At least Drudge covered it today. Though, I don't know if he has as much influence anymore.
Drudge didn't. He put it on the side, not prominently, no big picture of Ron Paul on the headline, cause this was significant in the election, no!
It had as much clout as friggin 'Global warming may soon see Santa don shorts...'
Fuck Matt Drudge.
He placed a hideous picture of Hillary on the top. Ugh.
It is an "internet record". The actual record is $6.2 million raised by Hillary Clinton on June 30th. Obama and Rudy are also rumored to have broken $6 million in single day drives, as has George Bush in 2004.
The problem is that nobody really knows what the single day record is, candidates release numbers to meet propaganda goals, not to report how much was actually raised. The only time they're mostly honest is in their quarterly reporting. And keep in mind that the mainstream candidates have consistently hit around $20 million per quarter for some time now. As a benchmark, George Bush raised $50 million in his best quarter, and spent $350 million in the 2004 race. That's the sort of league L. Ron Paul has to be in.
George Bush raised $50 million in his best quarter
Which could only happen with more party backing... as well as media support, and alliances with large financial players. All of that has been laking, and will continue to be unavailable to someone with Paul's campaign and platform.
Anyway, Paul isn't running against Bush in 2004, Bill... what league is Giuliani in?
L. Ron Paul. That's a new one. Small l, right (libertarian).
It's no surprise if Hillary or Obama raises a ton of money (mostly lobbyist and corporate sponsors). It is a huge surprise when an old libertarian Texan raises over 18 million dollars on the backs of many individuals.
Paul isn't running against Bush
Right, he might be running against Hillary... who I'm sure will be easy to beat and probably won't get much publicity.
what league is Giuliani in
Rudy's hitting just below the $20 million per quarter league, but he has several backers that are billionaires. Also, Giuliani started raising money for this run several years ago and has yet to spend a dime of his own money. He has deep pockets.
And then there's the surprise fundraisers for Rudy.
http://www.perrspectives.com/blo...ives/
000768.htm
It's not just an "internet record", and he beat your cited "actual record" by half a million dollars.
And it's measuring credit card receipts, not pledges.
And the campaign didn't spend a dime to solicit those donations.
Bill,
In the primary Dubya had 100 million. Paul can, and likely will hit that mark. Dubya had tons more name recognition than Paul... watch and learn.
And when did the 50 million in one quarter happen? Was it during the primary? Or was it after every republican dime was being scraped up for Dubya and Dubya alone?
Paul is the only one with a shot to beat Hillary.
I should point out that Paul has won outright 17 straw polls and virtually every internet poll you can find.
What was particularly irritating to me was - upon viewing one of the big news channels, the big internet news was not the Tea Party but the stat that however many people googled their name and the name of their friends. BFD.
It's not just an "internet record", and he beat your cited "actual record" by half a million dollars.
According to these guys;
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/
tex...text_stats.html
The actual number is $6,043,022.96
According to Ron Paul's website:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
The actual number is $6.026 million dollars.
And both of those numbers are short of Hitlaries $6.2 million. Where are you getting your numbers?
The 50 million was in the general election.
L. Ron Paul is still polling around 5% among Republicans, quite a bit higher among Democrats and Independents, depending on how the questions are worded.
Typical L. Ron Paul supporter:
http://wonkette.com/politics/ron...dent-
228158.php
Bill,
You're missing the point. Hillary may have raised 6.2 in one day, but those come from mostly corporate sponsors and rich dudes with fat bank accounts.
RP has raised this through the "little people", myself included.
To put it more clearly, he now holds the record for:
1. Single day internet fundraising
2. Single day all time fundraising for GOP.
I am sure the next fundraiser not run by the campaign will raise more then Hillary's record fundraising day.
Actually I believe where Bill is missing the point.. is that Hillary's numbers are unverifiable while Paul has credit card receipts.
Plus... Paul spent nothing to get his donations. We are not told how much Hillary spent to get hers.
As for Paul registering poor among registered republicans... I would suggest to you that folks can register any way they want. How's he polling period?
Money is an excellent way of guaging support and money wise... Paul is far out performing what the polls suggest is possible... therefore either the polls are incorrect, or Paul is lieing about the money.
We'll soon see that the polls are incorrect.
Seriously Bill... if Paul is in the top two in several early primaries... your boys are in real trouble.
"Bill's boys"...
Does Bill support Giant Douche, or is he a Turd Sandwich man? I forget...
Bill: "Typical L. Ron Paul supporter:"
Typical how, Bill?
Demographically -- by gender, age, occupation, education level, income level, etc?
Financially -- by donation amount, frequency?
Where are you getting your numbers?
It appears to me that you just cherry-picked some supporter that you deemed wonky enough to denigrate the entirety of Paul supporters. Also seems like you have a propensity for doing that (*cough*chiefwannadoobie*cough*).
I guess that makes this guy the 'typical' Republican, then, eh?
waterboy.. congrats on hiring Hot Rod... helluva coach... makes me ill to think what he can accomplishment at MEEEEEEEEEEEEchican.
Better hire than Miles in my opinion.
We'll see...it was about the only good sports news to come out of Detroit this weekend.
It does make me wonder, though, if perhaps it was Miles' intention from the beginning to parlay all the UM hoopla into a fatter contract at LSU, which he did end up with. Not that I fault him for that, if that's the case; it's just part of the business, nowadays.
Actually, I like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, I'll probably write in Tancredo given how the election season is going so far.
And I hardly cherry picked a nut-case L. Ron Paul supporter. Wonkette is VERY widely known, even Vox has a passing familiarity the blog and the chick that started it - it's now almost a Democratic party mouthpiece. If Wonkette is supporting Ron Paul, it's mainstream. Also worth noting, MoveOn.org is organizing a good number of Ron Paul meetups;
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/14/about/
And MoveOn sponsored an add for Ron Paul;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...h?v=gh-
PxT12rpE
And, by the way, that supporter page I linked to was TAME TAME TAME. Chat with a few Ron Paul supporters....
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/...ion-
388512.html
When both the Communists and the Nazi's are on your side, you do indeed have a broad base of support.
i couldn't care less who supports ron paul.
Bill is basicly arguing that christianity is wrong because some nut cases are drawn to it.
Bill is basicly arguing that christianity is wrong because some nut cases are drawn to it.
But, but, but, what about the CRUSADES???????
And the INQUISITION>??????????
And the SALEM WITCH TRIALS??????
Atheism pwnage ftw! W00t dawkins!!!!
Sam harris is teh haxorzzzz1
"The elderly sat with teens barely old enough to vote. The faces were black, Hispanic, Asian and white. There was no fear in their voices as they spoke boldly with each other about the way the country should be. Held close like a deeply held secret, Paul has brought them out of the disconnect they feel between what they know to be true and where the country has been led."
Source:http://www.thefacts.com/story.lasso?
ewcd=36475b4d132fc0a1
"When both the Communists and the Nazi's are on your side, you do indeed have a broad base of support."
So Bill's plugging for Hillery now?
Questions for you Ron Paul nay sayers:
1. What professed and practiced political principals of RP do you object to and why?
2. Would you have voted for or against Thomas Jefferson?
3. What exactly is it about George Washington's foreign policy that you find unAmerican?
I'll post this at my place so not to high jack Nates thread.
Bill: "And I hardly cherry picked a nut-case L. Ron Paul supporter."
Yes, you did, when you labelled her 'typical'. As in, 'this singular example typifies the kind of person who is a Ron Paul supporter'.
Again, you offer no numbers or data to back up your assertion, demographically or otherwise. Show me the money!
The popularity and mainstream status of that website have nothing to do with it; mainstream ≠ typical. For example: despite video games being in the mainstream for several years now -- such that many women also play them -- the 'typical' video gamer is still male.
Bill: "Also worth noting, MoveOn.org is organizing a good number of Ron Paul meetups[link]...And MoveOn sponsored an add for Ron Paul[link]"
Nothing I saw in the first link indicates a connection to MoveOn; the organizer in the first is listed as Paul Davis, a Gulf War vet, and no mention is made of MoveOn.org on their group page. The second links to a video posted by IraqSummer, a front for the Iraq Campaign, which is "a campaign organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and the Campaign to Defend America". True, MoveOn.org is listed as a member of AAEI, but so are numerous other organizations; assigning sole responsibility for the video to MoveOn.org and implying that it is tantamount to an endorsement of Ron Paul is disingenuous.
In fact, the official MoveOn.org website states MoveOn.org Political Action, one of the largest Political Action Committees in the country, brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates.
They have yet to officially endorse anyone, and Ron Paul is hardly a 'progressive' candidate.
Bill: "When both the Communists and the Nazi's are on your side, you do indeed have a broad base of support."
Well, shoot! There go the Olympics!
And again, as Nate so eloquently pointed out, the adherence of a fringe element to a particular ideology does not per se negate the ideology.
give him hell Waterboy!
and you know that was hard for me to type to dammit... supportin' a yankee and all...
You're getting soft in your old age...
Ron Paul supporters are getting to be pretty well-known. I know several personally, and they're NUTS.
This phenomenon is so well-documented and L. Ron Paul's wing-nut supporters so ubiquitous on the Internet that I suspect a bit of disingenuousness is at play here... except WaterBoy is a regular and civil commentator, so he deserves an answer.
Where is L. Ron Paul's support coming from, and why does it matter?
Here's a pretty good answer.
http://americandaily.com/article/20911
Ron Paul supporters are making a huge deal out of the fact that you must be a Republican to vote for Paul in the primaries - why are they doing that?
http://www.primarilypaul.com/ron...-the-primaries/
Yeah Waterboy, but now they make a pill for that.
They're doing it because so many republicans have their head so far up their asses over the war they can't see past it.
Again. I don't give a damn where his support comes from. I respect the man and he reflects my political desires and goals.
I wouldn't care if every gay government employee in New York City voted for him.
Fact is you can't attack his positions... so you whine about his constituency.
I have a better idea.. tell me why the same arguements Reagan made are now suddenly bad.
The site I was reading last night had Paul's 24 hour take at 6.6M.
I'd like to see your response to WB's questions about what principles of his you disagreed and whether or not you'd have voted for TJ and GW.
Mitt Romney isn't growing the party.
Giuliani isn't bringing people back to the GOP.
Ditto the Huckster, Thompson, McCain, Hunter, Tancredo...
Ron Paul is the only candidate who's making new Republicans, and bringing disgusted former Republicans (like me) back.
Bill knows it.
Sean Hannity knows it.
The NRO crowd know it.
And it's driving them nuts.
L. Ron Paul is NOT pro-freedom, he's anti-government. Ron Reagan was pro-freedom. If you can't see the difference between what Reagan said and what Paul is saying, then maybe you really are too young to remember Reagan.
Bill:Ron Paul supporters are getting to be pretty well-known. I know several personally, and they're NUTS.
Well, I guess that's it then...you know some personally, I guess it must be true of all of them...
Then again, there are these other "well-known" supporters: (none of whom I know personally, so do they count?)
Vox Day
Joe Sobran
John Derbyshire
Walter E. Williams
Tucker Carlson
Ilana Mercer
John Stossel
These people are all NUTS, too, I guess...of course, if you base your definition of NUTS on "=Ron Paul Supporter", then it follows that "Ron Paul Supporter" = NUTS. Some mathematical property, as I recall.
Bill:Where is L. Ron Paul's support coming from, and why does it matter? Here's a pretty good answer. [link]
Let's just take a closer look at this link...
Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters that their candidate is the “real deal” constitutionalist conservative in the ’08 presidential race and that he has a real chance of winning. But the facts simply don’t support either of these claims
Oh, good. Some facts that will prove Ron Paul isn't a constitutionalist conservative...I won't necessarily disagree about his chances of winning, under the circumstances.
So, let's see these 'facts'...
Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball.”
Seems more like opinion, to me. Where does it talk about his views on smaller government, constitutionalism, etc?
[...a lot of fundraising and primary-voting rhetoric here, until we get to...]The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits. Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote for a candidate who promises less spending.
So, the author agrees that Ron Paul is for smaller government, and is likewise supported by small-government Republicans. Sounds conservative to me.
(cont'd)
Let's continue...
Of course, we can’t entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are.
So, being anti-Iraq War is automatically non-conservative. Personally, I don't see how one automatically equates to the other. If Republicans oppose a war that Democrats start, does that make them non-conservative, too, then?
Seems to me that "avoiding foreign entanglements" is the more conservative viewpoint, as outlined here:
Governor Bush...followed the traditional conservative policy when he insisted that an American President must be sure that the nation's real interests were at stake before he would authorize the use of U.S. forces abroad...To the traditional conservative, all foreign policy should be based upon defending America’s interests. These principles are set in the Sharon Statement, crafted on the grounds of William F. Buckley Jr.’s home in 1960, to launch the modern grassroots conservative movement. The test the authors of that simple statement suggested forty years ago is as sensible today as it was then: "American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?" That is, every foreign action taken by the nation must serve its just interests and only secondarily that of any abstract values, even democracy, human rights or international goodwill.
Again, Paul's non-interventionist stance is more conservative.
Moving on (heh)...
[...more war and primary rhetoric until finally...]I actually agree with many of Ron Paul’s positions, outside of his suicidal national security perspective of course.
So, it turns out that he actually agrees that Paul's positions are conservative, if not for that damn anti-war stance of his.
As for the whole registering non-Republicans as Republicans rant...I get phone calls and flyers from my local RP office and RP candidates all the time urging me to register Republican...coincidentally, so I can vote for him/her, too.
Is it just the fact that it's Ron Paul doing it this time that wads his panties up so bad? Seems rather biased...
Bill: "Yeah Waterboy, but now they make a pill for that."
Ouch! The unkindest cut.
tell me why the same arguements Reagan made are now suddenly bad.
Because, nate, Reagan didn't really MEAN it. Paul does.
L. Ron Paul is NOT pro-freedom, he's anti-government. Ron Reagan was pro-freedom. If you can't see the difference between what Reagan said and what Paul is saying, then maybe you really are too young to remember Reagan.
What does it mean to be "pro-freedom?"
And why is being "anti-gov't" a bad thing?
And about Reagan, that whole "War on Drugs" thing was really pro-freedom.
Then again, there are these other "well-known" supporters: (none of whom I know personally, so do they count?)
Vox Day
Joe Sobran
John Derbyshire
Walter E. Williams
Tucker Carlson
Ilana Mercer
John Stossel
WaterBoy | 12.18.07 - 1:05 am | #
Andrew Sullivan also endorsed Ron Paul
Bill has stated elsewhere that he thinks Dr Paul is anti-freedom, but has nowhere given a reason why except the nebulous "anti-government" statement.
Ron Paul strongly supports Gun Rights
Strongly Support Home School
Strongly supports Free Trade as opposed to managed trade
Strongly supports medical choice, which includes opposing Codex Alimentarius
Strongly opposes out involvement in the UN
Strongly supports competing currencies so that Americans no longer are forced to pay the "Inflation Tax"
Strongly opposes "entangling alliances" which would include Kyoto, LOST, the UN's Criminal Court, and this ludicrous treaty happening now that will force America to pay other countries to reduce their emmissions.
What of this is anti-freedom?
Bill, its time to either put up or shut up with this anti-freedom claim. Provide concrete examples of how Paul is supposedly against freedom or quit claiming it. Please quote him. There are decades worth of his writing out there so it should be pretty easy.
Bill says: "If you can't see the difference between what Reagan said and what Paul is saying, then maybe you really are too young to remember Reagan."
Hmmm...
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
~Ronald Reagan
"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
~Ronald Reagan
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
~Ronald Reagan
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
~Ronald Reagan
Bill go read Ronald Reagan's famous endorsement of Barry Goldwater, and then tell us, to whom among the current crop of Republican candidates would it best apply.
Perhaps better than reading the endorsement, is watching it!
Bill... "Government cannot solve our problems. Government is the problem."
Is that a pro-freedom statement? Or is that an anti-government statement?
Who said it?
Ronald By God Reagan.
Try again sugarbritches.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
~Ronald Reagan
I like that one. Maybe I'll make it a sig.
Ron Paul is NOT pro-freedom, he's anti-government.
What's the difference when it's the government that limits freedoms? Dr. Paul isn't anti-gov't anyway. He just thinks the federal gov't should only do what the Constitution allows. Surely you don't consider it just a "G**-d****d piece of paper"?
waterboy.. congrats on hiring Hot Rod... helluva coach... makes me ill to think what he can accomplishment at MEEEEEEEEEEEEchican.
Dang. I'm with you Nate. I can't put into words how much I enjoyed the first two games this season. (If it makes you feel any better WB, I couldn't care less about State.) I think I've been to Ann Arbor too many times. I have an intense dislike for that place. Could you imagine Nate there? That would be fun to watch.
rhombus: "Andrew Sullivan also endorsed Ron Paul"
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I got the list from the RP website, and didn't see his name on there.
Pat Buchanan is another one that has supported some of RP's views, without actually coming out and publically endorsing him.
Wendy: "I can't put into words how much I enjoyed the first two games this season."
I was also musing earlier how bold it would have been to hire Jerry Moore for the position...
bahahahaha... classic WB.
Indeed.
There you go again. I think you're confused Nate, we're talking about the Ronald Reagan that was elected President of the United States. The President that essentially enacted a federal drinking age, the President that told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall". That guy. The guy that also said;
It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. ... We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, not reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?
And he also said;
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy.
And there you have it folks. Bill's anticipated non-response to the question of how is Ron Paul "anti-freedom"
IS that really supposed to be an answer?
Ron Paul has the exact same platform as Reagan. Ron Paul is no anarchist. To suggest that reducing government spending to pre-2000 levels is the same as no government at all puts you in the same catagory as the idiot liberals that suggest that a smaller increase is a cut.
Ron Paul is Anti-Freedom. If you can't see it, I can't convince you. He isn't just opposed to military intervention, he's opposed to economic sanctions, trade sanctions, humanitarian relief, etc.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/ts...7/
tst062097.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/ts...8/
tst122898.htm
http://www.townhall.com/
columnis...ron_paul_on_war
Bill
I would still very much like to see your evidence and feel you must be holding back because what you have given still isn't evidence of anti-freedom at all. Quite the opposite actually
The reason I say the opposite is that sanctions are by definition "anti-freedom" so being opposed to them makes one "pro-freedom" And humanitarian relief has nothing to do with being either for or against freedom.
Quit holding back on us already!
"He isn't just opposed to military intervention, he's opposed to economic sanctions, trade sanctions, humanitarian relief, etc."
By this rationale George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all also anti-freedom.
You're being an idiot Bill. You're talking about interventionism... and guess what?
I'm against it to.
economic sanctions, trade sanctions, humanitarian relief, etc.
These don't have to be done on a governmental level. The idea of charity has been around eons longer than gov't handouts. Further, trade and econonic sanctions can be done on a personal level as well. I can choose not to buy something from a certain country/corporation/company if it violates my conscience and with freedom of speech, I have the right to alert people with a similar conscience.
This story from David Crockett's life regarding humanitarian relief is something you should read Bill
Back on topic:
If John McCain or Fred Thompson had raised $18 million from 100,000 unique donors for the quarter, with over $6 million of that coming in ONE DAY, had 74,000 Meetup members around the country, and gave speeches that drew THOUSANDS of sign-waving, t-shirt wearing, cheering-themselves-hoarse supporters, ranging from college students to grandmothers, you wanna bet that the media, even Faux Snooze, still wouldn't be questioning the accuracy of those land-line-only phone polls of 2004 GOP primary voters? 
Bill, you're falling into Liberal Thinking 101:
"If you don't support the government giving money to poor people, then you're just mean!"
Ron Paul, or any libertarian, would tell you the same thing that a guy like Rush or most Republicans would probably say (but never criticize his party for), that it's YOUR job to be PERSONALLY charitable and it's not your job to steal it from other people to redistribute to something that YOU are to stingy to do. It's also not your job or George Bush's job to tell me "you can't buy from this country, because their president insulted me". How about letting people have the Freedom to make up their minds about where to spend their money and not sanctioning countries and taking away their economic freedom and chance for prosperity?
Approximately 50% of my income goes to the government (federal, state, and local) and 10% goes to my church and other charities. If the fed-gov wasn't taking my money and sending it Palestinians, to blow up/rebuild Iraq, or to pay for perverted arts, I think I could be really charitable with that 50% of my income that's being used for things I don't support and taken without my consent.
So Bill, why are YOU anti-freedom and pro-theft?
Trade agreements between individuals of different nations cannot be made as between individuals, only between nations.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all also anti-freedom.
Again (and again.. and again...) you show your historical (historic?!) ignorance.
The George Washington that fought in the Indian Wars, where he appropriated huge tracts of land? Washington, champion of the Excise Act which started the Whiskey Rebellion? Washington, who ignored a treaty with France and signed one with Spain? The Thomas Jefferson that owned slaves? Jefferson, who signed treaties with Prussia and France and got us into the Tripolitan War? James Madison - Mr Tariff. And why, exactly, did Madison declare war on Canada? And Madison, being famous for his embargo against BOTH Britain and France is not someone I'd hold up as a model for free trade.
why, exactly, did Madison declare war on Canada?
I think it had to do with them making whiskey. The entire world knows they shouldn't be allowed to do so and so Madison was just doing his duty to rid the world of crap like Black Velvet.
And Bill, you are straying quite far afield. The question is on Ron Paul, and how you claim he is anti-freedom. This isn't about the founding fathers, Reagan, Captain Underoos, or Slim-fast Shady.
and for the rest of the comment...
Please give the reasons why you claim Paul to be anti-freedom. Decades worth of writings should allow you to substantiate your claims. As you seem so willing to go along with any change of subject one is forced to wonder if you have any reasons at all beyond "feelings"
The fact that the founders where not perfect in holding to their ideals does not mean they didn't hold them.
L. Ron Paul wants to end embargoes against Cuba, which would enrich the Cuban government, not the Cuban people. L. Ron Paul wants to allow free trade with countries that openly allow slavery and sweatshops. L. Ron Paul wants to drop the trade restrictions with China that (attempt to) enforce rules about who gets the money for the sales.
His trade policies would encourage chattel slavery!
Furthermore, his trade policies and isolationist ideas are predicated on the notion that any government is a legitimate government and should be afforded respect as such. This turns notions of individual freedom on their head.
which would enrich the Cuban government, not the Cuban people
by what mechanism do you propose the government would use to keep this wealth out of the hands of the people? Certainly they get their hands on that money first and so it would benefit them first. And as the government takes only a portion of any increase (even if it be a large portion) there is increased wealth in the hands of the people.
His trade policies would encourage chattel slavery!
You are making the assumption that our Most Favored Nation status that we bestowed upon China isn't already doing that. In reality, a policy of free trade with everyone would remove the barriers other nations have with trading with us, which would in effect be competition for China that it doesn't have now. With those barriers removed perhaps we would see more products from places like Malaysia or Uganda.
Furthermore, his trade policies and isolationist ideas
Isolationism does not have a policy of free trade, rather it advocates Protectionism which is to impede trade in order to "protect" domestic industries from foreign competition. This is 180 degrees from Paul's stance of free trade.
are predicated on the notion that any government is a legitimate government and should be afforded respect as such. This turns notions of individual freedom on their head.
As all governments govern by the consent of the governed alone, why do you assume that our parlaying with them is in fact supporting that government? We have spoken with our enemies in the past and there is no good reason to cut off communication with them now. Cutting off communications means that tensions can rise where we are not even aware of them, and that chances to become more friendly are bypassed.
Bill, you and the politicians you support are the REAL isolationists. You would cut off ties both political and economic with other countries. To prove the point I refer to the American Heritage Dictionary which defines Isolationism as "A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries."
This turns notions of individual freedom on their head.
This statement deserves a response of its own. You think that one government recognizing another government affects individual freedom. but lets talk about what REALLY "turns notions of individual freedom on their head..."
How about a government that takes 50% of a person's income in various levels of taxation. A Gov that can declare anyone an enemy combatant and permanently deny them a trial or access to a lawyer or family. A Gov that maintains locations at the web hubs to store every last thing that goes thru the hub. A Gov that will throw you in jail for growing wheat on your own land for your own purposes while claiming it is an interstate commerce issue. A gov that can enter your home and spy on you and your affects for 6 months without telling you or a judge and then the judge can extend the time they don't tell you. A Gov that mandates dangerous vaccines. A court system that threatens removing the kids from a homeschooling family for the act of homeschooling. A Gov that limits your ability to support a candidate that you prefer. A Gov that shoots rubber bullets and/or tazers people at peaceful demonstrations. A gov that severely restricts the Right to self defense in many cases. A Gov that compels you to provide witness against yourself or spouse. A Gov that denies the Right to representation. A Gov that has secret laws that it is possible to violate but impossible to defend oneself against. A Gov that taps phones, both domestic calls and international. A Gov that forcefully takes from people to support people who are in the country illegally. A Gov that steals money from the populace via the "Inflation tax."
Bill,
These are some of the issues affecting individual freedom, not governments recognizing each other. I could go on and on providing examples but I figure I will be hitting the character limit soon.
How about a government that takes 50% of a pe [delete disjointed inchoate tirade against Fwance]
So, you have no problem buying products produced with slave labor? That's what you're saying? I realize that it's a common libertarian position, but I don't support it.
Huh? What kind of answer is that?
If it's work or starve, which would you choose? You advocate that we, as a country, with the power of the gov't, should stick our nose into the workings and social structure of every other country, because "it's for the children"? No thanks. There are other options. My husband and I take care of two kids (and by proxy, their families to some degree) in third world countries in a way far more efficient that any gov't ever will. And it's voluntary.
Seriously Bill, I don't know why I bother. You are being intentionally clueless.
I can find a source for every last thing I posted and you cant come up with a single anti-RP source except for your feelings. You build up straw men, but that is all you have.
As for slavery, another word for slavery is "serf" In fact it is one of the definitions of a serf. What did a serf pay in taxation? 25-33% of his income. Guess what, Americans pay more than that.
Take California. The federal income tax top rate is 35%. The state income tax is up to 10.3%, State Sales Tax is 7.25% and local sales taxes can be up to 8.75%
Income tax is taken off the top so that would leave 54.7% of income left, then sales taxes being taken out which would consume 8% of the rest making the taxation rate 53.3% This does not include gasoline taxes, tariffs, corporate taxes etc etc etc.
You are being willfully ignorant Bill There really is no hope for you. But dont cry! I found you some neo-con porn to console you.
There's no point in trying to reasoning with Bill, he's a flaming pinko.....
"So, you have no problem buying products produced with slave labor?"
so I conclude you don't buy american cars?
Sorry Bill... but basicly you're saying that because i don't walk the streets at night hunting rapists I'm pro-rape.
You're a freakin' liberal.
There are plenty of oppressed people that the US does nothing about. A better analogy is that a known rapist is next door, makes rude comments to your wife, and you say "Well, as long as Dr. Who is not actually raped, we'll continue to go over for cookouts."
So if someone is personally opposed to buying goods to China and may personally boycott their products, but is in favor of allowing other Americans to choose, then they're supporting slave labor?
I'm do my best to not purchase Chinese made goods, gasoline that supports Chavez, or products from pro-homosexual companies and I hope other people voluntarily choose not to purchase from these types of industries, however, it's not the right of the government to make those decisions for you and I. If you don't have the right to purchase what you want from whom you want, then you have had a God-given freedom, true "free trade", taken away. Either you're in favor of giving Americans more freedom or less freedom.
Allowing true freedom allows people from opposite opinions or beliefs to come together under the common goal of not being forced by a tyrant government to do or not do what they truly desire. The idea of people being allowed to make their own choices scares big government types that like to control people. It renders big government irrelevant if lose areas of peoples lives to meddle in and control.
I'm do my best to not purchase Chinese made goods, gasoline that supports Chavez....
And how exactly do you do this? Oh, right, THE GOVERNMENT mandates that products be labeled as part of our TRADE AGREEMENTS.
I'll say it again; Trade agreements between individuals of different nations cannot be made as between individuals, only between nations. This, by the way, is in the Constitution, but it's in part of the Constitution that L. Ron Paul ignores.
Did anybody see Glenn Beck a few nights ago? (Tues maybe) His entire show was Ron Paul. He asked good questions and actually gave him time to respond and explain his thinking, even letting RP have the last couple minutes to say anything he wanted. I applaud Beck for giving the man a fair shake in the interview and not cutting him off like so many dingbats do. Just that morning the blonde bimbo on FOX wanted him to give her a one-word answer to the subjects she brought up. What?! Would they treat Hitlery or the Token that way? No way- they disrespect Mr Paul and do whatever they can to make him sound kooky. I sat and watched Beck's show and got a great look at what the Doctor's Rx for America really is, and I decided I want that medicine. The media can't ignore him much longer.
I think he might be the next president. If not... I'm still trying to pick a country I'd like to move to. New Zealand looks cool.... but Haiti's SO cheap!
Bill must resent stopped clocks, because they're right more times a day than he is.
Commenting by HaloScan
