One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Dempublicents1]

If Paul seeks the nomination of the libertarian party, I will have greatly mixed feelings. On the one hand, it will probably prove to be the best year for the party, and we may see a libertarian in a debate.
On the other, well, it'll be Ron Paul, a ferocious cultural conservative "states rights" advocate and continued master of fringe politics. But I'd rather take a little bit less war and government over Interventionism any day.

I think running people like Ron Paul is extremely detrimental to the Libertarian Party if they actually do care about individual liberty. It leads to exactly what I already said - the sense that the party cares about laissez faire economics, but not individual liberty. This means that people like me, who don't really agree with them on economics but could get behind civil libertarianism, have no reason to support them.

[Ravineworld]

If Paul seeks the nomination of the libertarian party, I will have greatly mixed feelings. On the one hand, it will probably prove to be the best year for the party, and we may see a libertarian in a debate.
On the other, well, it'll be Ron Paul, a ferocious cultural conservative "states rights" advocate and continued master of fringe politics. But I'd rather take a little bit less war and government over Interventionism any day.

I think running people like Ron Paul is extremely detrimental to the Libertarian Party if they actually do care about individual liberty. It leads to exactly what I already said - the sense that the party cares about laissez faire economics, but not individual liberty. This means that people like me, who don't really agree with them on economics but could get behind civil libertarianism, have no reason to support them.

They have started the long process of moderation (Gary Johnson is a building block). They aren't going to get it done immediately, but they are moving towards it.
If you ask me, they should get rid of their fiscal policy and replace it with a civil libertarian message, so left libertarians, and right ones can get along.

[Kaeshar]

I think running people like Ron Paul is extremely detrimental to the Libertarian Party if they actually do care about individual liberty. It leads to exactly what I already said - the sense that the party cares about laissez faire economics, but not individual liberty. This means that people like me, who don't really agree with them on economics but could get behind civil libertarianism, have no reason to support them.

They have started the long process of moderation (Gary Johnson is a building block). They aren't going to get it done immediately, but they are moving towards it.
If you ask me, they should get rid of their fiscal policy and replace it with a civil libertarian message, so left libertarians, and right ones can get along.

How about the Libertarians in the center?

Honestly though, trying to get out the message that you guys aren't trying to turn the US into an authoritarian state (which is the exact opposite of the word Liberty), which Ron Paul is making you guys look like, would be a good idea on their part.

[Farnhamia]

They have started the long process of moderation (Gary Johnson is a building block). They aren't going to get it done immediately, but they are moving towards it.
If you ask me, they should get rid of their fiscal policy and replace it with a civil libertarian message, so left libertarians, and right ones can get along.

How about the Libertarians in the center?

Honestly though, trying to get out the message that you guys aren't trying to turn the US into an authoritarian state (which is the exact opposite of the word Liberty), which Ron Paul is making you guys look like, would be a good idea on their part.

They have to stop trying for the presidency and concentrate on state and local offices and maybe the House. They have to run people the voters might actually recognize, people who might be their neighbors, and not fools who espouse nonsense like Ron Paul and Bob Barr. Grassroots, come on, how hard is that to understand?

[Kaeshar]

How about the Libertarians in the center?

Honestly though, trying to get out the message that you guys aren't trying to turn the US into an authoritarian state (which is the exact opposite of the word Liberty), which Ron Paul is making you guys look like, would be a good idea on their part.

They have to stop trying for the presidency and concentrate on state and local offices and maybe the House. They have to run people the voters might actually recognize, people who might be their neighbors, and not fools who espouse nonsense like Ron Paul and Bob Barr. Grassroots, come on, how hard is that to understand?

^Excactly. That way people like Ron Paul don't hijack the Libertarian party into something completely the opposite of what it suppousedly means (more freedoms).

[Ravineworld]

How would corporate takeover be inevitable?
With large government, corporations can corrupt it (using lobbyists), and then use it's size (and it's federal reserve system) to get free handouts.

Well, depending on what you mean by small, it's much easier to get away with corruption (Ask Raul Martinez, former mayor of Hialeah Florida, who ran the government like a mafia to fill his own pockets, got arrested by the state, but managed to intimidate witnesses to refuse to testify in his sentencing hearing. And despite this, STILL got re-elected.) so lobbyists will be able to buy government employees much easier, and with less employees to corrupt comes less resources needed to do so. A government with 10,000 employees is one hundred times easier to buy than a government with 1,000,000.

Or, if the government is small as in depowered, then lobbyists won't have to even bother. Without a government capable of regulating or enforcing regulations, corporations will be able to exploit consumers while using underhanded tactics to destroy any opposition.

So yes, both are corruptible, but small government either makes it easier, or makes it so corporate takeover can happen by just shoving the government aside.

Maybe.
Small government may be easier to corrupt, at least according to you, but it is far more dangerous to have a corrupted large government.
When a large government is corrupted, it can do literally everything to oppress, harrass, and murder it's citizens, when a small one is corrupted, they can only do some oppression, harrassment, and murder done.
It's an interesting topic, actually.

[Death Metal]

Granted, and that's why I'm not a fan of overly large government, but on the same coin, a corporate-run society is capable of the exact same problems.

It's just not as simple as liberty vs security; if you shift to either extreme you can easily lose both totally. More often than not, the middle ground is the best option for society at large.

[Laissez-Faire]

Granted, and that's why I'm not a fan of overly large government, but on the same coin, a corporate-run society is capable of the exact same problems.

And a corporate-run society is inherent by having a large government in the sense of incorporation of those corporations.

It's just not as simple as liberty vs security; if you shift to either extreme you can easily lose both totally. More often than not, the middle ground is the best option for society at large.

The people, when left to their own devices, can be trusted to make competent decisions. When that's not the case, I have much less faith in security and liberty.

[Death Metal]

No, people left to their own devices have proven time and again to devolve into seeking their own interests directly at the expense of others.

Authority is a necessity to ensure freedom.

[Laissez-Faire]

No, people left to their own devices have proven time and again to devolve into seeking their own interests directly at the expense of others.

Which is the beauty of individualism. If that were actually the case, you'd have a competitive field wherein no single group is fundamentally stagnate.

[Ravineworld]

Granted, and that's why I'm not a fan of overly large government, but on the same coin, a corporate-run society is capable of the exact same problems.

It's just not as simple as liberty vs security; if you shift to either extreme you can easily lose both totally. More often than not, the middle ground is the best option for society at large.

Well, I disagree, but I don't have a problem with moderates. They are nice people.
In the current political system, finding common ground is very important for society's good. That is the flaw of a two-party system: it ends up in the two parties fighting each other and attacking each other selfishly instead of working for the better of society.
That is where Paul fails: he does thing for his gain politically.
Other politicians do it for financial gain, so he's a little bit better, but he isn't exactly morally sound either

[Death Metal]

No, people left to their own devices have proven time and again to devolve into seeking their own interests directly at the expense of others.

Which is the beauty of individualism. If that were actually the case, you'd have a competitive field wherein no single group is fundamentally stagnate.

Nope. Because they are allowed to do so, they continue to do so, and that is how you end up with slave labor, genocide, Hunnic raiding of peaceful societies, and an average life expectancy of 28.

Society requires authority. This is as much a human concept as it is an animal concept. Flocks without an alpha male either establish a new one, or dissolve. Even the smallest of human microsocieties, regardless of the age of the parties involve, have a leader.

[Terripin]

Which is the beauty of individualism. If that were actually the case, you'd have a competitive field wherein no single group is fundamentally stagnate.

Nope. Because they are allowed to do so, they continue to do so, and that is how you end up with slave labor, genocide, Hunnic raiding of peaceful societies, and an average life expectancy of 28.

Society requires authority. This is as much a human concept as it is an animal concept. Flocks without an alpha male either establish a new one, or dissolve. Even the smallest of human microsocieties, regardless of the age of the parties involve, have a leader.

It doesn't matter whether you have small government or large government or medium or whatever. All are corruptible. The only way to go against corruption is to educate the masses. I'm more for small government than large, however, as it tends to be more pro-choice.
However, even with a small government, I still think there should be public education. Current US education system is pretty flawed. Some form of basic politics should be taught on corruption, lobbyists, etc., that way at least they'll be partially aware of the dangers.

[Death Metal]

I'm more for small government than large, however, as it tends to be more pro-choice.

That's a new one. I don't know about any correlation between government and abortion rights, but even so, and this is coming from an abortion rights supporter, it seems an impractical reason to choose a government model.

I do agree public education is essential, however. Not much else you can really do to fight corruption than spread awareness, other than mandate every government worker's tax returns and bank statements open to the public, but that goes too far into breach of privacy for my taste.

Of course awareness can only do so much... despite news exposes about the OJ-esque trial of Rick Scott for medicare fraud (Pleading the fifth seventy-five times in one hearing), and he's my state's governor now.

[Quelesh]

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens.

Prove that he has used it. Also, he got rid of that privlege when he signeed the NDAA.

The NDAA allows the United States and its military to use force, explicitly including but not limited to detention, against al-Qa'ida, the Taliban or "associated forces," and against any individual who the government alleges has "substantially supported" such forces.

[Farnhamia]

Prove that he has used it. Also, he got rid of that privlege when he signeed the NDAA.

The NDAA allows the United States and its military to use force, explicitly including but not limited to detention, against al-Qa'ida, the Taliban or "associated forces," and against any individual who the government alleges has "substantially supported" such forces.

Those powers already existed, having been set in place by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. The 2012 NDAA only re-affirmed those powers.

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects". In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law". Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost."[42]

On 28 February 2012, the Obama Administration announced that it would waive the requirement for military detention in "any case in which officials [believe] that placing a detainee in military custody could impede counterterrorism cooperation with the detainee’s home government or interfere with efforts to secure the person’s cooperation or confession".[43] Application of military custody to any suspect is determined by a national security team including the attorney general, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the director of national intelligence.[43]

Really, you can look this stuff up. It would have been impossible to veto the NDAA. It is an annual bill that funds the entire United States Defense Department, including paying the salaries of members of the Armed Forces and defense contractors who perform work for the DoD. So, the only way to remove those obnoxious powers is to get the AUMF repealed. Do you know who your elected representatives are? Write them and demand they vote to repeal that authorization, or you'll vote for someone who will.

[Quelesh]

The NDAA allows the United States and its military to use force, explicitly including but not limited to detention, against al-Qa'ida, the Taliban or "associated forces," and against any individual who the government alleges has "substantially supported" such forces.

Those powers already existed, having been set in place by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. The 2012 NDAA only re-affirmed those powers.

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects". In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law". Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost."[42]

On 28 February 2012, the Obama Administration announced that it would waive the requirement for military detention in "any case in which officials [believe] that placing a detainee in military custody could impede counterterrorism cooperation with the detainee’s home government or interfere with efforts to secure the person’s cooperation or confession".[43] Application of military custody to any suspect is determined by a national security team including the attorney general, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the director of national intelligence.[43]

Really, you can look this stuff up. It would have been impossible to veto the NDAA. It is an annual bill that funds the entire United States Defense Department, including paying the salaries of members of the Armed Forces and defense contractors who perform work for the DoD. So, the only way to remove those obnoxious powers is to get the AUMF repealed. Do you know who your elected representatives are? Write them and demand they vote to repeal that authorization, or you'll vote for someone who will.

The 2001 AUMF says:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The 2012 NDAA says:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

This is quite an expansion of who is covered.

[Triumvirate of Mars]

What is belligerent, however, is dependent on what the government deems is belligerent. You or I could be belligerent and be called a terrorist simply for disagreeing with them.
Remember kids; Joe Biden: "...Tea Partiers are all terrorists..." :/

[Farnhamia]

What is belligerent, however, is dependent on what the government deems is belligerent. You or I could be belligerent and be called a terrorist simply for disagreeing with them.
Remember kids; Joe Biden: "...Tea Partiers are all terrorists..." :/

Context, darling, context ... During last summer's absurd fight over the debt ceiling, it was reported:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

That is exactly what the Republican Party acted like last year, terrorists. They held the entire nation hostage, threatening to make the US default on its legal debts, in the name of an ideology that refuses compromise. Yeah, the Vice-President was right.

[Evraim]

What is belligerent, however, is dependent on what the government deems is belligerent. You or I could be belligerent and be called a terrorist simply for disagreeing with them.
Remember kids; Joe Biden: "...Tea Partiers are all terrorists..." :/

Context, darling, context ... During last summer's absurd fight over the debt ceiling, it was reported:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

That is exactly what the Republican Party acted like last year, terrorists. They held the entire nation hostage, threatening to make the US default on its legal debts, in the name of an ideology that refuses compromise. Yeah, the Vice-President was right.

...I apologize, Farn, but I cannot at all agree with the Vice-President in this instance. Especially due to the fact that when I imagine a terrorist I have the impression of an individual who utilizes a gun or bomb to murder people that disagree with his or her belief system. As such, I find it unnecessary attach such a label to different partisans involved in a political contest of any sort. I wouldn't mind calling them extremists, but terrorists seems too exaggerated.

[Farnhamia]

Context, darling, context ... During last summer's absurd fight over the debt ceiling, it was reported:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

That is exactly what the Republican Party acted like last year, terrorists. They held the entire nation hostage, threatening to make the US default on its legal debts, in the name of an ideology that refuses compromise. Yeah, the Vice-President was right.

...I apologize, Farn, but I cannot at all agree with the Vice-President in this instance. Especially due to the fact that when I imagine a terrorist I have the impression of an individual who utilizes a gun or bomb to murder people that disagree with his or her belief system. As such, I find it unnecessary attach such a label to different partisans involved in a political contest of any sort. I wouldn't mind calling them extremists, but terrorists seems too exaggerated.

You don't think that threatening to crash an economy still struggling to recover from a deep recession isn't economic terrorism? They scared Standard & Poor's enough to make them lower the United States' credit rating.

[Evraim]

...I apologize, Farn, but I cannot at all agree with the Vice-President in this instance. Especially due to the fact that when I imagine a terrorist I have the impression of an individual who utilizes a gun or bomb to murder people that disagree with his or her belief system. As such, I find it unnecessary attach such a label to different partisans involved in a political contest of any sort. I wouldn't mind calling them extremists, but terrorists seems too exaggerated.

You don't think that threatening to crash an economy still struggling to recover from a deep recession isn't economic terrorism? They scared Standard & Poor's enough to make them lower the United States' credit rating.

I cannot say that I do. You could call the current crop of Republicans intransigent, foolish, extremist, or incompetent, but I'm not certain that makes them terrorists. After all, I do not imagine their intention was to cause a devastating economic collapse so much as to coerce the opposition into supporting massive cuts in spending. Also, while the inefficiency of Congress may have contributed to Standard & Poor's lowering of the credit rating, it wasn't the only reason that it occurred. The economy has been suffering and public debt has increased substantially. All of these factors apparently contributed to their decision. Aside from that, with the so-called War on Terror happeing right now, I believe it in poor taste to insinuate that elements of the American government are terrorists of any sort.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/06/sandp-debt-rating-downgrade-statement

[Wikkiwallana]

You don't think that threatening to crash an economy still struggling to recover from a deep recession isn't economic terrorism? They scared Standard & Poor's enough to make them lower the United States' credit rating.

I cannot say that I do. You could call the current crop of Republicans intransigent, foolish, extremist, or incompetent, but I'm not certain that makes them terrorists. After all, I do not imagine their intention was to cause a devastating economic collapse so much as to coerce the opposition into supporting massive cuts in spending. Also, while the inefficiency of Congress may have contributed to Standard & Poor's lowering of the credit rating, it wasn't the only reason that it occurred. The economy has been suffering and public debt has increased substantially. All of these factors apparently contributed to their decision. Aside from that, with the so-called War on Terror happeing right now, I believe it in poor taste to insinuate that elements of the American government are terrorists of any sort.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/06/sandp-debt-rating-downgrade-statement

I wish I could remember who said it, or at least close enough to the exact wording to google it, but wasn't there some republican bigwig back in the 80's who was accused of risking throwing the party into ruins if he had his way, and responded with something like "But who do you think will rule the ruins?"

Someone brought it up on NSG several months ago, and I wish I could remember it better.

[Grave_n_idle]

After all, I do not imagine their intention was to cause a devastating economic collapse so much as to coerce the opposition into supporting massive cuts in spending.

Bombing a domestic target to cause a policy change would be terrorism.

Threatening to bomb a domestic target to cause a policy change would also be terrorism - the traditional definition allows for either real or threatened harm or damage, to try to force change in policy.

[Farnhamia]

You don't think that threatening to crash an economy still struggling to recover from a deep recession isn't economic terrorism? They scared Standard & Poor's enough to make them lower the United States' credit rating.

I cannot say that I do. You could call the current crop of Republicans intransigent, foolish, extremist, or incompetent, but I'm not certain that makes them terrorists. After all, I do not imagine their intention was to cause a devastating economic collapse so much as to coerce the opposition into supporting massive cuts in spending. Also, while the inefficiency of Congress may have contributed to Standard & Poor's lowering of the credit rating, it wasn't the only reason that it occurred. The economy has been suffering and public debt has increased substantially. All of these factors apparently contributed to their decision. Aside from that, with the so-called War on Terror happeing right now, I believe it in poor taste to insinuate that elements of the American government are terrorists of any sort.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/06/sandp-debt-rating-downgrade-statement

Raising the debt ceiling has been a routine measure for decades. It was raised seventeen times in Ronald Reagan's eight years in office. Until last year, neither party said a word about it. Then last summer, oh, well, the debt ceiling can't be raised, we have to have massive cuts, no new taxes, yada yada yada. The Speaker of the House was slapped around by his own people when he tried to compromise with the President on the issue.

The fact that the economy was suffering and that the debt was increasing are not particularly related. What we should have done, instead of trying to find things to cut, was find more ways to pump money into the economy. The stimulus package Obama got passed had mediocre results because it was too small. The Republicans took over the House last year and trumpeted "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" and then did literally nothing, betting that a further decline in the economy would hand them the White House and the Senate, if they could just keep Obama from getting anything done.

I'm sorry, they acted in as despicable a manner as I've ever seen a political party act and don't think terrorist is too harsh a word.