine if we had a hobson’s choice of Gillard or the Terje.

I’d have to vote Gillard, the very worst with Kevvie as PM in our history.

Same in the US with Ron Paul, I’d have to vote Obummer, the most destructive President in modern US history

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 1:26 pm
I think Gingrich could be. He was a change agent in the first term of the GOP congress .

He was revolutionary and totally responsible for partially reshooting tr nation’s finances as he rode Clinton very hard.

He went to water after he lost the fight to close down the government and if there was a point when the US went off balance it was from the point on.

Jc

3 Jan 12 at 1:28 pm
Another tick.

From China presumably.

Shit. imagine if we had a hobson’s choice of Gillard or the Terje.

I’d have to vote Gillard, the very worst with Kevvie as PM in our history.

Same in the US with Ron Paul, I’d have to vote Obummer, the most destructive President in modern US history

Surely you are not serious, JamesK? You’d vote for Gillard? Ever?

I’d vote for a dead goldfish over Gillard. Or Obama.

Skuter

3 Jan 12 at 1:43 pm
Well itr helps that that neither choice is likely Skuter but I wouldn’t leave the running of the country to dranged unserious people.

So yes Gillard over TerjeP and Obama over Ron Paul.

Some in the US have argued that Obama’s FP and Paul’s are the same so they’d vote for Paul over Obama if it came to it.

They’re not the same.

I’m with Gingrich on that.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 1:50 pm
“Paul is the closest thing by far that the GOP has ever had to a libertarian candidate.”

Errr… Gary Johnson!? Unlike Paul, Johnson is actually a libertarian, and one that I think many of us here who don’t like Paul actually seem to like.

Am I wrong?

Alex Pundit

3 Jan 12 at 1:58 pm
Anybody who cares even vaguely about promoting smaller government must be very thankful for Ron Paul.

He has increased awareness of libertarian ideas hugely and got people talking about issues that were previously off the radar.

Of course he is an imperfect messenger, and of course he will not be right about everything… but he has been one of the most effective advocates for smaller government since Thomas Jefferson or Milton Friedman.

Ultimately, I don’t think Ron Paul will become President. But that’s not really the point. Either the western world gets away from the warfare/welfare mentality, or we decline. Romney, Gingrich, Obama etc will all continue the decline. Perhaps Obama will run us off the cliff while Romney walks us off the cliff, but if you want to change direction we need people who are able to fundamentally change the nature of the debate.

At the moment, that man is Ron Paul.

Is Sinclair really happy about the direction of western politics? Sad, strange, and (sorry Sinc) stupid.

John Humphreys

3 Jan 12 at 2:02 pm
“He has increased awareness of libertarian ideas hugely and got people talking about issues that were previously off the radar.”

Sorry, but I think people like John Stossel and Penn Jillette have done it a lot better. That’s how they got me in to it anyway.

Alex Pundit

3 Jan 12 at 2:29 pm
The debate about RP’s great ideas will stop if either of two events happening: Iran takes control of Bahrain, or China takes control of islands of the South China sea (claimed by Japan and ASEAN countries) if not Taiwan itself.

Isolationism and non-interventionism will have no significance.

muddlehead

3 Jan 12 at 2:30 pm
Is Sinclair really happy about the direction of western politics? Sad, strange, and (sorry Sinc) stupid.

The basis for concluding that I’m happy with the direction of western politics is????

Sinclair Davidson

3 Jan 12 at 3:54 pm
Your preference for status quo candidates over imperfect but decidedly libertarian reformers.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 3:57 pm
Terje – I prefer candidates who can win. RP can’t win. At the same time I prefer candidates that do less harm to more harm.

Sinclair Davidson

3 Jan 12 at 4:05 pm
Ron Paul isn’t an ‘imperfect but decidedly libertarian reformer’.

He’s a nutter.

He damages the cause of smaller government.

Unless ‘smaller’ refers to small-mindedness

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 4:19 pm
Sarah Palin was easily the GOP’s most libertarian notable in recent years. Paul agrees with her on abortion and on the centrality of religion in American public life.

Finally, CL steps up and provides a name. Good lad.

Let’s see now. Issues on which Ron Paul is more libertarian than Sarah Palin:

Bailouts (Palin condoned the GFC bailouts, Paul opposed them)
Taxes (Palin raised some taxes as Alaska governor including on oil companies, Paul has never voted to raise taxes at all in 35 years)
Drug legalisation (Palin would not go as far as to legalise marijuana, Paul would)
Captial punishment (Paul opposes it though he would allow states to make their own regulations, Palin supports it)
National sovereignty wrt Israel/Iran

Need I go on? Next name, CL! Go!

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 7:10 pm
m0nty – Nobody will play your game because there is no other republican candidate on offer that is anywhere near as libertarian as Ron Paul. Gary Johnson was a good alternative and even came with executive experience but he pulled out of the race and then endorsed, who would have guessed it, Ron Paul.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 7:19 pm
Sinc: “RP can’t win.”
Its Tuesday morning in Iowa. The polls are neck-and-neck. The winner in Iowa has at least 50% chance of becoming the nominee. RP would take a massive bite out of the Obama’s vote from the peacenicks. Everyone knows it. Hes got the Tea Party and the buzz. He’s 74 so the slime machine only makes him stronger. Damn, hes in with a chance. You might eat your words Sinc.

laterite

3 Jan 12 at 7:20 pm
I’d still give Paul the nod over Johnson because he’s been doing it for far longer.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 7:20 pm
Who is the Tea Party supporting, anyway? We don’t hear much from them any more.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 7:21 pm
mOnty you’re a statist. You wouldn’t go near Ron Paul with your ballot. You’d be with B.O all the way.

Infidel Tiger

3 Jan 12 at 7:22 pm
m0nty: A Tea Party straw poll had RP way in front.

laterite

3 Jan 12 at 7:28 pm
I was talking about the contest for World’s Greatest Libertarian Politician, IT.

laterite: that surprises me, actually. I still think they would be much better off with Perry. He’s actually a chance of winning the general election, and he’d give them some positions of power in his administration.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 7:33 pm
Found the link, Rockford College, where-ever that is.

http://www.wrex.com/story/16431814/ron-paul-win-rockford-tea-party-straw-poll

“Ron Paul wins the Rockford Tea Party’s online straw poll. He earned 29% of the votes. Rick Santorum came in second with 22% of the votes. Newt Gingrich followed with about 19% of the votes. Next came Michelle Bachmann with about 14%. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney were had little support but John Huntsman came in last place with only 2% of the votes. “

laterite

3 Jan 12 at 7:35 pm
It surprises me that people who consistently believe that a Government is so inept that it is a hindrance to its own economy and society is somehow best placed to manipulate or manage affairs in other countries and cultures half a world away and whilst all the time not believing for a minute that this manipulation will result in similar negative outcomes as those that eventuate when that same Government undertakes similar processes within it’s own boarders in attempts at economic management.

CraigS

3 Jan 12 at 7:46 pm
Bailouts (Palin condoned the GFC bailouts, Paul opposed them)

Why do you enjoy being a scumbag m0nty?

You’re a nasty statist. You only pretend to support Paul because conservative libertarians are aghast at Paul’s nuttery.

You’re here to foment discord is all.

Palin was Governor of Alaska, whilst Ron Paul was all care and no responsibility.

Palin certainly didn’t support the Obummer Porkulis Bill as this letter to the Alaskan Congressional Delegation makes clear. But what money the state did get she wanted invested in productive infrastructure:

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/pdf/ESLletter_Jan12-2009.pdf

In addition to the four gas pipeline-related projects described earlier, I want to
mention one other project of national significance for your consideration. The Kodiak Launch Facility conducts activities that contribute greatly to our national defense and knowledge of missile ballistics. ……………

Although it is beyond my purview as Governor, I also urge you to consider how the economic stimulus package will affect the national debt and the future economic health of the country. The need for economic stimulus should not become an excuse for
the continuation of the unsound policies of the past. The nation’s economy will never achieve long-term stability if we continue borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign countries, all the while simultaneously sending huge amounts of money overseas to OPEC countries for oil that could be produced domestically. In this regard, I am astounded by amounts of a trillion dollars and more that are currently being discussed in some quarters”

You’re just a leftist pest who for some rationally unfathonable reason seeems to relish the role, m0nty.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 8:01 pm
I am not supporting Paul, JamesK. As I said, I am merely pointing out that libertarians on this blog are being disingenuous when they pooh-pooh his policies, as his platform represents is the purest embodiment of views they claim to hold.

Several of the unpalatable views he holds are a consequence of fundamental libertarian beliefs, on which he will not compromise. Some here will compromise and call themselves “conservative libertarians”, which in effect means abandoning libertarianism when it gets too difficult or it interferes with selfish interests.

What I am doing, JamesK, is pointing out the hypocrisy of some of those who call themselves libertarian on this site. People like CL, who are libertarian only up to the point where it clashes with their other beliefs, at which point they turn into garden variety statists.

Holding such contradictory beliefs is not in itself a bad thing, of course, as compromise is natural. However, CL can’t go around claiming to be a libertarian and criticising Paul when Paul is a far more strident libertarian than CL will ever be. CL is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The problem is not with Paul, it is with libertarianism, but CL doesn’t want to admit that.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 8:15 pm
“The winner in Iowa has at least 50% chance of becoming the nominee.”

Ron Paul isn’t any old candidate. He threatens to overturn a slew of established practices. He’s a danger to many high-up Republicans’ wallets and pride. There’s no way he can get the nomination.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 8:19 pm
“People like CL, who are libertarian only up to the point where it clashes with their other beliefs”

To be fair to CL, he disavows libertarianism, describing himself as (paraphrasing) “explicitly partisan on behalf of Republicans and the Liberal Party”.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 8:22 pm
What I am doing, JamesK, is pointing out the hypocrisy of some of those who call themselves libertarian on this site.

All you ever talk is bollocks and all you want to do is make mischief m0nty.

You have not demonstrated any hypocrisy on CL’s part and the dross about Sarah Palin was apropos of nothing and for nothing but doing what you do best: being disingenuous.

It’s not a requirement to disavow libertarianism to find Paul loathsome.

I’m assured that a reprobate like you would prefer Paul’s foreign policies over Obummer’s.

You’re a just pathetic leftist clown m0nty

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 8:28 pm
Monty: you don’t hear much from the TEA Party anymore because the time for public rallies is largely over. Now they are campaigning. There may again be a need for widespread public rallies, in which case the TEA party will re-emerge.

Only a fool would think the TEA party’s through. It’s merely entered a different phase of its mission.

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 8:31 pm
Jarrah: 50% posterior probability post-Iowa is the stats for both parties. For Republican primaries its even higher. Buck the odds at your peril. We’ll know soon enough.

laterite

3 Jan 12 at 8:33 pm
I am serious when the OP is serious, JamesK. When the OP or the thread descends into trollery, as often happens on the Cat, the gloves are off.

Every one of Paul’s policies springs from his libertarianism, JamesK. You do have to reject libertarianism to reject Paul’s platform. What the Republicans – and people in this thread who push their line, like CL – are trying to do is smear Paul with the newsletter stuff in an attempt to avoid engaging with him on policy issues. Paul deserves to be smeared, of course, but CL can not claim to be doing it for ideological reasons. He’s just doing the dirty work of the GOP to nullify libertarianism for realpolitik purposes, because its consequences as espoused in uncompromising manner by Paul are too dangerous.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 8:39 pm
You do have to reject libertarianism to reject Paul’s platform.

No ‘you’ do not. Many serious people including Chris Berg and Sinc as opposed to juvenile twits like you would disagree

Your assertions are less than worthless. Provide an argument.

After that, demonstrate the supposed ‘hypocrisy’ that ‘forces’ a serial pest like you to be to so ridiculously and self-righteously indignant

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 8:47 pm
“50% posterior probability post-Iowa is the stats for both parties. For Republican primaries its even higher.”

No previous candidate has been as revolutionary as Paul, so past experience is no guide. The stats apply to normal candidates like Romney or Perry.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 8:54 pm
I would be inclined to support Paul if he took a harder line against Iran. The fact that he doesn’t seem to comprehend the magnitude of the threat this nation poses to the entire world invalidates him from the position of Commander in Chief of the USA.

I think his non-interventionist stance is rather ill-considered. I saw that RP campaign ad asking viewers to imagine if Chinese troops were stationed in Texas. What would they do? This is one of his arguments against the US maintaining overseas military bases, and it is, for the most part, a specious argument. Yes, the USA maintains military bases in countries all over the world. The vast majority of these bases exist with the unequivocal support of the host nations in question, who would generally fight tooth and nail to retain them if there was ever any question of the USA pulling its forces out. In the small number of occasions nations that have hosted US bases have told the American military to leave, what has happened? Why, the Americans have simply left. See Subic Bay in the Philippines, or the Karshi-Khanabad airbase in Uzbekistan (which has been re-occupied at the behest of the Uzbek government).

When America goes to war with foreign nations, then perhaps there will be an insurgency in the occupied country (which can be dealt with using appropriate counter-insurgency measures, ie. the Surge; the successful Petraeus-led change in strategy during the second Iraq War). However, the scenario that the Paul campaign creates in its Chinese troops in Texas advertisement is simplistic and misleading at best.

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 8:56 pm
OCO: That’s all very well but does not factor in the depth of American feeling about getting troups out of these countries. I know from talking to them there is a lot of frustration about fighting in foreign sand-pits, and I think the ad is aimed squarely at disaffected Democrats.

laterite

3 Jan 12 at 9:07 pm
What the Republicans – and people in this thread who push their line, like CL – are trying to do is smear Paul with the newsletter stuff in an attempt to avoid engaging with him on policy issues.

By “smear,” you mean ‘tell people the truth about a wached out newsletter that Paul managed that attacked blacks and Jews.’

Sorry. No cigar.

As libertarian Huntsman’s ad shows, Paul also believes the Skull & Bones Scoiety is secretly running the world and that Abraham Lincoln should have bought all the South’s slaves to avoid war. (Because, like, they were all for sale in Dixie Trading Post).

What does please me, however, is seeing lefties like Monty endorse and/or speak warmly of a man who wants to end the travesty of Roe vs Wade (like Sarah Palin) and re-acknowledge Christian religion as fundemental to America’s culture and polity (backing George W. Bush, Rick Perry and Billy Graham).

He’s just doing the dirty work of the GOP to nullify libertarianism for realpolitik purposes, because its consequences as espoused in uncompromising manner by Paul are too dangerous.

No, I support virtually every one of Paul’s proposals save his belief that Israel must be sacrificed to the terrorist organisations he supports.

Monty the Obama disciple, Roxon morals campaign apologist and NBN boondoggle tragic, however, hates everything libertarians stand for.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:12 pm
wacked out

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:13 pm
To be fair to CL, he disavows libertarianism, describing himself as (paraphrasing) “explicitly partisan on behalf of Republicans and the Liberal Party”.

LOL. I missed that on first reading. Jarrah (seen here recently gallantly defending Nicola Roxon’s morals campaign) is also terrifically interested in my political beliefs.

Yes, I certainly am libertarian and I have repeatedly welcomed Paul’s loathing for Roe vs. Wade and his belief that Christian religiosity is central to the culture of American governance and society.

Contrary to Jarrah’s whopper, I have never said ‘I am not a libertarian; I am a supporter of the Liberals and the Republicans.’ I am a libertarian and a person who has placed on record his general backing for the GOP (like Ron Paul) and the Liberals.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:18 pm
Laterite: so the Paul campaign is conning people with imaginary scenarios and you’re ok with this?

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 9:19 pm
Need I go on? Next name, CL! Go!

No no, Monty. You’ve forgotten the challenge. You argued above (LOL) that Bilderberg conspiracy theorist and hard-core racist newsletter editor, Ron Paul, is the greatest libertarian in world politics.

I asked you to provide the names and some details relating to the world’s prominent libertarians so we can assess your claim.

I’m still waiting.

GO!!

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:22 pm
“Yes, I certainly am libertarian”

LOL

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 9:25 pm
My question to Terje at 3 Jan 12 at 10:32 am remains unanswered.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:25 pm
LOL

LOL.

Another compelling non-argument from Nicola Roxon’s bodyguard.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:26 pm
The fact is that Paul’s argument that overseas American military bases cause such hostility towards the USA that foreign citizens will take up arms against America is exaggerated to the point of hysteria. It’s clearly false. The economic case against foreign military bases is sounder, however I don’t think that foreign military bases alone will come close to bankrupting the Republic. US military spending is sustainable at present and into the future. The entitlement programmes aren’t, however.

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 9:31 pm
“I saw that RP campaign ad asking viewers to imagine if Chinese troops were stationed in Texas. What would they do? This is one of his arguments against the US maintaining overseas military bases”

I thought it was one of his arguments about blow-back for invasions and occupations.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 9:38 pm
“gallantly defending Nicola Roxon’s morals campaign”

This kind of thing is why you get no respect, CL. I’ve publicly opposed every single moralistic interference with people doing what they like with their bodies, including Roxon’s, but when I point out that alcohol and tobacco are empirically worse than marijuana or cocaine, somehow I’m her “bodyguard”.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 9:42 pm
I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.

- Ron Paul

Hear hear.

Echoing an argument I’ve made here many times:

“If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”

- Ron Paul

Anybody who supports abortion cannot be a true libertarian.

Bye-bye Jarrah and Monty. No club patch for you.

Try the Micheal Moore club down the road.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:45 pm
This kind of thing is why you get no respect, CL.

I get lots of respect and I’m very grateful for and moved by it.

To be fair to CL, he disavows libertarianism, describing himself as (paraphrasing) “explicitly partisan on behalf of Republicans and the Liberal Party”.

Now try apologising for lying.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 9:48 pm
“the reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas”

“Shutting down military bases…is not isolationism”

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 9:50 pm
“No previous candidate has been as revolutionary as Paul, so past experience is no guide.”

Really? Barry Goldwater was chopped liver?

The difference of course was that Barry loved America, loved maintaining the free world free and was essentially libertarian.

He makes Paul look like an intellectual pigmy.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 9:53 pm
He’s not just talking about foreign occupations, he’s talking about all American military presence on foreign soil. He is wrong to suggest that this causes people to take up arms against the USA – actually American military bases are generally supported by the nations that host them – and he is wrong to suggest these will bankrupt the USA.

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 9:53 pm
“actually American military bases are generally supported by the nations that host them”

Don’t confuse the governments for their people.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 10:03 pm
I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.

- Ron Paul

Every one of Paul’s policies springs from his libertarianism…

- Monty

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:04 pm
“Barry Goldwater was chopped liver?”

How many federal departments did he want to close down? What proportion of the budget did he want to cut? How many troops did he want to bring home?

He was radical, no doubt. But Ron Paul is on another level.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 10:07 pm
It is good that Paul is running but we must remember that his views are marginal and that he will neither win the primary nor the election. I am baffled that so many leftists are supporting him, though. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

Fisky

3 Jan 12 at 10:09 pm
CL doesn’t even know that Ron Paul won’t make his anti-abortion beliefs into federal policy, because of his libertarianism.

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 10:09 pm
For fucks sake we now have Monster telling us who is and isn’t libertarian.

“I am not supporting Paul, JamesK. As I said, I am merely pointing out that libertarians on this blog are being disingenuous when they pooh-pooh his policies, as his platform represents is the purest embodiment of views they claim to hold.”

No it doesn’t monster. Most of his policies I support, as most people who are libertarian and don’t support him have said. He has an abhorrent foreign policy and as far as I’m concerned his gold standard position and removing the fed is fucked up.

“Several of the unpalatable views he holds are a consequence of fundamental libertarian beliefs, on which he will not compromise. Some here will compromise and call themselves “conservative libertarians”, which in effect means abandoning libertarianism when it gets too difficult or it interferes with selfish interests.”

Are you St Peter manning the gate now Monster, you fat headed child.

“What I am doing, JamesK, is pointing out the hypocrisy of some of those who call themselves libertarian on this site. People like CL, who are libertarian only up to the point where it clashes with their other beliefs, at which point they turn into garden variety statists.”

Like, can we have an example, Monster? CL’s view on abortion is well within the libertarian thinking … you know that human life is paramount.

“Holding such contradictory beliefs is not in itself a bad thing, of course, as compromise is natural. However, CL can’t go around claiming to be a libertarian and criticising Paul when Paul is a far more strident libertarian than CL will ever be. CL is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The problem is not with Paul, it is with libertarianism, but CL doesn’t want to admit that.”

Dickhead, so tell us what the differences are. Don’t hold back and tell us.

As matter of fact, why don’t you fuck off the thread. We don’t need lefties here, Monster, as they can’t possibly add anything. Get back to the open thread and troll there.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 10:10 pm
CL doesn’t even know that Ron Paul won’t make his anti-abortion beliefs into federal policy, because of his libertarianism.

LOL.

Truly lame.

I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

- Sarah Palin

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:19 pm
For fucks sake we now have Monster telling us who is and isn’t libertarian.

I know, I know.

The Australian blogosphere’s very own Obama “body man.” The Reggie Love of the antipodes.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:21 pm
“How many federal departments did he want to close down?”

Ummmm the government wasn’t as big then. Americans for instance didn’t have the EPA issuing regulations everyday.

“What proportion of the budget did he want to cut?”

You kidding? He ran on a flat tax position and was totally against the great society movement. If he had won the US wouldn’t have these problems now.

“How many troops did he want to bring home?”

None. It was the wrong time with the soviet union doing its thing.

“He was radical, no doubt. But Ron Paul is on another level.”

Bullshit. Goldwater was well ahead of his time. There’s nothing Paul suggests that we haven’t heard before among libertarians. Most of what Barry was supporting was revolutionary.

The best way to compare is to say place Paul in Goldwater’s time. We could bet any money that Paul would be pushing US unilateral withdrawal allowing the Sovs a free pass.

Place Goldwater in the present context and he’d win the nomination and win the election without giving away hos friends in the middle east.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 10:24 pm
It’s “truly lame” to point out that you can’t tell the difference between belief and policy?

Jarrah

3 Jan 12 at 10:25 pm
No, it’s truly lame (and hilarious) to see you, Terje and various other faux-libertarians try to play down the significance of The World’s Greatest Libertarian (Monty) and presidential candidate, Ron Paul, agreeing with Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Pope Benedict XVI (and me) about human life, the horrific mistake of Roe vs Wade and the evil of abortion and euthanasia. That’s to say nothing of his belief that Christian religion is constitutionally central to US politics and culture.

It’s also lame for you not to realise that President Paul could and would utterly defund to the point of destruction Planned Parenthood and end the flow of all international monies intended for “reproductive choice”.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 10:34 pm
Mention of Barry Goldwater brrings to mind the Goldwater Rule.

It was – supposedly a new rule of medical ethics brought about by what the Left does best: slandering conservatives and conservatism.

A magazine polled over 12,000 US pyschiatrists in the ’64 election and published resuklts purpotedly to demonstrate that Goldwater was psychotic and unfit to take3 office.

There methods haven’t changed much in 50 plus years:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/health/views/24mind.html?_r=1&ref=science

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D24hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F4cFAAAAIBAJ&pg=882,4721408&dq=ralph+ginzburg&hl=en

The Left destroy everything that is good: the arts, psychiatry, climate science, the training of reporters, training of our young, schools and universities, language, health care, countries , california etc etc

The poison the well and destroy everything that is good, useful, productive and honourable.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 10:46 pm
Monty @ 8:15pm; well said.

JNR

3 Jan 12 at 10:52 pm
Don’t confuse the governments for their people.

That may be so in some cases, but it’s a complicated picture. In S Korea, for example, the older generation overwhelmingly supportive of American bases, whilst the younger generation isn’t. In Japan, lots of people are making lots of money from generous rent that the US military pays landowners, and American presence tends to be popular – except when it isn’t (ie. when a GI sexually assaults a local female and there’s a short-lived backlash).

In any case, citizens in non-war zones that host bases are far from taking up arms against the American military presence, regardless of how (un)popular this may be.

Oh come on

3 Jan 12 at 10:53 pm
“The Left destroy everything that is good: the arts, psychiatry, climate science, the training of reporters, training of our young, schools and universities, language, health care, countries , california etc etc”

So so true. Nothing is ever left “unfucked” that they ever touch.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:00 pm
“Monty @ 8:15pm; well said.”

On reading that I’m immediately cowered into submission.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:03 pm
It’s lovely when leftists pretend they can be libertarian.

Infidel Tiger

3 Jan 12 at 11:05 pm
“It’s lovely when leftists pretend they can be libertarian.”

lol.. It’s cool to say your libertarian and hav no fucking idea what it means.

As I said that repugnant Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian and he’s basically an ankle biting leftwing Democrat lunatic dishonest turd.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:09 pm
What many US voters including libertarian leaning are looking at are the issues that the president (who has more executive power than any other in the world) has full control over: foreign policy (start a war or not? give billions to the Egyptian Army and the Israeli colonisers or not?); civil liberties (wiretap without a warrant or not? order an assassination or not? imprison somebody without due process or not? persecute whistleblowers like Bradley Manning–who Ron Paul has called a hero–or not? hide government wrongdoing behind promiscuous “state secret” claims or not?); criminal-law enforcement (imprison millions for drug use or not? prosecute Wall Street and GSE fraudsters or not?); the military budget (spend trillions on world-war-fighting weapons systems or not?).

The interest in Paul stems from the fact that all these are issues central to his campaign and on which he is so far superior to the Democratic president that the difference cannot even be questioned.

Greg

3 Jan 12 at 11:10 pm
We should at least be glad that those lefties now embrace some scientific truths:

Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act defines life, personhood as beginning at conception.

Monty:

Every one of Paul’s policies springs from his libertarianism…

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 11:10 pm
m0nty speaks truth only ever inadvertently

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 11:13 pm
Unlike any of you I have the vote this year and I’m using it. No, I’m not an American citizen, however I have a kid who is American living there and eligible to vote.
I asked her to register as a Republican to vote both in the primary (far more important because where the kid lives) and the general election.

We could make this a Cat vote where we run a poll for the primary and also vote in the general election.

As we get closer to the NY primary I ask people, see where we stand and get the Cat vote in.

Of course there won’t be any polling for the general election for obvious reasons there won;t be a choice.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:19 pm
No ‘you’ do not. Many serious people including Chris Berg and Sinc as opposed to juvenile twits like you would disagree

Your assertions are less than worthless. Provide an argument.

After that, demonstrate the supposed ‘hypocrisy’ that ‘forces’ a serial pest like you to be to so ridiculously and self-righteously indignant

Sinc’s position as expressed in the OP is that he finds some of Paul’s positions “untenable”, which is just what CL is doing. They support taxing the American public to fight overseas wars, which is a statist position. In their minds, this overrides any libertarian belief they may hold, because they believe a requirement for maximum effort for preservation of the state of Israel overrides their private concerns about how to do so. The ends justify the means, as it were. A compromise that Ron Paul is not prepared to make.

What Berg is trying to do is distance libertarianism from Ron Paul. This is precisely the hypocrisy that I am railing against. Ron Paul is the embodiment of libertarianism. If he is to be criticised for his policy positions, you must also criticise libertarianism. Failing that, the only other way to avoid engaging with his platform is to smear him. Berg does not address the real reason the GOP is trying to undermine Paul, which is his foreign policy. He concentrates on the smear. Berg is another one doing the dirty work for the Republican establishment, just like CL. Sinclair at least has the decency to admit that he opposes Paul for realpolitik reasons (“I don’t think he could ever win; so the only role he plays in running for higher office is as a spoiler”).

If you don’t see the above as a cogent argument, JamesK, there’s no point talking to you.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 11:23 pm
So far, CL, you’ve thrown up Sarah Palin (fail) and Gary Johnson (tie, but Paul wins the tiebreaker due to longevity). Any more names?

GO!!!!

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 11:27 pm
The US has far more pressing problems at home.

Good to see some bi-partisanship from the actual grass roots.

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html

Gareth Evans signed us up to this monstrosity in 1992, which explains why our property rights here is Australia have been under attack.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who could possibly reverse this creeping “Communitarianism”.

Ripper

3 Jan 12 at 11:31 pm
No, it’s truly lame (and hilarious) to see you, Terje and various other faux-libertarians try to play down the significance of The World’s Greatest Libertarian (Monty) and presidential candidate, Ron Paul, agreeing with Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Pope Benedict XVI (and me) about human life, the horrific mistake of Roe vs Wade and the evil of abortion and euthanasia. That’s to say nothing of his belief that Christian religion is constitutionally central to US politics and culture.

Where did I try to down play any of this? I have never said I agree with Ron Paul on every issue but I’m actually pretty comfortable with his pro life policy position.

TerjeP

3 Jan 12 at 11:31 pm
As for Paul’s abortion stance, that is a non-issue. Roe v Wade will never be overturned. That bill is a non-starter. It’s completely irrelevant, just a piece of rhetoric that every right-wing politician is required to recite without ever having to back it up.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 11:32 pm
What Berg is trying to do is distance libertarianism from Ron Paul.

I never thought I’d agree with you on anything Monty, but yes, it’s a bit true and it’s a bit sad. Especially from Chris.

You know, as I watch Iowa on TV it is clear that the media don’t know how to deal with, or react to, Ron Paul. The honesty and the principled position he exudes, coupled with him not being a flash in the pan – he’s been around a long time and elected many times to high office – means he really does scare the hell out of people.

annomer

3 Jan 12 at 11:35 pm
Fuck you’re a lying sack of pulverized shit Monster.

I have explained numerous times why it’s perfectly fine to find Paul’s positions and Paul himself untenable.

His support of the gold standard.

His mixed up view on the Federal/reserve monetary policy.

His economic policies of putting the cart before the horse.

His constantly changing excuses for the vile newsletter.

I never heard Milton Friedman talk in favor of dissing friends in a hostile environment and he was perhaps the Grand old Father of the libertarian movement.

There is nothing in libertarian scripture which suggests one can’t be libertarian while supporting a decent first rate military that kicks arse when it’s warranted.

Again I don’t understand why the fuck you are trolling on this thread. As a fair dinkum far leftist you have no reason to be here. Fuck off.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:36 pm
Analysis of the Climategate emails regarding Agenda 21

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/

Ripper

3 Jan 12 at 11:38 pm
They support taxing the American public to fight overseas wars, which is a statist position.

Just the overseas wars?

Not the domestic ones?

LOL.

Me on traditional US isolationism (which Monty wasn’t aware of):

Isolationism is an old American outlook. If he was an isolationist, that would at least be traditionally defensible. A “non-interventionist,” however, is simply a coward.

————

…his foreign policy equivalency theories re Israel and his blowback crapola re 9/11 are just disgusting.

Deal-breakers.

I don’t have any overarching objection to his isolationism, per se. If he wants to argue that the US will grow richer if it gets out of various engagements abroad, so be it. Let him make the case. But like Obama, his starting point is a contemptuous disregard for American Exceptionalism. He repeatedly argues or implies that the US is no better than its (very real and very dangerous) enemies.

[Christmas OT].

Noting that now beclowned left-wing Obama kneepadder and NBN zombie Monty has fallen silent on Ron Paul and the subject of abortion, human life and personhood beginning at conception, a reminder…

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs,” he writes. “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”

Monty:

Every one of Paul’s policies springs from his libertarianism…

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 11:42 pm
So m0nty, Sinc thinks Paul’s views are “untenable”—– although ‘libertarian’ and Sinc has to – somehow – give up on his own libertarian views which are the same as Paul’s but Sinc knows they are “untenable” and therefore puts them on ice or some such.

So Sinc knows he’s a libertarian but is somehow willing to be a lesser libertarian in order to hold ‘tenable’ views

Are you seriously so unashamed that you’d try to push offensive drivel like that in lieu of an argument?

You’re a twit m0nty.

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 11:45 pm
“As for Paul’s abortion stance, that is a non-issue. Roe v Wade will never be overturned.”

It has nothing to do with the Congress, you fucking ignorant moron. If Paul won he’d have a decent chance of appointing one perhaps even two SCOTUS judges. One of the Demolition party judges has cancer and another is getting quite old which means Prez Paul would appoint two more conservative judges replacing two liberal ones. In that situation Roe vs Wade would be gone in a NY minute.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:45 pm
As for Paul’s abortion stance, that is a non-issue.

LOL!

Of course, of course.

Ahahahahaha.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 11:45 pm
I agree, JC, that it’s fine to find Paul’s positions untenable.

But you can’t attack Paul’s foreign policy and still claim to be a pure libertarian. Taxing the populace to fight a foreign war in a country which is no chance of attacking you is the opposite of libertarian, it is textbook statism. You are using taxed state resources from the Rothbardian “coercive monopoly” to advance the cause of your country.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 11:46 pm
Ron Paul Would Sign Planned Parenthood Funding Ban.

In a new statement about his pro-life views, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said he would sign a ban on taxpayer funding of the Planned Parenthood abortion business if elected president…

“Second, I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes, he said.

“Like millions of Americans, I believe that innocent life deserves protection and I am deeply offended by abortion. It is unconscionable to me that fellow Pro-Life Americans are forced to fund abortion through their tax dollars,” Paul added. “As a Congressman, I’ve never voted for any budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, I’ve introduced the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act to cut off all taxpayer funding of abortions, so-called “family planning” services and international abortionists.

Paul also indicated he would move to de-fund and stop the implementation of Obamacare, the government-run health care program that allows abortion funding and presents rationing concerns for pro-life groups.

Political analyst Monty:

As for Paul’s abortion stance, that is a non-issue.

Monty: quite simply the worst political commentator since the heyday of Homer and Chris Shiel at Back Pages.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 11:48 pm
“But you can’t attack Paul’s foreign policy and still claim to be a pure libertarian.”

Pure, what’s pure libertarianism? You mean anarchic libertarianism? Is that what you mean.

Anarchs don’t set the rules, dickhead.

Milt’s belief was that taxing should be around 10%, which would cover military and some odds and ends. That libertarianism is good enough for me.

In any event, Paul himself is not anrchic.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:52 pm
So Sinc knows he’s a libertarian but is somehow willing to be a lesser libertarian in order to hold ‘tenable’ views

It’s called compromise, JamesK. It’s okay. Most people do it.

Ron Paul doesn’t. That doesn’t make Paul a greater man. It makes him dangerous. Especially to people who claim to have the same beliefs as he does, but aren’t prepared to go the whole way with him.

Sinclair is perfectly sensible not to follow Paul to the nadir of libertarian purity. He at least admits to what he is doing. Berg and CL, however, are still claiming that they believe in some purer form of libertarianism than Paul, that they maintain their ideological supremacy even as they ignore policy and smear Paul like tawdry low-rent apparatchiks. That is the hypocrisy I am attacking.

m0nty

3 Jan 12 at 11:52 pm
“But you can’t attack Paul’s foreign policy and still claim to be a pure libertarian.”

WTF are you on about? National defence is one of the few things small government types believe government should be involved in. Paul seems to have taken it to a new level.

Infidel Tiger

3 Jan 12 at 11:56 pm
“It’s called compromise, JamesK. It’s okay. Most people do it.

Ron Paul doesn’t. ”

Bullshit Paul doesn’t. Paul wants to cut government down and hand most of the federal powers back to the states.

Paul wants a different type of government than I do for instance. However we both want less.

The only reason you’re making hay for Paul is because as a leftist you despise Israel and you think Paul’s policies would help destroy it. As an anti-Semite (you) I fully understand what you like about Paul.

JC

3 Jan 12 at 11:58 pm
Berg and CL, however, are still claiming that they believe in some purer form of libertarianism than Paul…

I do?

Really?

Let’s have a link to me claiming that I hold a “purer form of libertarianism than Paul.”

Go!

Monty, 11.52:

they ignore policy

Monty, 11.32:

As for Paul’s abortion stance, that is a non-issue.

There are goldfish in induced comas with longer-lasting polemical consistency than you, Monty.

C.L.

3 Jan 12 at 11:58 pm
So Sinc is a ‘compromised libertarian’

U genius, m0nty

JamesK

3 Jan 12 at 11:59 pm
Ahh, that’s why I don’t respect anything you say. Thanks for reminding me.

annomer

4 Jan 12 at 12:00 am
WTF are you on about? National defence is one of the few things small government types believe government should be involved in. Paul seems to have taken it to a new level.

He believes national defence should be strictly about defending the nation from attack on its own soil. And not starting foreign wars. That seems to me to be ultimately libertarian.

It’s dumb, but it’s libertarian.

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 12:02 am
I wonder who annomer is cutting to the very core of their/his/her being?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 12:04 am
It’s to Monty. I thought he was making sense for a moment. Silly me.

annomer

4 Jan 12 at 12:05 am
The only reason you’re making hay for Paul is because as a leftist you despise Israel and you think Paul’s policies would help destroy it. As an anti-Semite (you) I fully understand what you like about Paul.

As expected, JC has nothing but insults. I have explained multiple times that I do not support Paul and do not support his policies on Israel. You really don’t have anything in the tank, do you old boy? Just tired old ad homs.

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 12:06 am
That seems to me to be ultimately libertarian.

Like I said earlier: “m0nty speaks truth only ever inadvertently”

What’s penultimately libertarian m0nty?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 12:08 am
Let’s have a link to me claiming that I hold a “purer form of libertarianism than Paul.”

Ron Paul is an amoral abacus who disapproves of ‘foreign wars’ because they’re too expensive. His attitudes to World War II and anti-Israel exterminationism mark not as a genuine American isolationist but as a moral coward.

Given that he’s an anti-Zionist lunatic, 9/11 Troofer and newsletter nutball and racist

In summary, in CL’s view: CL is more moral, more brave, less racist and less crazy… and he’s a libertarian.

Also, bonus quote:

Australian ‘libertarians’ seem to reflexively resent anyone who preponderantly criticises the ALP and the Democrats.

CL is the greatest libertarian in Australia! Yay!

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 12:17 am
As expected, Monster has nothing but insults.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 12:20 am
So where’s the link to me claiming that I hold a “purer form of libertarianism than Paul.”

GO!

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 12:29 am
Oh forget it.

We all know you’re lying and I feel sorry for you.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 12:30 am
Here’s warmonger and fake libertarian Milton Friedman talking about the function of the military and the need to have a strong military.

But hey, he’s was never libertarian. Only Terje and Sukrit are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXMJHCXXD-c

JC

4 Jan 12 at 12:31 am
That starter’s gun you got, CL. It shoots blanks.

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 12:31 am
May I remind the court that Gary Johnson was against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 12:32 am
As expected Monster has nothing but insults.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 12:33 am
that’s okay, Monster.

As i said there is nothing inherently wrong with being against the wars. I think he’s wrong about Afghanistan particularly, but I would still vote for him if I could.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 12:35 am
That starter’s gun you got, CL. It shoots blanks.

It blew your head off.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 12:42 am
Can’t your daughter vote Libertarian, JC?

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 12:44 am
I’m trying to make this a Cat group vote CL. Lol

JC

4 Jan 12 at 12:48 am
Holy crap! CL, JC, JamesK and IT have been going to town with the cluebats. What a mess.

Oh come on

4 Jan 12 at 1:05 am
Oops sorry my mistake. I thought that comment I replied to was from CL. I should have realized it was stupid Monster.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 1:10 am
Seen this comparison of Google searches for candidates’ names? RP has dominated the field for the last 2 weeks.

laterite

4 Jan 12 at 7:57 am
Grow up laterite.

I could quote from your latest poll hyperlink which if actually read isn’t very complimentary of Ron Paul and from whence his support predominantly comes.

Meanwhile here are ypur fellow paulians in Iowa being interviewed:

http://www.breitbart.tv/exclusive-breitbart-news-interviews-typical-ron-paul-supporters-in-iowa/

Go the brotherhood!, eh?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 8:45 am
“and end the flow of all international monies intended for “reproductive choice”.”

He would end all foreign aid, regardless of the intended recipients.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 10:55 am
“Here’s warmonger and fake libertarian Milton Friedman talking about the function of the military and the need to have a strong military.”

A strong military, JC, not an aggressive one. Very important difference. The foundation of libertarianism is individual liberty and the non-aggression principle.

The people actually doing the fighting support Ron Paul. Chickenhawks and armchair generals oppose him. Why do you think that is?

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 11:03 am
Lord knows we don’t want an aggressive military.

The foundation of libertarianism is individual liberty and the non-aggression principle.

Does that mean you agree with Ron Paul that attacks on liberty begin with attacks on unborn people?

No, of course it doesn’t.

Carry on.

Do you have any evidence that combat troops favour Ron Paul, voting-wise, by the way? Please tell me you’re not relying on this hilarious NYT twaddle, which makes much of the fact that donations from military personnel to Paul are greater than those given to other presidential contenders – who, you know, haven’t been campaigning for the presidency for donkey’s years.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 11:24 am
Wait, CL. Are you saying Paul’s stance on abortion is an extension of his libertarianism? Interesting.

Have you got any other answer to my charges than the non-issue of abortion? Or are you hiding behind minutiae as per usual?

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 1:13 pm
“who, you know, haven’t been campaigning for the presidency for donkey’s years.”

So you’re saying donations from the military are predicated on who’s been campaigning longest? Interesting theory. Any evidence to back that up? Any reason why this only applies to military personnel?

The people actually doing the fighting support Ron Paul. Chickenhawks and armchair generals oppose him. Why do you think that is?

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 1:28 pm
Ron Paul in the lead in the early caucus results for Iowa.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 1:45 pm
Wait, CL. Are you saying Paul’s stance on abortion is an extension of his libertarianism? Interesting.

No, I’m not saying that – he says it.

If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?

- Ron Paul

Watching far left-wing Obama ‘libertarians’ Jarrah and Monty gradually and painstakingly beclowned over their accidental Hi-Alanist support for constitutional Christianist, Roe-Wade foe, abortion opponent and denouncer of promiscuous homosexuals – RON PAUL – is a keeper of a thread.

Oops-a-daisy.

Ahahahahaha.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 1:55 pm
548 of 1774 Precincts Reporting – 31%

Romney…..7,844 (23%)
Santorum…7,726 (23%)
Paul…….7,655 (23%)
Gingrich…4,440 (13%)
Perry……3,433 (10%)
Bachmann…1,932 (6%)

Fleeced

4 Jan 12 at 2:00 pm
The people actually doing the fighting support Ron Paul.

He receives more donations than the other, current, GOP nominees. He has a permanent campaign structure and is a movement conservative. The others are national temps. In fact, excepting Gingrich and to a lesser extent Bachmann, the others are not on the national stage at all, generally speaking.

I’d say movement figure Pauline Hanson received more donations from ADF personnel than Brendan Nelson or Malcolm Turnbull.

But Jarrah must also be saying that along with Ron Paul, the troops believe that abortion is a pre-eminent evil in the modern world and that Christian religion belongs at the centre of American national life, politics, governance and culture.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 2:05 pm
Iowa counts for zero.

Jc

4 Jan 12 at 2:05 pm
Yeah, the guy that’s coming third in Fleeced’s list is a guy who has run for president three times in his life and he’s currently being beaten by a guy who has never run and has only surged since, like, this week.

Alex Pundit

4 Jan 12 at 2:14 pm
Congress alone is constitutionally vested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, [so] I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force to any degree.

- Thomas Jefferson (quoted by Ron Paul.

Yay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 2:15 pm
The people actually doing the fighting support Ron Paul. Chickenhawks and armchair generals oppose him. Why do you think that is?

You and your question are chock-full loaded with crapola, Jarrah.

Why do you think that is?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 2:23 pm
“The people actually doing the fighting support Ron Paul. Chickenhawks and armchair generals oppose him. Why do you think that is?”

Jarrah, are you going to over those war zones and take your shotgun loaded with flowers and lie down in front of those tanks?

Or are you a chickendove?

Alex Pundit

4 Jan 12 at 2:32 pm
Alright CL, you quoted Paul’s abortion quotes multiple times and then quoted me saying:

Every one of Paul’s policies springs from his libertarianism…

And now you’re saying that Paul’s abortion policy springs from his libertarianism. So you’re saying I was right all along. And that was your only response to my attacks in this thread. Hopelessly lame of you, CL.

Let me remind you of my arguments, which you have spent precisely zero time addressing.

Every one of Paul’s policies springs from his libertarianism, JamesK. You do have to reject libertarianism to reject Paul’s platform. What the Republicans – and people in this thread who push their line, like CL – are trying to do is smear Paul with the newsletter stuff in an attempt to avoid engaging with him on policy issues. Paul deserves to be smeared, of course, but CL can not claim to be doing it for ideological reasons. He’s just doing the dirty work of the GOP to nullify libertarianism for realpolitik purposes, because its consequences as espoused in uncompromising manner by Paul are too dangerous.

What Berg is trying to do is distance libertarianism from Ron Paul. This is precisely the hypocrisy that I am railing against. Ron Paul is the embodiment of libertarianism. If he is to be criticised for his policy positions, you must also criticise libertarianism. Failing that, the only other way to avoid engaging with his platform is to smear him. Berg does not address the real reason the GOP is trying to undermine Paul, which is his foreign policy. He concentrates on the smear. Berg is another one doing the dirty work for the Republican establishment, just like CL.

But you can’t attack Paul’s foreign policy and still claim to be a pure libertarian. Taxing the populace to fight a foreign war in a country which is no chance of attacking you is the opposite of libertarian, it is textbook statism. You are using taxed state resources from the Rothbardian “coercive monopoly” to advance the cause of your country.

So far, you have not defended yourself at all against these points. Not surprising, since you don’t appear to have any real response to give. The more you squirm and hide, the more you concede the argument.

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 2:36 pm
And now you’re saying that Paul’s abortion policy springs from his libertarianism. So you’re saying I was right all along.

Do a community course in logic you utterly shameless fool

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 2:39 pm
Do be quiet JamesK, the adults are talking.

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 2:40 pm
Funny how no-one has an answer for me.

“Taxing the populace to fight a foreign war in a country which is no chance of attacking you is the opposite of libertarian, it is textbook statism.”

Bingo.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 2:41 pm
Jarrah you’re a libertarian, I’m not, so I don’t understand these complexities you highlight. However, the way I understand it, the populace are taxed to fund defence. How that defence is utilised is determined by those in power who are also elected by the same populace. How is this not in keeping with libertarian principles?

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 2:46 pm
“Taxing the populace to fight a foreign war in a country which is no chance of attacking you is the opposite of libertarian, it is textbook statism.”

Like which country?

Are you fuckers now potentially ruling out US involvement in WW1 &11?

Jazza

You need to explain your own statism and the way you support

1. State snactioned marriage

2. Statist intervention in the australian electricity market that will have virtually zero impact to reduce da global warming.

Siding with that little twerp, Monster is a fools errand and bound to send you off a cliff.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 2:50 pm
“Jarrah you’re a libertarian”

Just to clarify, I’m not. I’m a liberal democrat, with Friedmanite economic views. Sometimes I call myself a moderate libertarian to piss off libertarians

“However, the way I understand it, the populace are taxed to fund defence. How that defence is utilised is determined by those in power who are also elected by the same populace. How is this not in keeping with libertarian principles?”

‘Defence’ is the key word. If the funds are used for attack, then the government is no longer fulfilling its basic role, has gone beyond its mandate.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 2:51 pm
“and the way you support

1. State snactioned marriage”

Wrong. I support marriage deregulation. If, however, that isn’t possible, I support marriage being extended to all who want it.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 2:52 pm
“Just to clarify, I’m not. I’m a liberal democrat, with Friedmanite economic views. ”

Apologies. My bad.

Then that leads me to the same question asked by JC, regards World Wars I & II. So you’re saying the US had no mandate to go to war back then?

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 2:53 pm
Monster, you deadhead. Every single one of those stupid points was dealt with and totally debunked up thread.

Repeating that first grade swill again only wastes pixels.

As a full blown leftist you really have no reason to be on this thread as you’re basically trolling and getting the proverbial shit kicked out of you at every turn. Please fuck off back to the open thread.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 2:54 pm
Santorum 26,552 25%
Romney 26,539 25%
Paul 22,821 22%

Fleeced

4 Jan 12 at 2:58 pm
Can someone here tell me what there is to like about Santorum, and why we should support him over Romney? I must admit I’ve never followed him, always considered him a long shot.

Alex Pundit

4 Jan 12 at 3:00 pm
WWII the US did not get involved in fact they waited until they were invaded at least with Japan. Aus troops were dying in South East Asia whilst the US just looked on. So at worst Ron Paul would only go back to that policy. But I would suggest that if Aus was invaded whilst Ron Paul was President of the US he would honour ANZUS treaty.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 3:04 pm
“So you’re saying the US had no mandate to go to war back then?”

Not according to strict libertarianism. This is m0nty’s point, I guess – Ron Paul is adhering to his strict beliefs when he says things like that, thus demonstrating greater ideological purity than many so-called libertarians who would disagree.

But purity tests are stupid. Blindly following principle is stupid. Consequences matter. If a Hitler is taking over Europe and exterminating millions, that’s worth fighting against in my book, regardless of how taxation infringes on property rights, etc.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 3:06 pm
Bullshit you support marriage deregulation. You fully support state sanctioned marriage and demanding that people who disagree with the concept of gay marriage have to essentially lump it.

The real libertarian position is having the state get the fuck out of relationship stamping altogether. But you have never been warm to this route.

Statist.

As for the US having no mandate for WW1 &2. What the fuck does that mean?

Under your own conditions the US basically wasn’t compliant with your conditions. That’s just the US. However Australia’s involvement would highlight in spades.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 3:07 pm
“Can someone here tell me what there is to like about Santorum”

Not much, according to his nephew.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/the-trouble-with-my-uncle-rick-santorum/

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 3:07 pm
Attack is also a defence, Jarrah. So I still cannot see why involvement in o/s wars goes against libertarianism.

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 3:09 pm
LOL, JC. Take a chill pill, and stop lying.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 3:10 pm
Kelly:

Stop being an idiot. Ron Paul would likely have sat out WW1&2 and would also have allowed the Sovs to play the chess board as they pleased. In other words he couldn’t give a shit if the UK had fallen to Hitler and what the sovs did.

I suggested yesterday we should stick Ron Paul in a time machine and have him debate Barry Goldwater. Paul would have taken the position then to leave the sovs alone, get out of Europe and North Asia as they weren’t America’s wars.

The man is a fucking coward. The more I think about him the more disgusted I am.

And yes, Paul did accuse the CIA of involvement in 911, so he’s also a troofer.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 3:13 pm
“Attack is also a defence, Jarrah.”

It depends. It’s a continuum, there’s no clear dividing line, but the ends are quite distinct.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 3:14 pm
Jonah Goldberg has a good post on the difference between Goldwater and Paul:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287107/sounds-coming-out-chris-matthewss-mouth-jonah-goldberg

Infidel Tiger

4 Jan 12 at 3:18 pm
“This is m0nty’s point, I guess – Ron Paul is adhering to his strict beliefs when he says things like that, thus demonstrating greater ideological purity than many so-called libertarians who would disagree.”

I guess that’s a matter of interpretation, and rational thinking as well.

Idealogical purity looks great on paper, but reality’s a bitch.

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 3:24 pm
CNN predicts Paul to come third.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/03/politics/iowa-caucus/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 3:29 pm
Ron Paul campaign pays Alex Jones grade A 911 screwball for services rendered.

http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=7618

JC

4 Jan 12 at 3:29 pm
CNN predicts Paul to come third.

Right in the Pat Robertson sweet spot. Paul 2012!

Infidel Tiger

4 Jan 12 at 3:31 pm
JC
As I pointed out they did not come to our defence in WWII. This is no different to what some people assume Ron Pauls policy to be. I have never heard him accuse the CIA of involvement in 911 only him quoting the CIA training regarding blowback and pointing out that 16 out of 19 of those particular terrorists came from the holy land where the US has a base. Seems like a remarkable coincidence. If the Soviets were allowed to play chess board as you put it then the empire would have collapsed more quickly. It did not collapse due to any invasion it collapsed due to the unsustainable economic system. The US happens to be on the verge of some sort of collapse due to their unsustainable corporatist not capitalist system. The US government is broke in case you hadn’t noticed and Ron Paul is the only one to notice so he is the only choice the coffers are empty and the only thing being done is to print more money, it is just a matter of time before the markets recognise this. It is possible we are looking at something like the 70s where the only way to get a higher return than inflation was to hold gold and silver. I am not sure this is the case for Aus as the developing world makes up probably around 60% of the world gdp but there are potentially very large problems in China and there are definately very large problems with our own government not balancing a budget in a time of a massive mining boom and very low unemployment rates.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 3:39 pm
Santorum is a nose in front of Romney, Paul third with 96% of votes counted.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 3:43 pm
@Alex Pundit

Unlike Romney, Santorum has no liberal left tendencies.

He’s steadfast and predictable.

Foreign polcy-wise, he’s head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 3:47 pm
Only 15% of Republicans voted Paul who will defitely finish third.

He did much better with Independents and Dems aka ‘spoilers’.

The question is will Ron Paul run as a spoiler independent himself?

He must be bitterly disappointed.

This was his last best hope of carrying a single state from all his repetitive Presidential runs

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 4:13 pm
james
there are 50 states and it does seem Ron Paul will be 3rd at the moment but only 2 weeks ago it was Newt who was going to be the winner and before that Bachman and Perry so things can change. So there is no reason to write him off at the moment.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 4:22 pm
I’ll repeat, Iowa has no predictive history of future races.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 4:25 pm
I predict Ron Paul will get nowhere near 22% of the vote in any other state.

Iowa was his best chance to win a state.

He went all out and spent enormous sums of money.

Perry pretty well admitted he’ll bow out.

Bachmann is the dead walking

Iowa has catapulted Santorum as the non-Romney.

If Newt can’t pull out South Carolina he’s toast.

I like a Newt/Santorum/Romney.

It makes for serious policy debates.

It’ll make Romney a better candidate and forced into more definitive conservative positions.

I think Santorum is a very outside chance but Romney is overwhelming favourite.

Nobody dislikes Romney. Not many really like him either.

It’s important that the tea parties fire up for candidate House and Senate primaries and soon.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 4:36 pm
Only 5 votes separating Romney and the frothy mixture with 98% reporting.

Greego

4 Jan 12 at 4:48 pm
JC’s spot-on. Following Iowa is a complete waste of energy. The drama’s amusing, however.

Oh come on

4 Jan 12 at 5:07 pm
Well first if all JC was saying that winning Iowa was not predictive of winning the nomination.

That’s hardly rocket science.

Second of all he didn’t say that following Iowa is “complete waste of energy”.

It isn’t.

It winnows the field and can catapult a previously minnow poorly funded candidate to the fore.

It looks like it’s done both this year.

Which is good for the GOP race.

I thought it was exciting rather than “amusing”.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 5:29 pm
I’m finding it terribly interesting but then I haven’t followed the US primaries process before.

And, according to Obama, there’s another 56 states to go.

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 5:33 pm
Actually Gab it’s little apreciated that when Obummer said he’d visited 57 states, he also said there was two more to go.

So there’s actually 59 states.

I prefer the heinzian number myself so I never object.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 5:48 pm
Bring back the cleavage forthwith Gab!

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 5:49 pm
“Aus troops were dying in South East Asia whilst the US just looked on.”

“As I pointed out they did not come to our defence in WWII.”

Kelly, either your knowledge of history is abysmal or you are purposely telling untruths. Until 7 Dec 1941 the Japanese were only at war with China. On 7 Dec they attacked Pearl Harbour, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, Malaya, Thailand, Shanghai and Midway. On 8 Dec the USn and Britain declared war on the Japanese. Prior to 7 Dec no UK/Commonwealth forces were in combat in Southeast Asia.

As to whether the US came to Australia’s defence you might want to research the bombing of Darwin on 18 Feb 1942. The P-40 fighters which defended Darwin during the attacks were US Army Air Corps. All 10 of those fighters were lost as well as 2 US Navy ships in the Harbour.

While we are discussing your twisting of facts, there was NO US base in Saudi after the US moved out of KKMC in 1991, over 10 years before 911. So you either fell for Bin Laden’s propaganda, the lefts regurgitation of it as ‘fact’, or you are deliberately spreading his lies/excuses.

To the blog, my apologies for distracting by feeding a troll. On topic, as of this writing Santorum and Romney are basically tied with 25% of the vote apiece with 4 votes seperating them and Paul is 3rd with 21%.

Clipper

4 Jan 12 at 5:57 pm
I’ve been out for a few hours but I note that Obama ‘libertarians’ Jarrah and Monty still haven’t reovered from accidentally backing Ron Paul’s admirable desire to gut Roe vs Wade, campaign against abortion, de-fund Planned Parenthood, ban monies being spent abroad on abortion, put Christianity back at the centre of American political life and governance, and insist that self-inflicted AIDS sufferers pay their own way.

Whoops!

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 5:57 pm
Clipper, kelly is a spectacularly stupid leftist.

(Now that’s an ad hom)

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 6:07 pm
You’re making zero sense, CL. Supporting some of a politician’s positions doesn’t mean supporting all of them, ya nong.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 6:09 pm
“(Now that’s an ad hom)”

No, it’s an insult.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 6:09 pm
Wishful thinking?

“Senior advisors for Paul’s coalitions team told Business Insider this week that the campaign’s organizational strategy was focused not only on getting as many votes as they can, but in making sure that their volunteers stuck around after the voting to make sure that they were nominated as delegates to the county’s Republican convention — the first step towards being appointed as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.
That’s because Iowa’s Republican caucuses are actually non-binding — it’s technically just a straw poll. The only thing that will get Paul’s — or any other candidate’s — Iowa supporters to Tampa next year is if they stuck around and volunteered, or were elected, as delegates.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 6:11 pm
So a breakaway group has emerged, with Paul drafting Santorum and Romney. Will Newt go with them or fall back into the pelaton? With no real super-tuesday like last time, this might be a long and punishing race.

laterite

4 Jan 12 at 6:20 pm
It’s great that RP wants to leave Israel to its own. How novel, an independent nation doing its own thang. Some say this means he’s anti-Israel? Whoopy doo. Is he also anti-Irish? Really who gives a rats about Israel (or Ireland) and why would you?

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 6:30 pm
Paul drafting Santorum and Romney

Wow.

You really are a one-eyed paulian, laterite.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 6:31 pm
Clipper, kelly is a spectacularly stupid leftist.

(Now that’s an ad hom)

FFS, Kelly’s not a leftist either. Most people here are not leftists, even if they disagree with you. Even if they have a big barney stouch amongst themselves about something.

You really are a wanker, James.

daddy dave

4 Jan 12 at 6:35 pm
“So there’s actually 59 states.”

Pedant.

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 6:35 pm
Clipper
“Only about 400 U.S. troops will remain in the Muslim kingdom, most of them based near Riyadh to train Saudi forces, American officials said Tuesday.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85446,00.html#ixzz1iTLKNLUz

From the bastion of leftists Fox they still thought there were troops in the holy land in 2003 and maybe they were joint facilities (or bases) such as we have in Aus and regardless it is still troops in the holy land. So I will not give ground on that point. I do however admit my history is abysmal regarding WWII.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 6:35 pm
Supporting some of a politician’s positions doesn’t mean supporting all of them, ya nong.

You don’t support any of Ron Paul’s policies, excepting his indifference to Israel, his soft-soaping of exterminationist terrorist groups and his unwillingness to conduct a forward defence of the United States and her allies.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 6:38 pm
Really who gives a rats about Israel (or Ireland) or Australia or France or Poland or the Czech Republic or any other ally and why would you if you are cowardly and small-minded and unable ro progress from first stage thinking like Obama who loathes his friends and plays submissive with his country’s enemies ?

Why would you indeed?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 6:38 pm
JamesK: your post is gibberish.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 6:41 pm
Yes so you keep saying dd.

Luckily I know you to be a genius.

I thought you were going – with a heavy heart(of course) – to leave us?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 6:42 pm
I thought you were going – with a heavy heart(of course) – to leave us?

You’ll be happy I won’t be around to kick your arse in debates around the clock, and show you up for the ignorant, bombastic baboon that you are. Why don’t you celebrate by going downstairs and helping your mother do the dishes for once.

daddy dave

4 Jan 12 at 6:46 pm
http://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/bob.htm The original blowback by people in Brisbane.

I remember that dad used to say that the common reference used around that time was “Over paid, Over sexed and Over here” Referring to the fact that it seemed, whether true or not, that the Australians were being sent to the battle front whilst the over paid US soldiers took all the women.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 6:48 pm
Whatever lies help you sleep at night, CL.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 6:50 pm
When the egg meets the sperm, a human being germinates, according to RP and so he authored a bill that declares that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception,” a standard Christian Right, i.e. minority, sectarian viewpoint.

But Paul contradicts himself, like all politicians. He introduced the federal legislation after he waffled and suggested that “states rights” should determine abortion laws. Inconsistent. Look closely at Paul’s record and you will find contradictions galore.
He talks about libertarian ideals and then undermines them by trying to pass a law declaring a fetus as human on a Federal level, thereby taking away states rights on the issue.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 6:52 pm
He’s actually not contradicting himself, because I’m sure you’d find it was some sort of non-binding resolution that Congress passes from time to time or is was do do with medicare funding, which is a federal issue.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 7:00 pm
You really are a twit dd.

I have nothing but contempt for your judgement and inability to reason.

And you always are the one to start these fracas.

Moreover I’ve even complimented one of your recent posts.

Some muslims are trying to fight the stupidity of “Western Values”. They can’t be called anything but western values as they do not exist anywhere else. It is our stupid western framework that is the cause of the problem not multiculturalism.
kelly liddle 2 Jan 12 at 11:03 pm

I think a lot of things about people like that some of the comentators here might enjoy pulling wings off butterflies and my evidence is simular to that of Iran currently persuing nuclear weapons. It should be remembered that Christians used to burn witches and that sort of practice still happens in the Niger Delta. kelly liddle 2 Jan 12 at 7:29 pm

Some muslims are trying to fight the stupidity of “Western Values”. They can’t be called anything but western values as they do not exist anywhere else. It is our stupid western framework that is the cause of the problem not multiculturalism.
kelly liddle 2 Jan 12 at 11:03 pm

James is a war monger.
kelly liddle 2 Jan 12 at 11:22 pm

The suggestion that any country (not terrorist) would attack the US is laughable
kelly liddle 2 Jan 12 at 11:56 pm

WWII the US did not get involved in fact they waited until they were invaded at least with Japan. Aus troops were dying in South East Asia whilst the US just looked on. So at worst Ron Paul would only go back to that policy.
kelly liddle 4 Jan 12 at 3:04 pm

The assertion that you kick ass in any debate with me is farcical.

You’re an absolute idiot under pressure.

Pathetic.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 7:10 pm
Abortion policy whether pro or anti, facilitative or restrictive is all bull. Theatre.

The floodgates are open and will never be shut. Abortion is freely available and used by multiple chemical and surgical means, regardless of the law or what politicians say.

As a libertarian, I’m salute this state of affairs.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 7:12 pm
The assertion that you kick ass in any debate with me is farcical

Heh, I chuckled at that one. Deny it all you like, buddy. Have a good evening.

daddy dave

4 Jan 12 at 7:15 pm
So guns are available and chemicals are available and baseball bats are available and knives are available.

And murder happens.

And as a libertarian you salute that state of affairs Greg, you clown?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 7:16 pm
Abortion is freely available and used by multiple chemical and surgical means, regardless of the law or what politicians say.

As a libertarian, I’m salute this state of affairs.

It’s not regardless of the law, it’s because it’s legal. Abortion might – might – perhaps be justifiable in a situation like 19th century Europe when you had gazillions of orphans many of which simply perished. We don’t live in that society.

daddy dave

4 Jan 12 at 7:23 pm
James
You show the characteristics of JC by taking things out of context. I have admitted my mistakes regarding WWII. The muslim canadian congress http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/ is trying to fight the idea of having different rules for different people or fighting for one rule for all against the islamists and the people on the left. The muliculturalist idea that there should be different rules according to your religion or race is only a problem in western societies therefore it must be a western value and one that I do not share. It is laughable that a country would invade the US with by far the largest military on the planet.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 7:32 pm
Imagine how quiet the internet is going to be when Ron Paul drops out. Gotta wonder what the Paulians will worship. Start an ashram perhaps?

Alex Pundit

4 Jan 12 at 7:32 pm
Alex
Hopefully don’t have to worry about that problem when Ron Paul becomes president.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 7:34 pm
Abortion is not only desirable it’s essential today from a population pov alone.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 7:37 pm
When the egg meets the sperm, a human being germinates, according to RP and so he authored a bill that declares that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception,” a standard Christian Right, i.e. minority, sectarian viewpoint.

…it’s not “according to RP” nor is it a “minority” viewpoint. It’s well established and documented scientific fact.

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 7:38 pm
I suspect a lot of Paulian suppporters are OWS footsoldiers of the morrow.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 7:39 pm
JK: “You really are a one-eyed paulian, laterite.”

Hey, I only started to like him after I checked out what guys like you were saying and found it to be misrepresentation.

I’ve heard there are 7 delegates for the top three so technically its a three-way tie, even though Romney wears the yellow jersey.

laterite

4 Jan 12 at 8:36 pm
Good job Paul was there to float Santorum and Romney’s boats, laterite.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 8:40 pm
Opps. I was wrong. “Romney won a projected 13 delegates and Santorum won 12. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was shut out.”

laterite

4 Jan 12 at 8:46 pm
RP gets a pass for many because of some of his views. Maybe he is a fundamentalist Christian, I don’t know that for a fact. But if he is, advocating peace as he does certainly doesn’t seem to be what anyone’s been hearing from the Republican Religious Right for longer than most can remember.

And for most folks peace is the most urgent need at this point. If a nuclear conflict occurs it won’t matter about social security, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research. We’ll all be busy dying.

So yes, even though don’t agree with all of Paul’s agenda, you can see why they would see him as the best hope for the future. With peace, a new government could reinstate the Constitution, sort out the financial mess at the FED, prosecute the criminal financial class according to the rule of law, prosecute those who have violated the Geneva convention laws, all the things he has advocated.

Paul holds out the promise of more autonomy for the individual, liberty, and freedom (including religious freedom). And that’s a big part of the reason why he’s a contender.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 8:47 pm
I note CL again shrinks and hides away from debate. There is only one coward in this thread, and it isn’t Ron Paul.

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 8:56 pm
Greg

Does Paul also walk on water and multiply fish?

JC

4 Jan 12 at 9:01 pm
The delegate numbers are quite important, laterite.

Ron Paul finished a very good third place ony 3000 votes behind in essentially a 100,0000 odd total.

I think that will be his best finish.

The question is will he opt out of the primaries and run in the general election as an independent?

He hasn’t ruled it out despite repeated questioning.

What do you think?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 9:04 pm
unimportant

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 9:04 pm
“It’s not regardless of the law”

Even when illegal, abortions happen frequently. Making them legal makes them safer.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 9:06 pm
Abortions occur regardless of the law. Always have and always will. If you don’t know that, you’re either a fool or delusional.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 9:11 pm
That is actually an important and valid point Jarrah.

Although if it were illegal in Australia, I doubt there would be 100,000 of them per year in a rough guesstimate pop of fertile females of 3 odd million.

And my paid work helps pay for it.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 9:11 pm
You do a good inpression Greg

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 9:12 pm
JamesK, many are grateful your paid work pays for abortions. It’s all you are good for. And in your case we can only wish pregnancy termination retrospectivity. It would make for one less loudmouth.

Greg

4 Jan 12 at 9:16 pm
Classy too.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 9:18 pm
Greg sounds familiar…..just can’t place her yet…

Gab

4 Jan 12 at 9:32 pm
“I doubt there would be 100,000 of them per year”

I suspect you’re right, but of course the problem with black market figures is that they’re difficult to estimate accurately.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 9:44 pm
Would she prefer TransGFree® or StayFree®, Gab?

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 9:48 pm
James you would pay much more if they are born in Australia if that is your worry. We have a breeding bonus in this country which pays out at the rate of $5000 per live birth plus the medical costs of the birth. This is not counting all the tax breaks or hand outs after the birth so I do not know why you bring money into the Aus situation.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 9:58 pm
I note CL again shrinks and hides away from debate. There is only one coward in this thread, and it isn’t Ron Paul.

A moment of maximum LOL.

Watching left-wing Obama ‘libertarians’ Jarrah and Monty gradually and painstakingly beclowned over their accidental Hi-Alanist support for constitutional Christianist, Roe-Wade foe, abortion opponent, “reproductive rights” de-funder and denouncer of promiscuous homosexuals – RON PAUL – makes this thread a bookmark keeper.

It’s clear to all that the only reason both phonies support Ron Paul is that they hate Israel and George Bush’s national security infrastructure (which got bin Laden).

Hey, speaking of bin Laden…

Ron Paul Would Not Have Ordered Osama Bin Laden Killing.

Would we have sent the helicopters into London? Because they were afraid the information would get out. No you don’t want to do that.

Ron Paul: No To Black Helicopters.™

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 10:26 pm
JK: “The question is will he opt out of the primaries and run in the general election as an independent?”

I think he would get votes by threatening to run as an independent, staying in, and attempting to rehabilitate himself in the media. He is doing so well in the social media though, and the others are rubbish there, that has to encourage him to go all the way. Maybe he is not serious about being president, or maybe he is being coy.

laterite

4 Jan 12 at 10:36 pm
Still smarting, CL? It will all seem better in the morning.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 10:36 pm
Because I find abortion morally repugnant kelly.

You wouldn’t understand as you are a leftist.

Why should I have to fund a state sponsored and state encouraged morally repugnant procedure desecration of human life?

I see it as nothing other than state sponsored murder kelly.

it’s a sign of civilisational rot evident at the end of the Roman Empire.

And I’m not religious kelly.

Like Christopher Hitchens has demonstrated, you don’t need to even believe in God to find it morally repugnant

At the very least I should not have to fund such immorality.

JamesK

4 Jan 12 at 10:41 pm
Back to the substantial good stuff on the Ron Paul ledger:

Ron Paul on Fox Business: Global Warming is a Hoax [7:01 ].

The greatest hoax that’s been around in many many years – if not hundreds of years – has been this hoax, the environment and ‘global warming.’ You notice they don’t call it ‘global warming’ any more?

He goes on to ridicule Obama’s epic ‘stimulus’ failure and “the Krugmans of the world” who argue, ‘hey we should have spent more!’

I’m seriously having another look at this bloke.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 10:42 pm
Still smarting, CL? It will all seem better in the morning.

“Smarting” over an enjoyable-for-all beclowning of you and Monty?

You really are becoming a pretty dumb troll, Jarrah.

You used to be better than this.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 10:45 pm
Hey, Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution.

Here’s an angry Jarrah in October, 2011:

Some 36 percent of Democrats believe that humans naturally evolved; 22 percent believe that evolution was guided by a supreme being; and 30 percent don’t believe humans have evolved over time. The corresponding figures for Republicans are 23 percent, 26 percent, and 39 percent, respectively.”

I’m shocked. I thought a large minority, at most, would deny humans evolved naturally, not a large majority. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Could it be that they are taking public positions at odds with their private views, just to ensure they don’t lose the true believers among the voters?

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 10:50 pm
“I’m seriously having another look at this bloke.”

lol…

I can’t understand why lefties support him other than the Israel issue.

His position over Israel is actually intellectually consistent with his problems over moral hazard and bailouts.

I still think he’s a loon

JC

4 Jan 12 at 10:51 pm
It’s about Jews and Iraq for leftie ‘libertarians.’

It’s always about Jews and Iraq.

That’s the Congressionally authorised Iraq War I’m talking about. Not one of Obama’s illegal wars.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 10:55 pm
The greatest hoax that’s been around in many many years – if not hundreds of years – has been this hoax on ‘the environment’ and ‘global warming.’ You notice they don’t call it ‘global warming’ any more? (Laughing).

- Ron Paul

Every one of Paul’s policies springs from his libertarianism…

- Monty

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 10:57 pm
I’m seriously having another look at this bloke.

Ron Paul is like a pork chop served with dog shit mustard. So much to like and yet…

Infidel Tiger

4 Jan 12 at 11:05 pm
Stop lying CL, I don’t support Paul and I don’t claim to be libertarian. You are flailing in pitiful manner at this point, failing once again to engage with my arguments.

Are you going to go all the way and say I’m an anti-semite, like JC did? Are you ready to be that shameless? You might as well, you’ve shamed yourself every other way in this thread.

Or, you could back down and admit you’re smearing Paul because he is too libertarian for you. It’s okay, Sinclair found a way to do it. You too, CL, can state that you are not prepared to follow Paul’s ideology to its logical conclusions, without your world view falling apart. Or can you?

m0nty

4 Jan 12 at 11:16 pm
…I don’t support Paul…

The Fat Lady sings.

http://mrspencer.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fat+lady+sings.jpg

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 11:30 pm
CL – ever notice how the more precarious your position is, the more egregious your lies, and the more you repeat yourself?

Sadly, you didn’t used to be better in that respect. It’s always been so.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 11:30 pm
CL – ever notice how the more precarious your position is, the more egregious your lies, and the more you repeat yourself?

Formerly known as the ‘no, you’re lying.’

Always compelling.

What we’ve all noticed is the growing precariousness of you and your fellow-travelling Obama zombie – Monty – get beclowned while pretending to lionise Ron Paul.

If only it was all about the Jews and Iraq (Bush).

But alas, I’ve shown it’s not.

Another interesting thing: all your talk of chicken hawks and unlawful wars hasn’t included one single reference to Barack Obama or his illegal wars in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 11:34 pm
“Are you going to go all the way and say I’m an anti-semite, like JC did?”

It’s a fair conclusion arrived at from deductive logic, Monster.
Seeing you’re a leftie, I’m perplexed as to why you and other leftwingers are so enamored with Ron Paul. It can’t be his domestic policies so it has to be hatred of Israel so I figured that hatred of Israel trumps all else for you.

JC

4 Jan 12 at 11:38 pm
CL
Had a look at the Youtube clip and coupled together with the numbers you indicated he gave a good political answer of I don’t know but believe in the creator. If he really believes that man has not evolved from apes then he is mad but less mad than the rest as at least he has one reality in check that is that the US government is broke.

kelly liddle

4 Jan 12 at 11:40 pm
If he really believes that man has not evolved from apes then he is mad but less mad than the rest as at least he has one reality in check that is that the US government is broke.

Fair point.

C.L.

4 Jan 12 at 11:43 pm
Paul on gays in the military. He’s right, group rights are fucking bullshit.

He says we derive our rights from out creator (natural rights) not because we belong to a group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU&feature=related

JC

4 Jan 12 at 11:49 pm
“Formerly known as the ‘no, you’re lying.’ Always compelling.”

Hey, you started it.

“beclowned”

Funny how that word creeps in so often, almost as if you’re trying to convince yourself. You’re not convincing anyone else.

“But alas, I’ve shown it’s not.”

LOL. You keep coming back to us with non sequiturs about Ron Paul’s beliefs (when m0nty spoke about policies) as if his stupid ideas negate his good ones, or my support for his good ideas means I support his stupid ones.

“hasn’t included one single reference to Barack Obama or his illegal wars in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan.”

Because the topic has been Ron Paul. Haven’t you noticed? Besides, you’re pretty much the only person I know who feels compelled to run comparative condemn-athons. It smacks of insecurity in your arguments, old boy.

Jarrah

4 Jan 12 at 11:50 pm
James
“Because I find abortion morally repugnant” I think you should adopt Ron Pauls Motis Operandi. Do not talk in absolutes because then you will find your position hard to defend in the future. For example a girl gets raped and she is offered the day after pill. This to you is morally repugnant is it?

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 12:41 am
Funny how that word creeps in so often, almost as if you’re trying to convince yourself. You’re not convincing anyone else.

It’s just a word – an especially useful one while discussing anything with you and Monty. I’m not trying to convince myself of anything. Nor do I have to convince others. You and Monty have been ~~beclowned~~ woefully embarrassed to an extent that calls into question both your moral sincerity and your intellectual competence.

Incidentally, for years you’ve wheeled out concern tolling about the security of your interlocutors when you’ve lost. Nobody’s buying it. Not at this site.

C.L.

5 Jan 12 at 1:01 am
Don’t be silly kelly.

It is not at all clear that the morning after pill is an abortifacient kelly.

That I find abortion morally repugnant is not an absolutism anyway.

Is murder okay if an incapacitated person wants to die and is incapable by their own hand kelly?

Is saying that murder is morally repugnant an absolutism?

And what has any of your relativist drivel got to do with my wages funding abortion?

What percentage of the minimum 100,000 (non morning after pill) abortions per year do you think follow a pregnancy caused by a rape?

Lastly do you think it is moral for the state to take my property to fund 100,000 (minimum) abortions per year, 99,999 of which I undoubtedly would find unequivocally morally repugnant?

If so, how do you rationalise that theft by the state?

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 1:02 am
It’s a fair conclusion arrived at from deductive logic, Monster.
Seeing you’re a leftie, I’m perplexed as to why you and other leftwingers are so enamored with Ron Paul. It can’t be his domestic policies so it has to be hatred of Israel so I figured that hatred of Israel trumps all else for you.

I’m not enamoured with him, JC. I’m not lionising him, as CL claimed. FFS do you people ever stop lying?

I am attacking CL by pointing out his hypocrisy over smearing Paul and thus avoiding engagement with Paul’s policies. CL obviously does this because he can’t handle the fact that Paul’s policies are uncompromisingly libertarian in nature, and imply abandoning allies like Israel to the depradations of the Middle East.

In saying this, I am not supporting Paul or attacking Israel. Paul’s policies are untenable, as Sinclair rightly states. They would cause chaos and probably engineer WW3. I don’t want that. Get this through your thick Cambrian skulls (pun intended).

My agenda here is not to praise Paul or laud libertarianism. It is to point out to CL that he is being disingenuous, hypocritical, cowardly and flat out lying if he tries to claim the high moral ground against Paul by smearing him with 20-year-old scandals and failing to man up to the fact that it’s his policies that CL disagrees with – policies that are direct extrapolations of beliefs that CL claims to hold.

Calling me an anti-semite is a fairly big insult, JC, worse than the rafts of other rubbish you’ve thrown at me. At this point I’d normally appeal to a person’s better nature, but I’m not sure you have one at this point if you’re prepared to stoop that low.

m0nty

5 Jan 12 at 1:07 am
JC
“He’s right, group rights are fucking bullshit”

So what is your position on Ron Paul you seem to be warming to him. A day or 2 ago you say he is crazy and today you are defending him. Maybe because the market was up today lol.

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 1:11 am
“Friends, Romans, Catallaxians, lend me your ears; I come to bury CL, not to praise Paul…”

(Sorry, m0nty, I know you’re being deadly earnest, but something you wrote made me think of the above. And also, the devil made me do it).

Gab

5 Jan 12 at 1:12 am
Poor old Jarrah and Monty.

They thought they were on a Hi-Alanist sure thing with Ron Paul and his opposition to da warz.

Then it went decisively, horribly pear-shaped.

They nudged and poked at that war ball only to find…

C.L.

5 Jan 12 at 1:22 am
You have nothing at all to say, CL, yet you keep saying it.

m0nty

5 Jan 12 at 1:30 am
Look up thread, Kelly. You’ll see that I said there is a large number of things I agree with Ron Paul. He’s libertarian after all see we would agree on most things.

But also have a look why I think he’s a kook and why i think he would make an awful foreign policy prez.

That hasn’t changed.

I don’t get all misty eyed when there’s a candidate that agrees with my positions.

JC

5 Jan 12 at 1:36 am
James
“If so, how do you rationalise that theft by the state?”

I agree with that in which case I should not be liable for unmarried teenagers having babies or anyone else for that matter. If someone wants to have a baby then like in the olden days about 10 years ago then I should not have to pay a jackpot for the fact of a successful birth. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some young people actually get pregnant for the $5000. Another point is why is it ok for this type of social engineering, breeding the poor. I am assuming that rich people are not after the cash.

Regardless of your opinion euthenasia is not murder. Do I think euthenasia is ok? Yes I do but the problem is how to stop the occasional murder. It is legal in some countries anyway.

It is also not regarded as theft if the government does not spend the money in the particular way you want. I found the stimulas packages morally repugnant but I do accept grudgingly that my government can do what they want (within the constitution) and the majority of the people voted for people who formed this government. I just hope they change their mind next time.

Australia is suffering from the same problems Ron Paul talks about in the US with the Feds taxing and spending too much and also going into areas of the States reponsibilities. It should be remembered that some states broke the constitutional rules when they taxed fuel but they were never punished and the abuse went on for many years. Our land is becoming lawless and unrespectful of the number 1 law in the land the constitution.

Both here and the US tax is around 30% of GDP and this means directly and indirectly anything you buy on average will have 30% of the price tag in tax. Ron Paul has, to use a corny term awakened my apathy regarding our super sized governments that are in many ways disfunctional. I do differ some what on the remedies and there are differences comparing Aus to the US.

Sorry for Ranting a bit but RON PAUL is the man.

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 1:38 am
JC
So except the fact he is not a warmonger you basically like the guy.

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 1:40 am
Stop being an idiot. Ron Paul would likely have sat out WW1&2 and would also have allowed the Sovs to play the chess board as they pleased. In other words he couldn’t give a shit if the UK had fallen to Hitler and what the sovs did.

Nor did the Yanks before pearl harbour either. Churchill was so annoyed by this he even started to run their supply ships next to American ones in the hope the Nazi’s would strike them and get the US involved.

Sean

5 Jan 12 at 1:49 am
I’m now not sure whether you now agree with me that there shouldn’t be government funding of abortion on demand.

If you do, i think you are now arguing that since the resulting preganancy is going to cost me I might as well be happy to fund the morally repugnant abortion.

Whose worried about mere money now kelly?

If an unmarried teenager wants a baby for economic reasons then she is likely to abort her baby whether I pay for it or she pays for it.

As an aside ongoing pensions for single unmarried mothers should not be open-ended but dependent on work or work for the dole or education.

Or we’ll end up with the British and Greek culture where now three generations of many of the same families have never worked.

It erodes human dignity.

On that at least I agree with Ron Paul.

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 1:53 am
unlikely

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 1:54 am
Soon you will need a PhD and 10 years training to work at a childcare centre so good luck to mothers being able to afford to work and pay through the nose for glorified baby sitters.

Sean

5 Jan 12 at 2:01 am
I personally do not have a problem with abortions in general but of course the cut off time etc is an issue. Seems we at least agree that paying someone money to encourage breeding is bad also. Yes money does concern me a lot at the moment Aus is in a boom like we have never seen before but massive deficits and the national debt is around 35% so what do you think will happen if unemployment hits 10% as it has about 3 times in the last 40 years or even just returns to average of around 7%. http://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html I think it is probably reaonably accurate as Qld for example has a debt around $50 billion.

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 2:07 am
Well fair enough but you are missing the point.

You don’t but if many fellow citizens do find abortion on demand morally equivalent to murder why should the state force us to fund it?

Isn’t that merely rubbing our noses in it?

Doesn’t that show utter contempt for like-minded citizens to me?

Shouldn’t that be an outrage?

It isn’t.

Why not?

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 8:42 am
So far as RPs foreign policy is concerned, foreign policy always seems fraught with situation-specific compromises. Eg. what would Paul do about the current situation in the Straits of Hormuz, with Iran threatening to close it. Would he stop US patrols, and invite a blockade, and threaten the US oil price? How much of a concern to him are maritime conventions in the middle-east or indo-china?

Its not just about bases. You can have non-intervention as a general principle but still carry a big stick, with the reach they have these days. Saudi’s have plenty of missiles to defend their infrastructure anyway.

I would like to hear what he said on specifics, and of course when he is fully appraised of security situations, its not going to be as cut-and-dried.

laterite

5 Jan 12 at 9:05 am
He said he woukdn’t have taken out Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki .

Obama did.

Paul would lose 50 states in a general election against Obama.

He’s Obama’s wet-dream, laterite.

Wake up and smell the roses

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 9:15 am
JK: If you represent what he said accurately, people would see the truth, that he siad he would not have done it “in that way”, he would have worked with the Government, out of respect for international law, which is consistent with his opposition to running jackboots over other nation’s sovereignty.

But you make him sound like a dove, or an isolationist, deliberately misconstruing his position.

David Stockwell

5 Jan 12 at 9:53 am
I personally do not have a problem with abortions in general

Make the case for late term partial birth abortions then, stop promulgating the big lie that “abortion” is exclusively and merely limited to “groups of cells” or lying and conflating Abortion with…the morning after pill (wtf).

Abortion presently regularly involves near term, fully formed and healthy babies being either stabbed in the heart with poison or dragged out of the womb and then then stabbed in the brain through the back of the head. So if you’re going to argue for abortion at least be honest and argue the facts of the matter, not some pathetic, fabricated, cowardly leftist narrative that abortion is just a bunch of cells a month or so in.

twostix

5 Jan 12 at 10:58 am
James and twostix

I did say the cut off time is an issue and the day after pill is abortion at the earliest time possible. So if you want to argue about the cut off time that is ok and I do not claim to know about what the cut off dates are anyway. I might find giving money to unwed teenagers on handouts to have babies as abhorent as you find abortion and unless you believe in anarchy then governments do make decisions. Why is your belief about abortion morally superior to my belief about social engineering which not only wastes money but encourages those who it could be argued are the least suitable to be parents to have children? You accuse me a being a leftist at the same time as both of you are behaving like those on the left thinking you are morally superior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion Also how do you consider the lives of the estimated 68 000 people who die from illegal abortions each year. So taking a one sided fundamentalist stand is probably more harmful than a bit of pragmatism and we do not live in your utopian moral dictatorship.

As you can see I might dissagree with this aspect of Ron Pauls opinion but his foreign policy and fiscal policy is enough and like others said here it is a non issue as nothing is likely to change.

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 12:59 pm
Because the wrongs of the welfare state whilst distasteful and human spirit eroding aren’t quite the equivalence to murder.

You have no particular problem with it but I haven’t said you are evil although I believe abortion is evil.

I have no doubt that it’s legality would be supported by a majority in this country, say 2/3rds.

30% wouldn’t.

Ok but why do we have to pay for it?

That was my objection.

It should be noted that in the USA a majority do not support it’s legality and a much larger % again do not support its federal funding.

That’s because leftism has much greater power than its base (10-20%) and because 9 members of the SCOTUS decided 5:4 the issue in RoevWade.

That 9 judges in smocks decided this issue (for or against) is another triumph of leftism over liberty.

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 1:47 pm
James
To be very blunt you have to pay for it if you are a net tax payer as approximately half the population are not net tax payers and they in one way or another will be using your money. If you are saying let the half that are net tax payers use there own money and the other half use the welfare they recieve already that is fair enough and I support that. I would suggest the issue has little to do with leftism if you mean socialism and welfare by that term because as you can see I am against a lot of welfare just not all and may hold very different views to you on social issues. Maybe the better term is the less socially conservative.

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 2:43 pm
Leftism is much much more than socialism and welfare kelly.

It encompases anti-religious radical secularism, egalitarianism, moral equivalence, gender indifference, anti-development, platonic guardian leadership and radical environmentalism just to name a few other characteristics off the top of my head.

I am a taxpayer.

Why should i have to pay for a morally repugnant act that to me is equivalent to mass murder?

You lost me.

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 4:04 pm
I am not saying you should but the reality is in our socialist society you are paying for the bottom half of the population, so unless you change that fact no way to not pay unless you ban it completely and then you will end up with other consequences. Mainly I am saying I don’t expect you to but I don’t want abortion banned and about the current rules I do not have an opinion as I don’t know them. So the only ways for you to get your wish is a complete ban or massive changes to our wealth redistribution by our government.

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 5:49 pm
The situation with Iran is very critical indeed. The abyss yawns wide, waiting for the inhabitants of our poor abused planet. I deeply fear that the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz will explode into a conflagration that consumes the world. And then the roaches can get on with the business of populating the Earth in peace. Still hope does remain, despite the very valid criticism of Ron Paul, he remains the only candidate to advocate peace. That is reason enough to welcome his candidacy, he actually provides a map towards peace. Something the Nobel Peace Prize winning, but corruptly odorous B.O. has aggressively shunned.

Greg

5 Jan 12 at 5:59 pm
Greg,

you’re aren’t Bob Brown and Christine Milne’s love child are you?

JC

5 Jan 12 at 6:11 pm
I am happy to pay taxes for our government to function kelly.

I believe does too much (and badly) and taxes are consequently too high but I live in a civil society and if the citizens representatives make those laws I abide by them.

That’s not the same as my taxes funding what I see as morally repugnant activity on a mass scale.

So a ban on government funding of on-demand abortion is all that is required.

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 6:15 pm
JC, I don’t think there has been a year since the outbreak of the First World War that people haven’t worried about world war or localised war.

Today there is even more reason to worry given the technological means available to wage war on an unthinkable scale, the problems of population pressure, the fight for control over and exploitation of energy and other resources that underpin so much of international political relations.

Greg

5 Jan 12 at 6:19 pm
Greg has to be Phil, or related to Phil.

Gab

5 Jan 12 at 6:23 pm
What is it about Iran? The country has never invaded anywhere. It is the US who is threatening them for the 3rd time and if you listen to any of the other republican candidates they say they will invade the country one way or another. Who is the agressor? The fact that Amedinajad sometimes says stupid things, so what so do many politicians and it is best to ignore the stupid things they say. Example “provides an opportunity to apply the blowtorch to the OPEC organization, and it’s time that happened,” Rudd said. So by your pre-emptive doctrine the OPEC countries should have invaded us as we were talking in a threatening manner, maybe Rudd was calling for world wide domination by Australia. Or should they as they did just ignore some stupid prime minister from some backwater. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXbZUXvV3.w8

kelly liddle

5 Jan 12 at 6:40 pm
And Iran is still owed UN-sanctioned war reparations from the Iraq-Iran war. Who’s enforcing that?

laterite

5 Jan 12 at 7:25 pm
Like you, I toss and turn at night desperately worried about that issue laterite.

Iran was hard done by Saddam.

Good job George Bush punished him eh?

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 7:37 pm
Bush Snr. should have finished him off. Limited war, pff… Hindsight is 20:20.

laterite

5 Jan 12 at 7:41 pm
I don’t think hindsight was required to see the tragedy of that woeful decision forced on Bush by the international alliance

The marsh arabs paid the ultimate price.

JamesK

5 Jan 12 at 7:58 pm
You could have Ron Paul as President, Ralph Nader as Vice, and even Kucinich as secretary of state. Just so long as you had Codevilla, on defence. So that every villain out there knew, that if Congress OVERTURNED the vetoes of the peace-loving executive, and forced Ron Paul to go to war………….

… the understanding would be, with Codevilla at defence, that if things went that far, that the miscreant regime leadership, would be dragged out onto the street, humiliated, all their dirty laundry aired, and that they would die horribly on TV. No just war is completed by killing the people. Only by killing the oligarchs in the most violent, public, and humiliating ways.

We CAN keep the peace under this near-pacifist government that is proposed. We cannot keep the peace forever without GOOD INTENTIONS AND COLD STEEL, this is true. But the general peace ought to stand the next 4 years under Ron Paul.

Attendee

5 Jan 12 at 8:01 pm
“what is it about Iran?”

Iran is China’s proxy in the Middle East. The Iranians provide a significant portion of Chinese oil, and the Chinese are not eager to see that base taken over by the US. The Chinese also know that the US is stretched militarily and is war fatigued. A war in Iran will also prove to be a suitable diversion for an invasion of Taiwan.

China’s economy has been in a bubble, but there are numerous signs that the bubble is collapsing. Civil unrest is going to be a big factor. Reorganizing China around a war footing likely makes a great deal of sense to the Chinese leadership – it refocuses the population away from seeking a Western style middle class, it strengthens the central bureaucracy after the liberalisation of economic trade and it keeps the factors running, albeit swapping out bullets for iPads.

Greg

5 Jan 12 at 8:10 pm
JamesK: “forced on Bush by the international alliance”

“Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None – Ron Paul” huh? huh?

laterite

5 Jan 12 at 8:19 pm
It was an international alliance to deal with Iran’s invasion of Kuwait.

Your point is irrelevant laterite.

Are you suggesting a Ron Paul Pres have re-taken Kuwait as the lone USA without an international alliance or would he have been an isolationist/non-interventionist and looked the other way?

JamesK

6 Jan 12 at 8:50 am
JamesK: Just pointing out the contradiction between your regret that Bush Snr was restrained by the international alliance, and your opposition to avoiding such alliances. Iraq is full of examples of the folly of entangling alliances.

For example, the US gives Saddam WMDs to fight the Iranians and then invade him on the pretext that he has WMDs!

Its a big topic and its hard to do it justice here, and this threat is almost dead. You can’t easily leap from RPs overarching policy of non-intervention to a specific situation, and what is being said about RP doesn’t do justice to what he says anyway. Its said he has a hard ceiling at 25% of the vote, but maybe with more airtime to express his actual views, and rehabilitating ads like “Compassion” he might yet break through.

Anyway, onwards to NH!

laterite

6 Jan 12 at 3:27 pm
“Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, in a note to foreign missions, has set out ground rules for engaging the Taliban after Kabul grew concerned that the United States and Qatar, helped by Germany, had secretly agreed with the Taliban to open an office in the Qatari capital, Doha.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/26/us-afghanistan-talks-idUSTRE7BP06U20111226

All this talk about Ron Paul being so bad about foreign policy and the renewed support for the Taliban by the incumbant US government goes under the radar.

kelly liddle

6 Jan 12 at 4:43 pm
Kelly the current CIC is an America hating stooge who should be fired from a cannon into a concrete wall that has been erected by the Taliban to kill homosexuals.

Even Ron Paul is better with foreign policy than the current clown.

Infidel Tiger

6 Jan 12 at 4:50 pm
[...] the criticism, some Australian free market supporters have warmed to Paul. For example, at Catallaxy Sinclair Davidson writes: "There is a lot to like about Ron Paul – but some of his positions are untenable." [...]

Club Troppo » Ron Paul is a socially tolerant left-wing radical?

17 Jan 12 at 10:26 pm

Catallaxy Files

Two views of Ron Paul

584 Responses to 'Two views of Ron Paul'

Leave a Reply

Liberty Quotes

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Meta