Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 11/30/2008 11:16:35 AM PST by rabscuttle385
I didn't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary (I was a Mike Huckabee man), nor did I write him in on Election Day (I penciled in farmer-poet Wendell Berry). But no Texan this year did more good for conservatism and his country than the congressman from the coast.
Lord knows there was no Republican in the 2008 campaign who talked straighter.
Dr. Paul – he's a physician – never had a chance, of course. He is too peculiar in his opinions and doesn't know how to spin like a TV slick. What he had was ideas, integrity and authenticity. On the most critical challenges facing America, Dr. Paul was more right than the well-funded GOP regulars who bigfooted the campaign trail.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
Words hold power, and one of the biggest victories won by socialists world wide is the adoption of their collectivist mumbo jumbo under the guise of Liberalism, when in fact, their philosophy has nothing to do with Liberty.
Another almost equally spectacular victory for the left has been the ability to dupe the unsuspecting public that Hitler was a Right wing extremist, when in fact he was a Socialist, and an ardent collectivist.
Classic Liberalism rejects collectivism and embraces free markets and individuality, as well as private property with minimal government intrusion into the lives of those who dwell within its confines. Modern Liberals(socialists) favor abolition of private property or at very least, wealth redistribution. They long for morbidly obese, all intrusive government, whereas classic Liberalism is diametrically opposed to such a thought.
Don't expect forgiveness from the GOP - or acceptance from the Democrats.
The GOP will rebuild with or without you and RP.
BTW, anyone seen RP lately? His constituents sure haven't.
There is nothing in the Constitution explicitly empowering the government to make the Louisiana Purchase. Guess Jefferson and Madison saw things differently when the opportunity arose to secure our borders by buying land and increase our safety. This was an inplicit power fully within the instrumentalities necessary to carry out explicit powers. Jefferson was not a Libertarian either.
Who is arguing that there were not powers reserved for the states or that the government should not overstep those granted it. The “few” powers granted the National government are exactly those which define a nation and allow all reasonable and unforbidden instrumentalities to accomplish those powers. There are few things not in play in a war for life and death of the nation even if not explicitly granted.
Prior to the Constitution the states were strong enough to counter the national good/need and them had done so by refusing to grant taxation power sufficient to fund the Revolutionary War. Breaking that power was the entire reason the Convention was called. Madison was very explicit about this as he was about the absolute need for greater federal power. In fact, he was ready to propose federal vetoes on state laws and the reduction of the states to administrative units within the larger structure.
After he broke with Hamilton and went over to Jefferson he tried to undo all the great good he had done when more Hamiltonian than Hamilton.
The Tenth amendment has never been the basis of any substantial law and was designed as a sop to the anti-federalists. And these facts are not my fault.
Your mistaken what was rejected was any declaration within the Constitution that there were ONLY explicit powers.
Any idea that the world’s greatest power can always or easily avoid war should not be one held by one planning to be an officer. We have fought wars when necessary not with a pollyanna attitude. Politicians know they are the kiss of death to their careers. Even those winning wars have been rejected for reelection.
Perhaps you are opposed to the United States being a Sovereign power? But it is and sovereignty requires certain things to make it so. Maybe you prefer a dependent power unable to stand on its own.
Here is a brief description of reality in 1790 when the Bank of the US was conceived. We were a new nation without a money supply. It had been drained off by the Imperial System of England for decades before the Revolution. Almost all specie had been spent purchasing war supplies from aboard. Thus the economy was in a state of collapse with the only money being Continentals which were almost worthless since they were the only mechanism for funding the war available to the Confederation. States were not in much better shape with state issued paper money of doubtful convertibility.
Hamilton’s bank changed all that in a flash issuing paper which immediately was as valued as that of England and drawing in millions in specie. It jumped started the incredible expansion of the American economy and his enemies have never forgiven him for his magnificent achievement. His bank had NO incentive to inflate the money supply since decreasing the value of money hurts those who have money. It was not designed to inflate the money supply but to provide liquidity and it did to such a great extent that his enemies had to admit they were wrong and recharter when the charter expired and the demands of the War of 1812 hit. Treasury in no way can perform the functions of a Central Bank. If it could Hamilton would have been happy to keep it that way since he controlled Treasury until Wolcott was succeded.
Madison’s ideas were as extreme as Hamilton’s if not more so at the beginning of the struggle for the Constitution but there was no man more devoted to the creation of the United States as the great Alexander. No man fought harder for its creation and protection from foreign and domestic danger as he. He saw immediately the danger of courting the mob and fought it till his dying breath at the hands of one who organized and used it.
Malarky. They did nothing of the sort. McCain was chosen by Republicans for the most part while more conservative alternatives could not draw more than a tiny number of votes.
Look at post 180 where arrogantsob tries to label FDR as a savior of capitalism.
Rebuild itself into what? A more Socialist version of the Democratic Party?
*snicker*
What sort of crack are you smoking? Do you realize that you are arguing for effectively unlimited central government?
LLS
LLS
Kind of like John McCain?
Paul won't run again. He'll get behind and endorse (most likely) Gary Johnson in 2012 (who has already said he'll run in 2012 if Obama won) or, failing that, Mark Sanford.
Just like McCain.
LLS
FYI, classical liberalism is the political philosophy of the founders of our country.
So are you're saying you are just another "gung ho" type that's never served a single day in the military.
I kinda suspected that.
Weed out Trotskysts out of the GOP.
We're going to learn the same lesson there that we're now learning the hard way about this debt-drowned economy. We've spent untold billions of dollars and over three thousand American lives to turn Iraq into a Christian-free zone and eventually, an Islamic republic.
Unfortunately, Paul's idiosyncratic mannerisms, his uncoached and uncultivated appearance, squeaky voice and overall disdain for media-friendly traits means he'll forever be tagged with the "kook" or "geek" label.
He was also in favor of strong border security, which makes him more conservative than Republican or Libertarian.
If every Republican had voted for Ron Paul, we'd be welcoming a conservative into office.
Citation for those claims?
The only difference between the neocons and the libs is that the necons want "a Big Daddy government" and the libs want "a Big Brother government".
I am a grown-up. I need neither "a parent" nor "a sibling" telling me how to run my life, nor do I give my consent to them running all over the world furthering their own globalist interests while claiming to act in my name -- especially when they are killing off Christian communities worldwide supposedly "for America".
It's obvious to me, as it should be to most people who really think about it, that one cannot divorce our economic policy from foreign policy. It was this unfettered military interventionism that has contributed greatly to effectively bankrupting this country. And in doing so, it has not made us "stronger" but weaker; we are less secure in every respect, financially, militarily and in vulnerability to attack. The bill on this American bravado in doing anything we want, anywhere in the world we want, just came due -- and it is more than we can afford.
So when I hear people say that they "like Ron Paul's philosophy domestically but not in foreign policy", it may be hard to swallow, but that philosophy is a whole package. It means that either we take responsibility for ourselves, as individuals and as a country, and we act responsibly in our affairs with other countries, or we don't. There is no middle ground on this.
For those that don't want to take responsibility, then the only choices left are to embrace "Big Daddy" or "Big Brother" government, and it doesn't much matter which one we choose because neither of them spell "Freedom" or "America", in any sense that we understand those words to mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.