Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by brighamr, Jun 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beatnik

    Beatnik Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    552
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    ArmedBear: Keep reading and watching. The man is not just articulate. I'm known in real life for being a hardhead, and he has actually convinced me to change my views on a couple points, just from being reasonable.

    HiroProX: Dude, he's 71 years old. If he won this time, he'd beat Reagan for oldest president. There is no next time for him.
     
  2. applesanity

    applesanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    I'm going to plagiarize myself here (from something I typed up on TFL):

    Recap:

    Whatever it is the Browns are doing, whether you agree with them or otherwise, they did threaten to kill cops, and they did accuse the court system of being rigged by Masons. For the love of your diety of choice, don't compare them to the Minutemen. See, the Minutemen were a locally, town-organized militia. A town-organized militia != one loony couple, hated by their town.

    Ron Paul did an interview with a website called roguegovernment.com - a website who claims to be exposing THE NEW WORLD ORDER. That's right - the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM of Masons, Trilaterals, Illuminati, MJ-12's, CFR's, etc. Pass the tin foil.

    Strke #1: Presidential hopefuls should never do interviews with fringe organizations. You don't look mainstream. Also, if you really do the math, it means that you can't score an interview with a mainstream outlet because you're simply just not as ____________ as the other candidates.

    Yes, yes, I know that sooner or later, someone's gonna point out [EDIT]someone seems to thrown that ad hom already[/EDIT] that MLK, Jr. plagiarized over half of his doctoral thesis while at Boston College, that he was an avowed Marxist and Soviet sympathizer, that he had a thing for white prostitutes. And that Ghandi love giving enemas to girls, that he supremely hated black people, and was a full blown sex fiend. So there, I've beaten you to it. But it doesn't matter. The public image of these two men is highly elevated; of non-violent men seeking non-violent means to end unjust stuff, ultimately being assasinated for their noble causes.

    I saw the video. Hell, I'm the one who posted the link to the original source.
    "They're standing up for the law"
    "Federal reserve notes aren't legal tender"
    "People who fight the tax system are heroic"
    "...called them the true patriots"
    "it's risky business and I compare them to people like Ghandi who's willing to speak out, and uh, who try to bring about change in a peaceful manner...MLK faught laws that were unfair and unjust but he suffered too."

    Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum.

    Strike #2: Don't donate money to Ron Paul. Money is illegal.

    Strike #3: He called the Browns (previously established that they're loony) heroic. He may have been attempting to call tax protestors in general "heroic," but he was talking in the context of the Browns. Does that mean that if I refuse to pay my taxes and threaten to kill cops, that RP will call me heroic too?

    Strike #4: He called them patriots. Come on. Whether they are, you just don't do that if you want to be president. You want to stay palpable and accessible (i.e. electable) to the American public. You do not want to look like a fringe loony.

    Strike #5: He compared them to - elevated them to the same ranks as - Ghandi. Someone here needs a history lesson. Note the incongruity. The Browns are not bringing about change in a peaceful manner. Therefore, threatening to kill cops is considered "peaceful" in the eyes of Ron Paul.

    "But AppleSanity, Bush slips up so often, you can fill up a phone book."

    (red herrings) True, but they're all grammatical faux pas. Saying that the queen was around in 1776, or calling Nigeria a continent makes you look dumb. But actively, purposefully, and articulately telling a fringe website your fringe opinions makes you look, well, like you're on the fringe.

    "But Applesanity, your so-called 'fringe' is just your opinion. What if it's right?"

    It doesn't matter. You cannot win the presidency unless you're mainstream. Ralph Nader lost. Ross Perot Lost. Kucinich... who's Kucinich again? You do not want to put yourself in the same boat as the Browns if you're trying to win over the American electorate.

    "Then that just means RP is sticking to his guns, so to speak."

    Or rather, RP is one very honest and frank man, and a dumb politician.

    "Applesanity, why are you so worked up over this issue? Aren't you in favor of Fred Thompson anyway? If you've always claimed that RP was unelectable in the first place, why do you care now?"

    Because like it or not, people on gun forums become representative of gun owners for Internet readers. Let's not try to look like a bunch of trigger-happy, racist, redneck yokel gun nuts, just itching for an excuse to double tap Hillary in the forehead. The other day, one TFL poster actually typed, "Well that's 2 less thugs off the street" or something to that effect, regarding a self-defensive shooting. Come on. How can we ever be mainstream (you want gun rights and gun culture to be mainstream, yes?), if some are actually going to defend RP regarding this mess? Sure, you can give RP a pass this time around, and vote for him eventually - that's your thing, if you think his merits still outweigh. But you can't back him up for praising the Browns.
     
  3. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Even after watching the interview, in my opinion, he's toast. He already was toast, now burned toast.
     
  4. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    There is no next time for him, and that is why I am "all-in".

    I moved 3000 miles to be more free, and I am now a first in the nation primary voter. I spend every possible moment talking to people in New Hampshire about him.

    I work for it because I love all of you.
     
  5. HiroProX

    HiroProX Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    546
    If "going mainstream" means compromises that would make this "mainstream gun culture" a grotesque parody of the real thing, then no.

    The prefered option would be for the gun culture to simply be left alone.
     
  6. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Plenty. First gold is trading at about $640.00 an ounce not $800.00. Just by me posting that I saved the US economy by adding another 26% to the US money supply. I guess I just saved the world. :neener:

    Second, with $38,000 you can buy 59 ounces of gold. If you really think that gold is worth all that than go buy some. But suppose you had bought Gold in 1983 $502/ ounce. Today your investment would be worth a whopping 27% more than it was 24 years later. If you had put the same amount in a CD that was in 1983 paying about 14% you couldn't retire but your investment would have appreciated more than 400%. Or suppose you had invested in the DJII. You would now be worth 1000% more (not even including all of the divedends paid in the interim). If you had gotten lucky and bought say Microsoft in 1986 well, let's just say you would not spend a lot of time posting in gun forums, while you were sitting on your yacht in the Med with say a cool half a billion dollars in the bank.

    So why do we need a gold standard? Why not a silver, iron, copper, water, hydrogen, standard? What is the point in a gold standard? Any time you want you can buy any amount of gold that you can afford for whatever the going price is.
     
  7. pcosmar

    pcosmar member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    UP Michigan
    applesanity
    I can understand your frustration, You are listening to the MSN.
    First. The Browns tried for years to address their questions with the IRS.
    They got NO answer. They did not pay. The money the IRS says they owe is from several years.
    Second, The "Trial" they supposedly had. They attempted to defend themselves, and were denied a defense. Their motions were thrown out. After attempting to find redress in the court and being allowed no defense they walked out.
    Third, They have said that they will defend themselves. They are not attacking any LE, that are on their property. They are not going to. If attacked they will defend themselves from attack. That is not a threat.

    I do not know if they are entirely correct. I do not believe they are entirely wrong. They are bucking the system. The system sucks.
    They have my sympathy, and my prayers.
     
  8. Beatnik

    Beatnik Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    552
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    Applesanity:
    I would also add my standard rebuttal.
    Your later argument asserts the same tired - and in my opinion, completely irrelevant - notion that he's not electable.
    He's not electable because he's different.
    If we're not voting for someone different, we're voting for more of the same thing.
    So will someone please explain how the "don't vote for someone who is unelectable" method equals progress? RP supporters are RP supporters precisely because he's not forcefeeding us the same garbage we've been eating for most of the last 70 years. The only alternative is to keep eating the garbage.
    Somebody please, please, please tell me if there's another alternative. I don't think you can.
     
  9. Smellvin

    Smellvin Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    I doubt many will read this, but if you watch the video he doesn't praise the Browns. He was ignorant of them and their situation. He praised their cause and civil disobedience in general. The media tried to turn his general answer into a specific one.
     
  10. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Exactly.

    I still don't think Ron Paul has a chance of winning the nomination, or the Presidency, in 2008.

    But not because of this.

    What he actually said was akin to what I thought he SHOULD have said: a general statement about the problem of our tax system and how people are frustrated, and that something must change.

    And I still would rather see Fred Thompson, who is Pro-2A, over any other candidate who is a meaningful blip in the polls, on either side. I don't agree with him 100%, but relative to the socialists on the D side and the anti-gun liberal Republicans on the other, I'd rather see him win.

    But all of that said, Ron Paul didn't bury himself here. Others are trying.
     
  11. pcosmar

    pcosmar member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    UP Michigan
    Smellvin
    Unfortunately many people just read the headline. Facts tend to confuse them.
    I first heard the name Ron Paul, and thought "who". So I went looking.
    The more I read and heard, the more I liked. That is how his campaign is working.
    Smear tactics work in his favor.
     
  12. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Maybe they will post his "Attack of the Show" interview. He looked good on there.
     
  13. applesanity

    applesanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    Unfortunately, I don't own a sprawling, fortified compound in Montana.

    ...And you've missed the point altogether. But do go on, talking about tax code and stuff.

    So... talking about the electability of person running for an elected office is... irrelevant?

    Non Sequitur.

    Um. I posted the video. He compares them Ghandi. He calls them heroic, patriotic, and peaceful.

    Look - there's this idealized, romanticized, morally upright, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington," and *honest* version of politics that some are wishfully longing for. This dreamworld hypothtical pile of theories has never been. Not in the last 70 years, not ever. About 500 years ago, give or take, a man by the name of Machiavelli even spelled it out for us. Who you are, what you believe, what you do, and how others see you, do not necessarily lock in step when playing the real-world game of politics - realpolitik. It doesn't matter how good your ideas are, or how correct you are - if you can't play the game, go back to warming the benches.
     
  14. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
  15. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    Bad link Lobotomy Boy (irony?) :D

    This works: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/455

    After watching the clip: Ron Paul is SUCH a bully, picking on that poor talking head like that. How crass to publicly show up the talking heads errors. :evil:
     
  16. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
  17. samtechlan

    samtechlan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    USA
    Pretty good overview of why American conservatives have long opposed an interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE traditional conservative position.



    Conservatives Must Oppose Militarism and War

    by Philip Primeau
    The fetishization of all things martial by the bulk of 21st-century conservatives is inescapable and worrisome. Whether it's rapturous warmongering in the pages of The Weekly Standard or embarrassing displays of machismo on the part of our president-cum-fighter pilot, the sentiment is difficult to evade, yet impossible to understand. It is a thoughtless and superficial obsession, and thoroughly unnatural, for militarism is at odds with everything for which the Right supposedly stands.

    Until quite recently, conservatives – that is, people who support limited government, controlled spending, low taxes, individual liberty, rule of law, decentralization, restrained executive authority, and cautious foreign interaction – were skeptics of the military. They regarded it carefully and from a distance, knowing full well its shameful influence on past republics. There was, of course, full recognition of the importance of maintaining a force both dexterous and disciplined, but that reasonable concession was coupled with suspicion and vigilance.

    This impulse was long crucial to Anglo-American conservatism, manifesting itself in numerous ways, from opposition to standing armies to advocacy of noninterventionism abroad. English conservative Edmund Burke passionately asserted that even the finest armies are "dangerous to liberty" and can subvert a free society. In the United States, the founders, whose classical liberalism constitutes the core of modern conservatism, enshrined gun rights and local militias in the Constitution because of their hesitation to establish a national military command. Looking backward, they admired not the imperious and pugnacious Caesar but the reluctant soldier Cincinnatus.

    Their wariness was good and sensible. Robust, readily exercised armed forces are the antithesis of the conservative program. The military devours tax dollars, thus eliminating any possibility of genuine fiscal discipline. Quick, brutal strength is a tempting substitute for diplomacy, an invitation to war at each and every impasse. And, with a brooding eye toward the PATRIOT Act, it is evident that war triggers a rollback of personal liberty and a deterioration of the rule of law. For some time, these notions were conservative staples; a prime example of their old potency was the fierceness of Sen. Eugene Hale's opposition to President Theodore Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet," that early spearhead of America's global designs. Now only one Republican senator, the indomitable Chuck Hagel of Nebraska , possesses (and exhibits!) such moral tenacity.

    The military is the most bloated and opaque organization in the United States, perhaps in the world. Yet few conservatives criticize this shadowy arm of the state. Are these really the same people who would have us believe that they champion good, clean, simple government? The military is constantly excused, with accusations of treachery and disloyalty hurled at anyone who dares bring reproach. Exceptionalism is the name of the game: every other government agency is suspect, but the most reckless, dangerous, and expensive of them all is coddled and protected. This is the most juvenile and grotesque sort of patriotism.

    Let me be clear: I respect the men and women who serve our country. They are devoted servants of the Republic. The current conflict has entered my life in many ways, and it has proven the utter cruelty of war, as well as the impressive will and courage of those who suffer it in the trenches. American forces are indeed responsible for positive change throughout history (though not always). These facts stand without question.

    That said, the military cannot rightfully be considered a proper tool for forging a world where liberty and democracy may flourish. Such notions are hideously liberal, for they are based on the most dangerous of utopian delusions: that men can be made at gunpoint to change; that nations can be built as easily as destroyed; that societies are artificial rather than organic and can be made to order. These ideas have none of the realism that distinguishes conservatism from dreamy liberal mush.

    Furthermore, not merely militarism but war itself is repellent to any orthodox conservative. It is a great uprooter of men and material and a fine destroyer of tradition. The costs of conflict are monumental, the rewards too often minimal. With each falling bomb, international order is torn asunder – contrary to hawkish bombast, war is never fought to maintain or advance an existing order, but always to institute a new one. Bellicosity prompts a disregard for national and popular sovereignty, two important items on the conservative agenda. Randolph Bourne was correct: war is the health of the state, and true conservatism pictures the state as a necessary but terribly sour pill.

    At the risk of fomenting internecine squabbling at a time when there should be unity, I urge neoconservative elements of the Right – especially those within the Republican Party – to reconsider their crush on military power and their infatuation with crusades based on Big Ideas. We should be proud of our military, yes, but not smitten by it. Forget petty chauvinism and imperial aggression – let there be real patriotism.

    Fellow conservatives: about face?

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/primeau.php?articleid=11198

    _________________________________________________________________

    www.ronpaul2008.com
     
  18. gego

    gego Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    224
    I am taking a look at my own thinking about who qualifies as a hero.

    Dictionary definitions mention extra courage, nobility, strength, bold, champion who fights for a cause, and special achievement in particular field.

    Certainly someone who stands up against powerful forces, such as Ghandi or Martin Luther King qualify as heroes because the stood for a cause, showing courage and strength against overpowering force. In fact Ron Paul is heroic because he shows courage, nobility, and strength in championing the cause of freedom.

    I hate the income tax, but do not have the courage to stand up against the overwhelming power of the government to crush me. Actually I feel cowardly because I abandon my principles to avoid punishment. When I see people who are willing to risk it all to fight against the unjust plunder of the US government against its citizens, I feel admiration for them. In my mind they are heroic like a kid willing to stand up against the neighborhood bully. People like Irwin Schiff, Gordon Kahl, and the Browns in New Hampshire are heroic, just as Martin Luther King and Ghandi were willing to stand up against tyrannical forces.

    Instead of disapproving of Ron Paul for generally comparing tax protesters to heroes like King and Ghandi, we should applaud him for standing alone against the forces of plunder and control.

    Who among you would have the courage to stand up alone against the power of your masters? So I say shame on you who condemn the Browns or Ron Paul for his anti government stance, as I feel shame myself for my own cowardly compliance with the rules of my masters.
     
  19. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    And I say shame on anyone who put Ron Paul and the Browns in the same sentence.

    Ron Paul hasn't got a chance of getting elected, but that's no reason to lump him in with the whack jobs.

    John
     
  20. samtechlan

    samtechlan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    USA
    Of course talking about the electability of a candidate is relevant but in the case of Paul it misses the point. One of the most influential political candidates in this country during the 20th century was never elected to any office higher than Governor of Alabama.

    George Wallace transformed conservatism in the late 1960's and 1970's by campaigning against the excesses of the left during that era and focusing on things like Racial based school Busing as well as racial affirmative action (i.e. reverse discrimination.) Before Wallace politicians feared those subjects like the proverbial third rail, after Wallace those issues had to be tackled if a conservative politician wanted to remain relevant.

    Wallace's ideas were adapted and appropriated by the New Right, the Reagan campaign and the nascent religious right. Wallace made the rise of the Republican and Conservative dominated South and mountain West possible even as the GOP shed its former northeastern establishment. Current southern Republicans like Trent Lott, Jeff Sessions and even Fred Thompson owe their success to the Wallace revolution.

    Wallace with his segregationist past was a flawed candidate but he changed the terms of the cultural and political debate in this country for a generation. Paul is doing the same thing today and his influence is already been felt and will continue to be felt whether he wins or not.

    More than anyone else conservatives should understand the history of their movement.
     
  21. Optical Serenity

    Optical Serenity Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Civil disobedience is NOT a duty of the citizen. That's absurd. To say we must be vigilant and not let the government become overpowering is not to say we should be disobedient.

    To NOT obey a government which we can change is ridiculous. We should obey, and if we find something we do not approve of, to change it. But obey till it is changed.

    This is the difference between an anarchy and the rule of law.
     
  22. samtechlan

    samtechlan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    USA
    It is not a duty but civil disobedience is a right.

    And so if a future Clinton or Obama government is able to pass a law like the one in Britain in effect disarming the population you will meekly comply by turning in your guns and "obey till it is changed"?


    Wrong, anarchy is the absence of government. Civil disobedience is a tool in the hands of a free people in their efforts against certain laws. It does not constitute an overthrow of the state and the imposition of an anarchist system. By the way there are many different types of "anarchists" and "anarchisms": Anarcho-Syndicalism (trade union based), Anarcho-capitalism (free-market based) etc., etc.

    Ron Paul has responded to some Libertarian critics of his support for secure borders and immigration restrictions by pointing out that it is critical that this country be protected and that he does not subscribe to an anarchist system which would do away with national borders.
     
  23. Mumwaldee

    Mumwaldee member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Tennessee
    That was priceless watching Dr. Paul own Cavuto. GO RP!
     
  24. GoSlash27

    GoSlash27 member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    168
    Of course civil disobedience is a right and duty. What do you think this second amendment thing is all about?
    Let me put it this way:
    -United States Declaration of Independence
     
  25. Jacka L Ope

    Jacka L Ope Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    Washington State
    Saw that too. He was reading my mind on the 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Acts of 1913. Repeal! :cuss:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice