Posted on 05/11/2011 5:19:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
Paul is always upbeat, but lately he's had more reason to be, as he sees libertarian ideas bubbling up from the grass roots.
"People outside of Washington are waking up," he told me, "and they're getting the attention of a few in Washington."
Paul has been in Congress more than 20 years, and much of that time he's played a lonely role, often being the only representative to cast "no" vote on bills to expand government.
"Twenty years ago, there weren't very many people around that would endorse these views. So ... I'm very pleased with what's happening. There are more now, but the problems are so much greater."
Because bigger government creates built-in resistance to cuts.
"Everybody has their bailiwick they want to protect: 'We know the spending is bad. But don't touch my stuff.'"
The biggest growth is in entitlements. Recently, after constituents yelled at them, Republicans backed off on their reasonable plan to try to make Medicare sustainable.
"This is one of the places where good conservatives and good libertarians have come up short. ... We get a bad rap that we lack compassion. A liberal who wants to take your money and give it to somebody else ... grab(s) the moral high ground."
At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul floated a novel idea: "Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself -- don't ask the government for anything."
The CPAC crowed applauded. But liberals like MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked him, sneering that anyone who accepted Paul's offer would have no access to federal highways, air safety, food inspection, cancer research or defense.
Paul laughs at Matthews' shallow criticism. Ever the constitutionalist, he'd like to privatize the federal highways someday, but he notes that even now they are largely financed by the gasoline tax -- essentially a user fee. As for air and food safety, he's sure the airlines and food companies have no desire to kill their customers and that careless companies would be disciplined by competition and the tort system. He claims that government stands in the way of a lot of cancer research.
In other words, it's foolish to assume that just because the government doesn't do something, that it wouldn't be done at all.
"(Matthews is) using fear," Paul said. "They all do that ... use fear to intimidate."
A member of my studio audience asked Paul about the coming vote to raise the debt ceiling.
"They're probably going to ... (but) we shouldn't raise it. We should put pressure on them. If you took away the privilege of the Federal Reserve to buy debt, this thing would all come to an end because if you couldn't print the money to pay for the Treasury bills, interest rates would go up and Congress then would be forced (to cut spending)."
But smart people say we need the Fed to keep the economy going.
"The people who benefit from big government spending love the Fed. ... The Fed is very, very detrimental. You cannot have big, runaway government -- you cannot have these deficits -- if you don't have the Fed."
We libertarians say government is too big, but one thing it is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Paul criticizes conservatives who support an aggressive foreign policy and says much of what is called "defense" is really offense. "I don't want to cut any defense," he said.
He added: "You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there's nobody likely to attack us. Who's going to invade this country?"
Ever the optimist, Paul says, "We have a tremendous opportunity now because most people realize government's failing ... ."
Yet he's a realist: "I think ... our problems are going to get worse ... before we correct them."
Ain’t that the truth.
ZOOT: "....and after the spanking, you shall zot the_concious and her naughty evil twin sister mommya for lighting the grail-shaped zot, which is explicitly banned here in Castle Anthrax".
YOUNG FREEPERS (all between the ages of 16 and 19 and 1/2):
A ZOTTING ! A ZOTTING! ZOT mommya next! ...and then the_consious!"
ZOOT: "Yes, Yes! Jim Robinson shall Zot all of the Paulbots!"
BTW...congrats for the double zot!
You must cut down the mightiest troll in the forum with....
A HERRING!
“A Path! A Path!”
You guys are messing up the scene!
“It’s just a flesh wound!”
I mean it, you’ll get the comfy chair!
Stop it I say! This thread is getting silly, as do most threads with Ron Paul and his Paulistinians!
Buh Bye
“Yes but, Albatross!”
It’s a seabird mate! A bleedin seabird!
“He’s just pining for the fjords!”
Wait, that’s not in that scene!
“Suddenly, everyone became Scottish!”
No, and there aren’t any giant Blancmange here either!
WoW, this wins dumbest post on the thread.
minimal(min)+ ruling/government(archy) = minarchy
no (an) + ruling government = anarchy
one (mono) + ruling = monarchy (rule by one)
Geez....
Rino Concorde: A Zot for you from Jim Robinson meLord!"
Sir Lancelot: To whoever finds this thread, I have been zotted by my father, Jim Robinson who wishes me to be a conservative against my will. Please, please, please come and rescue me.
I am in the tall tower of Paulbot Castle." -Signed mommya and the_concious
Sir Lancelot (to Concorde): At last! A call, a cry of a social liberal in distress! This could be the sign that leads us to the election of Ron Paul!
Brave, brave Concorde! You shall not have voted for John McCain and other RINOs and died in vain!
RINO Concorde:: I'm not quite dead yet my Lord!
You don’t have a problem with support of homosexual marriage and defunding our military?
How are either of those conservative and why should JR be forced to keep them on his site?
They weren’t zotted by consensus or majority vote. Or are you implying that JR is a puppet used by *the mob* to enact their will?
Like hundreds of thousands of other foreigners from Islamic countries, your government rolled out the red carpet for them, allowed them to enter, and then taught them to fly commercial jet aircraft.
To me this was a correct Constitutional interpretation of the 10th amendment. Am I wrong?
Incidentally,I am unalterably opposed to gay/homosexual marriage.
I’m not sure what your questions have to do with your appalling illiteracy. Perhaps you could try to explain it to me?
MOMMAYA: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
JIMROB: Well, I AM king...
MOMMAYA: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By exploitin' the Paulbots -- by 'angin' on to outdated conservative dogma which perpetuates the economic an' liberal social differences in our min-anarcho society! If there's ever going to be any progress--
THE_CONCIOUS: Mommya,there's some lovely Paulistian filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
JIMROB: How do you do, good lady. I am JIMROB, King of the FReepers. Who's thread is this?
THE_CONCIOUS: King of the who?
JIMROB: The FReepers.
THE_CONCIOUS: Who are the Freepers?
JIMROB: Well, we all are. we're all FReepers and I am your king.
THE_CONCIOUS: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an anarcho-capitalist Paulistinian collective!
MOMMAYA: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating 9/11 conspiracy in which the truther classes--
THE_CONCIOUS: Oh there you go, bringing "9/11 was an inside job" into it again.
[singing] ah low, ha, oh way, ah low, ha, oh way...
Thanks TOL, and thanks JimRob.
I’m socially liberal in that I think society needs a liberal slapping around once in a while.
Oh my!! LOLOL!!!!
What a magnificent ZOT you have there Lady! :D
Too bad your friends were zotted but that’s the way it goes. This isn’t a libertarian forum. It’s Conservative.
Now, as for this thread, can someone show me the quote where ‘the_concience’ supported abortion or homosexual marriage? I read through all the posts on this thread and didn't see it. He (she) stated clearly that they didn't think it fell in the constitutional limits of the federal government.
'I think some issues should be settled at the state level' is not the same as ‘I support buggery and think everyone should do it as often as possible.’
I have no interest in getting into a long drawn out argument with the Moral Absolutes pinglist, especially since I believe in moral absolutes. I see you all are already questioning my loyalty, conservativism and probably manhood. I'm sure someone has already checked the last eight years of my posts for proper compliance.
My question is only about why they got banned.
Sounds like a triple zot with cheese coming up judging by the amount of whine.
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.