Cock-Suckers for Ron Paul

I.e. me. Figured I'd just start a general Ron Paul thread instead of incessantly talking about him in others. Why start it now? he's gonna appear on The Daily Show.

Quote:

Presidential candidate, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) continues to be a "hot ticket" on nightly newscasts. On Friday, May 25, he is appearing on the Bill Maher program, "Real Time" and sources say that he may also appear on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and maybe The Colbert Report as well.

"The Daily Show seems to be wrapped up," said one source close to the campaign. "They just have to pick a date. Colbert may be happening as well."

Most amazing jew boots

I keep wanting to support him 100%, but I feel that I can't due to the racist allegations (his pamphlet from the early 90's that said that 95% of blacks steal and such), along with some of his voting habits that might look great on the surface (he voted no to bad bills, great) but actually might be limiting in the long run (oh look, he votes no to good bills, too).

Until his "cons" have been clarified, I just can't fully support this guy.

He definitely has said the right things during this campaign, though. I support that stuff, at least.

Most amazing jew boots

While my rampant dislike for the man has been elaborated on in other threads, I will grudgingly admit that he is the LEAST scary of all the current Republican Candidates.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Wow, I had no idea that racist claim had made the rounds so quickly.
Out of curiosity, where did you hear about it?

Anyways, the newsletter in question was often written by ghostwriters who publish in his name. Such was the case in this instance. The ghostwriter was fired, and Paul took the flak for it being published.
Afterwards, Paul was asked why he took ownership of the newsletter despite its racist claims, and he explained it was because he was told by his campaign manager that it is best that way, as making excuses about who wrote it and it being published under his name would only be confusing to his electorate.

Of course, Paul has never once said anything similar to that in all of his known public service. In fact, he has been very outspoken against all forms of racist thought (including affirmative action), citing his view that racism binds people into groups and empty numbers, rather than treating them as unique human beings.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

One of the explanations I've seen for the newsletter and its racist overtones is that there tends to be a bit of overlap among racists and conspiracy theorists and libertarianism. Since Goldwater Conservatism has faded into obscurity and libertarianism is considered as the "conservative other" groups like 9/11 Truth and sociological racists have a few minor similarities with libertarians enough to the point that they think they're so.

More commonly a lot of libertarians simply use stupid rhetoric. The idea of 95% of DC blacks being criminal isn't that far-fetched considering the nature of Ghetto Economics and the real statistics being 85% (such stat-thumping doesn't necessarily have to be an indictement of blacks), but its presentation seems uncomfortably prejudiced. The kind of rhetoric used, for instance, by Lew Rockwell. What some libertarians derogatorily refer to as "Alabama racism."

Dr. Paul, even, is a contributor to lewrockwell.com, but mostly due to his history with Austrian economists than being a racist free market crazy.

With that in mind, it's not surprising that a racist ghost writer for the publisher would make his way into the libertarian circles to the point where he was trusted to write a letter in Paul's name.

Also:Press Conference tonight with Paul being backed up by Michael Scheuer for the purposes of "educating Rudy."

Here's also a speech Paul gave yesterday on the House floor on Patriotism and the nature of wartime rhetoric.

Paul on the World Bank:

YouTube Video

Edit edit: I was wrong about the conference, apparently it's already happened. Here's some coverage from Reason. No word on if there'll be a Youtube video.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I've been reviewing on his stances and issues and so far I largely agree with most of his positions. The Iraq War I really don't have a set opinion on (There just doesn't seem to be a 'right' solution for this whole giant mess), but in regards to other things, his issues, while probably more conservative then I'm usually going for (My personal beliefs are, I best described as moderate or 'middle-ground', as I am a registered Independent), have been at least more agreeable and less dishonest then some of the other candidates so far. Brady, you're a self-admitted proponent of this canidate, so can you answer for us (Me, Jazz, others?) on what his pros AND cons are/might be?

His little blurb about the World Bank was interesting. Oh and when is he supposed to go on the Daily Show/Colbert Report? Or is it undecided at this point?

How ya doing, buddy?

I'm not the right kind of guy to ask, but if you're really interested, the David Weigel issue of Reason did exactly this for all presidential hopefuls from a small-L libertarian perspective.

Pros: Paul would scale back the power of the executive (I'm very much alluding to Packrat's thread). Would veto any bills he considered unconstitutional and actually read them. Make real overtures towards ending the drug war, and I believe he's even stated that upon being elected he'd pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Make a concerted effort to de-federalize institutions such as Education which have made massive headway under the Bush Administration.

Really though, I think the biggest pros to Paul is that as an anti-statist President, it would put a severe hault on the rapid expansion of power in the Presidency and the Federal government since the Wilson administration.

Cons: Fears concerning social safety nets implemented Federally would be heightened perhaps to the point of hysteria under a Paul administration. Congressional antagonism could seriously damage the nature of political discourse. Paul's immigration policy may cause a shortage of unskilled labor that will inordinately impact the earnings of women, particularly working mothers. Paul's attempts to withdraw the United States from the UN and other global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, etc., may cause negative international sentiment that may not be offset by a friendly foreign policy of trade and diplomacy.

FELIPE NO

More Pros:
-There is also the stabilization of the falling buying power of the dollar by, at least partially, tying it to a real good, like gold, and potentially silver. As it stands, the fiat dollar's value is purely imaginative. The significance of this is of course the fact that while gold is universally treasured by humans throughout the centuries, a complicated blend of linen and cotton with ink on it can, in a matter of years, become literally worthless.
(Some contend that this makes for a more volatile international market, potentially leading up to something akin to the Great Depression again. This claim is mostly unfounded, since Milton Friedman made a very thorough and convincing case proving it was the Federal Reserve's actions which caused the Great Depression.)

- Budget balancing. Since Paul is pretty much a rabid fiscal conservative, he wouldn't only reject bills which are unconstitutional, but also spending bills which force us to borrow money to fund. (current loan rates are $3 billion from China and Japan A DAY, according to Paul)

Another Con(actually, I just realized this is just an elaboration on one of Brady's points ):
-His hardline stance against pork-laden and unconstitutional bills may unite the Congress against him, so that they can go over his head and overrule his vetoes, possibly making him an ineffective and powerless president. I don't buy this, but this is still an option. Who knows what 535 greedy men and women bought off by corporate lobbies might do.

-I recall reading that China might have a problem if we stopped borrowing from them, and we attempted to pay off the loans. Why this is, I don't really know, but I remember this being a cause for contention with Paul as president.

Quick Update: Here is the condensed YouTube video for Paul's "Educating Giuliani" press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Paul on Bill Maher:

YouTube Video

I don't know how I feel about Ben Affleck listening.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

...ending the drug war...

+

Originally Posted by Bradylama

...Paul's immigration policy...

= there would be plenty of empty-headed high Americans around to fill in as unskilled labor in the absence of 20 million criminals, but the country would get the munchies and have to take a snack break every 15 minutes.

Most amazing jew boots

Ron Paul is appearing on the Colbert Report June 13th, no word on whether as a guest or for "Better Know Your District."

Also here's PJ 'O Rourke and Affleck talking shit about Giuliani after Paul left Maher's show:

YouTube Video

Additional Spam:
Paul is on The Daily Show June 4th, the day before the debate.

Quote:

Ron Paul- Congressman (R-TX) Libertarian Candidate

LOL COMEDY

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It depends on whether or not Jon Stewart's disbelief in free markets overcome his disbelief in non-interventionism being conservative.

Seeing Paul run the talkshow scene is great. Here's his appearance on Dennis Miller:

YouTube Video

It's funny sad how commited Miller is to the war machine.

Also, in case anybody doubted that Rudy knows his security:

YouTube Video

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Psh. If Thompson announces it's all over anyway. Say what you want about liberal Hollywood, but ever since Reagan the Republicans haven't met a celebrity they won't run for office.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Ron Paul on the Daily Show:

YouTube Video

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Brady

Paul will blah de blah and sunshine land and unicorn rainbow lollipops!

And you get this, what, from your subscription to the NYT in the Universe Where Politicians Are Honest?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by BigHairyFeet

Ron Paul never said he was honest. He just feels government and law should be run in line with his reading of the Constitution.

Never mind that his reading of it disagrees with two hundred eighteen years of Supreme Court precedent.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's like Supreme Court justices had their own interpretations, or something.

Quote:

And you get this, what, from your subscription to the NYT in the Universe Where Politicians Are Honest?

Not sure why one wouldn't think Ron Paul is being honest considering he's probably the most consistent and principled politician on the Hill.

Paul on NPR.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Never mind that his reading of it disagrees with two hundred eighteen years of Supreme Court precedent.

Yes!

Johnny, tell him what he’s won!

Thanks Bob.
You’ve won federal intrusions into the free market economy, subsidizing those who can get to the good lawyers and lobbyists first, ensuring the suppression of competition, and favored treatment over their competitors, with your tax dollars!
But that’s not all. You will also receive continual attacks upon your rights to own firearms, amongst many other eroding rights.

And wait! There’s more!
You will also receive an all-expenses paid trip to a communist state not of your choosing with the establishment of American detainment camps outside of constitutional jurisdiction, and the erosion of individual’s rights to challenge your detention. You will also recieve Federal funding programs which border precariously upon violation of anti-establishment clauses, and even disastrously failed federal education programs, all with a handy cheese grater!

Thanks for playing!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I feel like I've created a monster.

How ya doing, buddy?

I feel like I just won a million bucks! =D

Most amazing jew boots

Anybody who watched the CNN debates is going to know what I'm talking about, as these were by far the worst ones yet. CNN made no apologies in regards to favoritism. At the Democratic debate, Gravel and Kucinich were at the right and left wings while Clinton, Obama, and Edwards positioned in the center, with Clinton seated inbetween the other two (current front-runner). Now in this Republican debate, Tancredo and Paul were in the left and right wings, while Rudy McRomney were positioned in the center with Giulianni seated between the other two (also the "frontrunner"). Once Fred Thompson joins the race they'll have to invest in a wider lens so they can get all of them in one shot.

Wolf Blitzer never had the balls to move the debate along, and since the top three in both parties were fielded the most questions they were able to dominate the longest amount of time without any formal limits. Obama and Hillary combined had 30 minutes in the Democrat debate while Gravel got little over 5. Now Tancredo was given a grand total, I think, of 4 statements which I doubt exceed 3 minutes in total.

I don't think I've ever been more disgusted with a Cable News Channel, and the way CNN formatted this catastrophe made Fox News seem credible by comparison.

More specifically as a Paul supporter, I found it highly suspect that they didn't look for Paul's insight on healthcare, despite being the only MD on stage. Those of you who might be interested in his take can find it in the NPR interview I posted.

Chris Dodd's blog reported on the time division as it did for the Democratic debate:

Quote:

Wolf 10:22

McCain 6:01

Romney 5:12
Rudy 4:48

Brownback 3:42
Hunter 3:01

Huckabee 2:23
Gilmore 2:18
Thomspson 2:04
Tancredo 2:02
Paul 2:00

Paul got less time than Tancredo? Really? I guess his "smash Mexican" diatribes took up more time than I thought.

Ok it looks like those were just the numbers for the first half of the debate, here are the Dodd numbers in full:

Quote:

Brownback........7:12
Gilmore..........5:59
Giuliani........12:35
Huckabee.........6:48
Hunter...........7:14
McCain..........12:44
Tancredo.........5:43
Thomson..........4:21
Paul.............5:51
Romney..........11:41

That sounds about right, and come to think of it Thomson really did get gipped. Poor guy.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Yes!

Johnny, tell him what he’s won!

Doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's the fact of the matter that our entire nation's history agrees with the current broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause. All 3 branches and the voting population are in agreement over that fact, whether the libertarians choose to acknowledge it or not.

Most amazing jew boots

I don't think he's really arguing about the popularity of the decisions. The point is who's ultimately right, and I think the case can be easily made that a broad interpretation of the Constitution creates more problems than it solves.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

come to think of it Thomson really did get gipped. Poor guy.

That's what he gets for having that stupid as fuck name. I wouldn't want to call on Tommy Tom Tommel Thomson either.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

You'll be missing him when F. Thompson brings out that goddamn pickup truck.

Jam it back in, in the dark.