Ron Paul amazes again

[Brainster]

Yet Ron Paul pisses on Libertarian ideals again and ****ing again when he stuffs pork into bills. Not to mention he also pisses on said ideals when he associates with Truthers, who are ripping people off by means of fraud.

I'm not saying he's consistent with libertarian thought on everything, but on this one issue he's comfortably in the mainstream of libertarians.

 

[Praktik]

I'd also say that criticizing a politician for not strictly adhering to orthodoxy is well, a weird form of criticism.

Not everyone's gonna be able to check off everything on the political checklist of their most-fitting ideology.

 

[dudalb]

I am just reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Upheaval-America-Modern-1788-1800/dp/006008314X/ref=

and it makes Paul's statement about the Founding Fathers look silly. They were not at all hesistant about "interfering" ie,commenting on..the French Revolution. Paul ,once again, mouths platitudes about Washington, Adams, Jefferson, ect and does not bother to read what they actually said and did.

 

[Praktik]

I am just reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Upheaval-America-Modern-1788-1800/dp/006008314X/ref=

and it makes Paul's statement about the Founding Fathers look silly. They were not at all hesistant about "interfering" ie,commenting on..the French Revolution. Paul ,once again, mouths platitudes about Washington, Adams, Jefferson, ect and does not bother to read what they actually said and did.

This, to be fair, is not a Paul-specific weakness. Its probably universal.

Was watching Moyers discuss Thomas Paine with a more conservative dude who was involved with the National Review for many years, and a more liberal professor - and they each had different aspects of Paine that they identified with more strongly.

More extreme divergences of opinion would be the interminable "separation of church and state" with reference to the wishes of the founding fathers. Go ahead and read up on some Christianist tract in the Pat Robertson demographic and you'll find masses of evidence that would seem to prove that the founding fathers wanted a Christian Nation for then and for all time! Read the secularists and they'll point to letters, memoirs and speeches that seem to suggest the founding fathers had issues with the concept of god, state religion and wanted a healthy separation of church and state.

Supreme court battles are another example: do the founding fathers support a "living constitution" or a strict constructionist interpretation of it?

Really depends on who you're reading. And I'm not necessarily sure these divergences of opinion on the meanings intended by the founding fathers are a bad thing, or that there's only one correct interpretation of what they intended. After all, over 200 years have passed, this distance and the volume of material out there on them makes it easier for us to diverge. And then through the machinery of democracy, these differences get ironed out - and we hope we end up with a mish-mash worth upholding.. Through the balancing of competing claims we hopefully get to a respectable middle ground.

 

[Chaos]

I'm not saying he's consistent with libertarian thought on everything, but on this one issue he's comfortably in the mainstream of libertarians.

And I say Libertarians are shooting themselves in the foot by associating with this guy, or allowing him to associate with them, in any way.

And I also say that, if Libertarian mainstreams says it is bad to even say one is in favor of free and fair elections and against violent repression of those who disagree, this tells the rest of us a lot of how you country is going to be like if Libertarians ever become the government.

 

[elbe]

I'm not saying he's consistent with libertarian thought on everything, but on this one issue he's comfortably in the mainstream of libertarians.

Most of the libertarians I've seen (on here, mostly) don't seem shy about commenting about the political/economic state of a country - small government/free market = good, big government/heavily regulated = bad.

I can imagine that declaring that a nation should allow free speech and assembly is within the libertarian ideal.

 

[dirtywick]

I thought isolationism was a Ron Paul thing and not a libertarian thing.

 

[tomwaits]

I thought isolationism was a Ron Paul thing and not a libertarian thing.

While the Libertarian Party doesn't represent the views of all libertarians, they do say this on their website:

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

 

[Brainster]

Most of the libertarians I've seen (on here, mostly) don't seem shy about commenting about the political/economic state of a country - small government/free market = good, big government/heavily regulated = bad.

I can imagine that declaring that a nation should allow free speech and assembly is within the libertarian ideal.

It's trickier than that. Obviously libertarians are strong believers in free speech and assembly within the United States. And as individuals they may personally support free speech and assembly elsewhere. Where they draw the line at is involving the government in support for free speech and assembly elsewhere.

Let me specify here that I'm not a Ron Paul supporter by any means (I commonly referred to them as Paultards and Ronulans during the 2008 elections), and I'm not a big-L Libertarian, although I favor some small-l libertarian ideas. I don't agree with Paul on this issue. But unlike the OP, I find nothing particularly surprising or inconsistent in Paul's position on this. Indeed, I could have predicted he would vote that way, even without using my Sylvia Browne-type powers.

 

[elbe]

It's trickier than that. Obviously libertarians are strong believers in free speech and assembly within the United States. And as individuals they may personally support free speech and assembly elsewhere. Where they draw the line at is involving the government in support for free speech and assembly elsewhere.

I understand that, I do, but because it's basically just a declaration of "we think you should be better" and doesn't hold any actual weight it seems like the libertarians could back it.

Really, though, I think it's pretty obvious that Paul just used it to throw a bone to his fringe fanbase.

 

[Travis]

Travis,

Could you elaborate on Ron Paul's craftiness? I'm not saying this in a sarcastic manner, I'm actually curious...


INRM

You've seriously never heard about his shady tactics to get earmarks for his district?

 

[YeahDude]

Ron Paul's statement:


Quote:
I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Did no one read this statement? I figured the people here to be a little more thorough than most. He clearly states he will not follow the the crowd to win political points. He points out how hypocritical this is in comparison to other situations. Is the logical nature of the posters here suspended when it comes to their political ideology? Agree with Ron Paul or not, this statement is very logical and well thought out. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I DO NOT agree with his vote against but I can understand his stance and no vote.

 

[Travis]

Did no one read this statement? I figured the people here to be a little more thorough than most. He clearly states he will not follow the the crowd to win political points. He points out how hypocritical this is in comparison to other situations. Is the logical nature of the posters here suspended when it comes to their political ideology? Agree with Ron Paul or not, this statement is very logical and well thought out. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I DO NOT agree with his vote against but I can understand his stance and no vote.

So we never embrace democracy anywhere until Saudi Arabia gives women the right to vote?

 

[Puppycow]

It's been posted elsewhere, but his baffling action to refuse to sign a statement condemming the Iranian Government surely deserves it's own thread. He was the sole vote in the House, again. I believe he made (link?) an excuse saying we had no right to judge what is going on thousands of miles away. Any Paul fans wish to justify this? What would Paul have said during Apartheid in SA? Refused to condemn it?

He is consistently isolationist. I'm no fan of Paul, but should be no surprise.
It's like the Swiss position. One could criticize the Swiss for staying out of WW2, but they have a consistent neutral position. And it has worked pretty well for them.

 

[YeahDude]

So we never embrace democracy anywhere until Saudi Arabia gives women the right to vote?

I'm Sorry, did you not read my whole post?

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I DO NOT agree with his vote against but I can understand his stance

I'm not the most logical person but you aren't understanding the fundamental point he was trying to make. He is pointing out that the other politicians are just trying to gain brownie points because this is the hot topic. They will never go out of their way against Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Of course we should embrace the Iranians who are sticking their necks out for a little freedom, but don't think the politicians are sticking their necks on the line, they are just capitalizing on the way the wind is blowing.

 

[Praktik]

I'm Sorry, did you not read my whole post?

I'm not the most logical person but you aren't understanding the fundamental point he was trying to make. He is pointing out that the other politicians are just trying to gain brownie points because this is the hot topic. They will never go out of their way against Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Of course we should embrace the Iranians who are sticking their necks out for a little freedom, but don't think the politicians are sticking their necks on the line, they are just capitalizing on the way the wind is blowing.

Ya thats my position too. I mean, who really doesn't feel sympathy for the plight of the protesters?

Might as well put up a resolution condemning the eating of babies - its not really in question.

And I think those that consider Paul's vote in that light, that he is somehow for the regime or against the protesters, are completely off the mark.

 

[Skeptic]

Come on, guys. Ron Paul is pretending he didn't do it for the publicity, he did it for the principle of the thing.

Suuuuuuure he did. How naive can you get?

 

[Praktik]

Come on, guys. Ron Paul is pretending he didn't do it for the publicity, he did it for the principle of the thing.

Suuuuuuure he did. How naive can you get?

Well now we're in the grey area of motivations. Unresolvable really without access to his inner mind.

Maybe I should "open my eyes" and stop believing everything the media tells me, eh Skeptic?

 

[ZenFountain]

I thought his statement made sense, whether you agree or disagree with his philosophy the statement and his position on the matter shouldn't be a shocker. Imagine if the Iranian parliament had passed a resolution condemning the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, wouldn't it have been absurd? His point that we are quite comfy with multitude of non-democratic nations in the Middle East while condemning Iran's sham election with a pointless resolution shouldn't be looked over.

Don't get me wrong, I've spent a lot of time criticizing Paul and his batsh*t supporters but in this instance I have to commend him for not jumping on the bandwagon with a resolution that only complicates the administration's approach to the situation. The first question should be, what did the resolution accomplish? I somehow doubt the Iranian protesters care or even know that the US Congress stands behind them. It only plays into the narrative that the dissent is being stirred and stoked by external forces.

As for the he's doing it for publicity argument, I honestly don't believe he cares what kind of publicity he receives good or bad. Given his history of voting no on anything, regardless of political fallout, that he doesn't believe Congress has the authority to pass, is wasteful or pointless his no vote was a given.