« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ron Paul Stands With the Totalitarians

By: lexington_concord (Diary) | December 9th, 2010 at 07:30 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

It’s been quite a week for American’s most execrable Congressman. Apparently not content to definitively and irrevocably align himself with enemies of America, Ron Paul has decided to make sure everyone knows that he is the only Member of Congress not opposed to brutal totalitarianism. As in, literally the only one – from Pence to Pelosi, every member of the House (other than Paul) voted to honor Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, and Pelosi is even making plans to visit the Nobel ceremony personally. Pelosi’s support for Xiaobo has led to the unprecedented event of Nancy Pelosi being praised on the front page of RedState.

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit does a magnificent job of obliterating every one of the moronic arguments that are usually trotted out in defense of Paul’s votes on resolutions like these. As Allah notes, it can’t be because Paul believes these resolutions are a waste of money, because he votes all the time in favor of equally meaningless resolutions honoring sports teams and the like. It can’t be because he is generally opposed to resolutions that meddle in foreign internal affairs, because he has certainly done that before as well:

If he’s opposed on principle to meaningless House resolutions, how come he voted yes on this one during the summer to honor golfer Chi Chi Rodriguez for his contributions to Latino youth programs? And if he’s against telling foreign nations how to conduct their business — even when it comes to standing up for core libertarian values — why’d he vote for this one a few years ago urging Romania to relax its rules on intercountry adoptions? That’s proof enough that he’s not above rhetorically pressuring other countries, but if you need more, you can always revisit his floor speeches and YouTube videos criticizing Israel.

Indeed. So how come when America needs a hero to stand up against wasting money on a resolution honoring Chi Chi Rodriguez (or, you know, research on shrimp marketing), Ron Paul is conspicuously absent, but whenever America wants to send a message that this country stands united in opposition to totalitarianism or terrorism, Ron Paul suddenly decides to become a principled libertarian and pennypincher? It’s almost as though one could assume without fear of being faced with evidence to the contrary that Ron Paul’s allegedly principled and “quirky” beliefs are really a fig leaf to cover the obvious fact that Ron Paul is far more sympathetic to totalitarians and terrorists than he is to his own country.

Unlike Allah, I am not interested in the Ronulan explanation for Paul’s vote. I am quite sure that if Paul had voted in favor of the resolution, we’d be treated today with a deluge of praise by these exact same people who will defend to the death his “no” vote. The average Ronulan I have encountered is simply not capable of assessing any vote cast by Ron Paul in an objective fashion; to them, if Ron Paul cast the vote, then it was a good one, and whatever justification he gives for it is automatically correct. Thus, whatever they have to say is meaningless and irrelevant.

What is not meaningless or irrelevant is that this man is a perpetual cancer and embarrassment to the House Republican caucus. It is long past time for leadership to take action to declare, in the most public manner possible, that standing with totalitarianism does not make one a member in good standing of the caucus.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

C.S. McCoy

Ron Paul has apparently received confirmation that he will in fact be chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy. He announced it yesterday on Freedom Watch.

Kacela

We need an honest man to hold the Fed accountable for what they’ve done to our economy, and there’s no better than Ron Paul. As John McCain said, “Ron Paul is the most honest man in Congress.”

Scope

Being honest doesn’t mean you have any common sense, or intelligence. To praise Assange for being honest, which Paul did, proves that point perfectly.
Repair_Man_Jack

I’d rather not here his views on fiat currencies.

hardwired

Those who attack Congressman Ron Paul have the most to lose, especially those profiting from the unconstitutional big banking cartel that is the Federal Reserve.

Scope

to gain. The more people who come out against his ideas of anarchy will help save the country from his insanity. He needs to be put in the corner, facing the wall, wearing his tin foil hat, until he is voted out of Washington, and sent to his favorite nursing home in Texas.

powertothepeople

Texas will vote him out one day, but I am afraid he will pull a Thurmond out of SC and stay on power till he is nearly dead and has to leave. Or he will simply stay until the day comes his head bangs down on the desk in front of him and his co reps realize he is dead.

Texas has know for a long time how much of a nut he is and they keep on sending him. I can not see that changing anytime soon.

C.S. McCoy

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.”

Paul’s ideas regarding monetary policy have been gaining traction over the past few years and will likely continue to do so. Monetary policy has been one of the most widely debated topics since our country’s founding. It has only been in recent decades that it’s been shunned. There is nothing improper about reviving this debate again.

Countless economists, both past and present, have raised serious concerns regarding our current system. I don’t agree with various aspects of Paul’s foreign policy views, but I am very grateful that he’s around to bring these monetary questions to the forefront. Those who are afraid to debate it either have no confidence in the merits of their position and their ability to sell it or have nefarious reasons for hiding from it. Calling his ideas “cooky”, “dangerous”, or [insert favorite adjective for Ron Paul] just undermines the criticism. If arguments against Paul’s positions are legitimate then they will be able to survive on the merits and would likely nip his ideas in the bud before they gain any more popularity. Anything else is just hiding from the debate.

streiff

no one with the vaguest idea of finance or economics agrees that Paul’s rather bizarre views on the monetary system are viable with an economy the size of ours.

There is a reason why we don’t actively argue about cold fusion and UFOs and it isn’t because we’re afraid. It’s because arguing with idiocy is degrading to everyone but the idiot.

C.S. McCoy

“no one with the vaguest idea of finance or economics agrees that Paul
dbill27

what a foolish statement, i can name plenty of respectable(and correct) economists that agree with ron paul. the ones i can think of that dont agree are the likes of paul krugman, your a fool and have not looked into what you are spouting
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Appropriate.
gekster

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Especially when they’re threadjacks.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Demonstrate here, what I have to lose as my alleged reason for attacking Ron Paul, or retract and apologize.

Your account hangs in the balance.

john_connor

Your savings, for one. Inflation means a devalued currency and therefor higher prices. I don’t think anyone wants to be caught in regret over bashing a candidate who warned them while they push a wheelbarrow full of useless paper money down the street to buy a loaf of bread.

Paul is the only candidate who has been talking about this for decades. All other candidates have either worked in campaigns for liberal politicians (Perry, Bachmann), worked in IRS (Bachmann), worked for the Federal Reserve (Cain), supported the Patriot Act, TARP Bailouts or Cap and Trade legislation (Romney, Cain, Pawlenty, Santorum, Gingrich).

Of course, when a currency collapses, a country is in a very dangerous and vulnerable state and cannot function.

Just saying.

lexington_concord

That this thread was about the fed, the gold standard, AIPAC, the Joooos, or any of the other topics that are favored by this moron’s moronic followers. It isn’t.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

conservatives heading up important committees, Ron JerkOff Paul gets Monetary Policy – possibly THE WORST appointment of the coming Congress. Hell, I’d rather have a Democrat head up the sub-committee. What do we have to do to get this fool tossed from the Republican Caucus?

Death_of_the_Donkey

votes in 2012 through his predictable conspiracy looney toons crap as monetary chair. Why the party rewarded this guy is beyond me.

http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

smitch61

It’s definitely not too early.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Blaming Boehner for Paul being psychotic isn’t really fair.

If it’s Paul’s policies you don’t like, go after him.

Just get a primary candidate who doesn’t make ridiculous claims like speaking 124 languages. Ah yes, we remember Eric Dondero.

jwebb

The Ronulan Overlord had three primary challengers this last time around. One was a firebrand blue collar worker, one was a former educator, and one was an entrepreneur. It was impossible for any one of them to get traction. I think combined they got around 10% of the vote. Dr. No has total name recognition with the country club types who don’t really pay attention to politics. And he has the loud and loyal following of those libertarians that are sure one day he will get them free pot from the government.
Two cycles ago he had a very formidable primary challenger who unfortunately got in late and got beaten. To the best of my knowledge, none of these people will challenge him again.
He will never leave quietly via an election in his current district.

I have a home in his district. If you have real money and real name recognition, you have free room and board to challenge him. Move here now and get busy!

OneCleverCookie

thought that Mr. Paul was a crackpot.But once I did my own research on the Federal Reserve Bank, Mr. Paul gained an enormous political capitol with me. I, like most Americans, assumed that the Bank of the Federal Reserve was a government institution when in fact it is a government sanction private monopoly. The Fed operates for its own interests and NOT the interests of the un-empowered American citizen. If you’d like to learn more regarding this issue, I’d like to recommended Mr. Murray Rothbard’s book, “The Case Against the Fed”, http://mises.org/store/product.aspx?ProductID=69. Check it out, what have you got to loose?

Scope

Ron Conspiracy Theory Paul, or Murray Conspiracy Theory Rothbard.

OneCleverCookie

So, you

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

That alone disqualifies him from being taken seriously, even if he happened to be right about a particular issue. I haven’t read his Fed book, so that isn’t an endorsment, but if it does happen to be correct here and there (which I doubt), it’s important to remember that even a broken clock is right twice every day.

http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

you said he was The Anti-Christ. That, at least, would have made Rothbard worth picking up and reading…
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Behold the insane man, not behold the wicked man. Latin scholars, please bear with any grammar mistakes. It’s been over 20 years. Just trying to make a halfhearted antichrist joke.
http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

“Knock-knock”
“Who’s there”
“The Anti-Christ”
“Wow! That was a Revelation!”

Or…

“Why did the Anti-Christ Cross the road?”

{sigh} “I dunno. Why DID The Anti-Christ cross the road?”

“So that he could brutally club all seven of the seals.”
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Locked and Loaded
itrytobenice

The fed is entirely run, managed and regulated by the federal gov’t. The member banks own “stock” in it, but the stock neither appreciates nor depreciates. There is no private market for it as it cannot be purchased or sold and it pays a constant rate of return like a Treasury bond, not dividends based on earnings.

At one time, when the Fed was established, I suppose they thought the “stock” would be a source of capital for the Fed, but subsequent investment activity has rendered it a quaint holdover. It is not a good investment for the bank, nor is it an expense. It does, however, differentiate the Fed member banks from non-member banks.

Any earnings the Fed makes is turned back over to the Treasury Dept. as more income for Uncle Sugar. So please take this crackpot theory and put it with the black helicopter one.

As for the lovely “Audit The Fed” stuff going around, the Fed has an extensive and magnificent internal audit dept. that looks for theft, graft and corruption. They, unlike the Dept. of Education, do manage to balance their books and account for their income and expenses. Whether or not their decisions are wise and effective are certainly subject to question, but I question the capacity of anyone in the GAO to make that determination and I’m absolutely positive no one in the Congress has the ability. So I guess I’m agnostic on the audit idea.

I suppose the GAO could audit the bank’s internal audit dept. and make sure they are sufficiently effective and examine the relationship between the Board of Governors and the audit dept. to make sure they are sufficiently responsive.
itrytobenice

You said this:

The Fed operates for its own interests and NOT the interests of the un-empowered American citizen.

That’s just stupid. The Fed is directed by Congress and the President to manage monetary policy in a way that maximizes price stability and minimizes unemployment. The part of minimized unemployment (or employment stability) was added to their functions at a much later date than the price stability directive (I think during the Carter presidency) and that has caused problems ever since.

It should be the task of the Fed to manage price stability and it should be the job of the elected branch to not stand in the way of job production. But since the elected branches do such a pathetic job of that, they have essentially directed the Fed to cover their @$$e$, which is causing them to try to encourage economic growth, even if it comes at the expense of inflation.

*That* deserves a call to your Congresscritter, but no the private ownership aspect of the Fed, because that’s just another nutty conspiracy. And if you doubt that, ask yourself why no one is beating the populist drum about private ownership of the Federal Home Loan Bank, which is managed in the same manner.

skorrent1

The charge to minimize unemployment for the same reason Fannie and Freddie tried to both “stabilize housing prices” and “increase home ownership”. Quasi government organizations would accept the task of building a balloon to go to the moon if it gave them more power. If they are not dedicated to striving in the marketplace to maximize profits, then organizations have no other goal than to maximize power. No one at the Fed had the guts to tell Congress to stuff it with their impossible and incompatible demands.

As for the other charge to “stabilize prices”, how does a 2010 dollar equivalent to a 1913 nickel measure their success? I can understand the desire to increase the national money supply at the same rate as productivity increases the GDP (stabilizing overall prices, avoiding fears of depression), but the Fed has consistantly favored moderate inflation because it favors (gives additional power to) both its clients — Treasury and the banks.

Having failed at both its assigned tasks, isn’t it time to take a close look at the Fed?

itrytobenice

No one at the Fed has the authority or capacity to tell anyone in Congress to stuff it. Congress made the Fed and they have the authority to tell them their goals.

Their power is 100% monetary and they already had it all. They gained nothing from the jobs mandate except making the other job more difficult.

As for price stability, I think from about Volker to Bernanke, they’ve done pretty well, but the jury is getting ready to convict Bernanke.

Except it’s hard to convict when he has a mandate to protect that which Congress/Presentdent is working so hard to destroy: jobs.

I can understand evaluating them on their price stability accomplishments (or lack thereof) but it’s unfair to go back to 1913 due to changes in the currency standards during that same time frame.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

Bernanke has consistently been telling Congress to stuff it since he was appointed. The Fed is nothing more than Congress’ attempt to manipulate the economy. You say that the Fed should manipulate monetary policy to maximize employment and stabilize prices. Since when is it Congress’ job to “manage” our economy?

The whole concept of a quasi-government agency manipulating money supply to supposedly achieve some degree of control over the economy is repulsive. In fact, many would say the financial crisis itself was Alan Greenspan and the Fed’s fault.

Every time the government tries to manage forces beyond its control, they get the same result. Collapse, calamity, failure. I am amazed that anyone but an out and out statist liberal would defend the Fed, especially under Bernanke. He is single-handedly enabling Obama’s reckless spending binge and devaluing the savings of millions.

Unforgivable. Whoever is chairman of that committee, the Fed should be taken to task.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
Raven

itrytobenice said that such was the mandate Given to the Fed By Congress.

The Fed was originally, and in large part still is, the government’s attempt to maintain a steady flow of money to meet the demands of the economy. It evolved out of the Bank of the United States, the only bank Chartered by Congress to print money because of the problem with every bank (plus Congress) printing its own notes and not accepting any other bank’s notes. And worse, that said fiat money was, in most cases, not backed up y hard currency.

History itself shows us that government control over who prints money and how much and backed by what is necessary lest we again enjoy another Shay’s Rebellion.

How’s about w get Congress to pass a law that requires the US Government to put up hard collateral to support its debts (bonds). Currently, the Government is the only borrower in the US not required to do so.

itrytobenice

I fail to see how moderate inflation helps Treasury or the banks, unless you are comparing it to rampant inflation or rampant deflation.

Maybe you could explain that further.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

in fact his book is not the best one you can read on the subject. A better one is The Case Against The Fed by Murray N. Rothbard, a highly respected and accomplished conservative Economist in the tradition of Mises, Hayek, and Bastiat.

There is a very good case to be made against the Fed and I for one am glad that Paul, who has demonstrated his zeal for the subject, gets the nod on the issue.

But yes, overall he is a crackpot.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
Scope

that many are questioning what is going on with the Fed. and the economy, but, to count on Ron Paul, and Murray Rothbard to be the saviors of our economic country is foolish. You should quit while you are not yet banned.

smitch61

I actually was a tad concerned he could win the nomination in 2008. On top of that, the man NEVER smiles.
sarg01

He’s not presidential material, though, and he’s wrong on a lot of foreign policy stuff. That’s no reason to call him America’s most execrable Congressman.

Really? Over Van Hollen? Grijalva? Rangel? Wasserman-Schultz, Jackson-Lee and Pelosi are technically congresswomen, so maybe I can deal with leaving them off.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

At least Kucinich has principles and sticks to them.

jwebb

Kucinich and the Ronulan Overlord vote together more frequently than you can imagine.
They’ve got theirs, and we’ve got ours.

avgjo

of the imagination. To be frank, it’s not even his conspiracy-theory bent that gets me. His anti-Israel stance is what irks me.

That said, I wonder if this vote was because he has gotten so tied into his contrarian, ‘Ron Paul against the world’ ways that he just mindlessly voted against this because everyone else was voting FOR it. I notice that just about every time a vote goes through the house, and only one or two people voted it against it (or for it), Paul’s name is there.

As far as the Fed, I actually hope he does some serious hell raising. I traded currencies for a while; I learned from a pro. I too was really shocked at some of the crap involving those shady jerks. They sure seem awful opposed to an audit. Why? I think Paul going after the Fed might be the best thing he ever did for this country.

And I agree with you sarg01, there are others far worse than Paul. To your list I would add Gutierrez. That guy is a class-A jerk.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Ron Paul should be expelled from the body, and should have when he, in a hearing questioning Ben Bernanke, accused the Fed of being the puppetmaster of Watergate and Saddam Hussein.

Scope

and the most important point you made in your post is that Paul can say anything, and his mind numbed, brain dead supporters find a way to turn his words into something positive. In this case, Totalitarianism= Good, you people just don’t understand. how brilliant Paul is.

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

through which all criticisms of Ron Paul are filtered in our Euro-Phallo-Centric Consumerist culture. Then you soak the Roach in Formaldehyde. At that point Congressman Paul sounds somewhat tethered to what your new reality recognizes as terra firma.

Otherwise, Ron Paul makes Maxine Waters look like a MENSA candidate.
http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

Not everyone who thinks that Ron Paul has some good points to make is a “Ronulan” or believes he is presidential material — or believes that he is even remotely sane.

Personally, I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I think Ron Paul and his merry band of crackpots (who very nearly took control of the GOP executive committee in my home county) are deranged.

That being said, agreeing with Paul on an issue-by-issue basis does not a Ronulan make. I understand that a while back RedState had an issue with Paulbots but that doesn’t make everyone who agrees with a Paul issue one of them.

I happen to agree with Glenn Beck and Ron Paul on quite a bit. I also happen to think that Ron Paul, especially in his foreign policy views, is certifiable. I don’t deserve to be personally attacked for this.

streiff

Mussolini did make the trains run on time.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

My point is that Ron Paul should not define issues that happen to get associated with him. The Fed is one such issue. Just because Ron Paul takes a stand or believes something doesn’t make him the exclusive owner of the argument.

My broader point is that simply taking a position that happens to coincide with one of Paul’s shouldn’t create a pile-on frenzy of accusations.

streiff

which views you like when you’re supporting a crank.
Raven

And oppose the crank who happens to agree with you on those specific views.

After all, we all want the trains to run on time. We just don’t want Mussolini to be the one who makes it happen.

I happen to think Ron Paul demonstrates that being crazy doesn’t make one right (whereas Michael Savage proves being crazy doesn’t make one wrong), but he has made the occasional comment that I happen to agree with…

…Fiscal policy not including any of them.

Scope

buy your opinion comment should have been a general comment not attached to anyone’s comment in this thread. Your reply would apply to many many of the current 52 comments. If you are responding to my beginning comment, you can see that I was referring to all of the Ronulans in general. You haven’t been here long enough to know that at one time they were banned immediately, and, to a large degree many still are. There are very few, if any, that can make a credible case for much of anything Ron Paul says or supports.

Also, from the diary itself-

“The average Ronulan I have encountered is simply not capable of assessing any vote cast by Ron Paul in an objective fashion; to them, if Ron Paul cast the vote, then it was a good one, and whatever justification he gives for it is automatically correct. Thus, whatever they have to say is meaningless and irrelevant.”

I doubt you would want to take on lexington concord.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

I was a casual reader of RedState (mostly select front page posts) back in the day and vaguely remember the issue — well, actually, what I remember is a front page post stating that the Ron Paul folks would be banned . . . I think this happened around the same time that RedState banned all of the Birthers. I’ve tuned in to RedState for opinion reading for a while now but only very recently decided to get involved deeper. So I’m not completely unfamiliar with the site and some of the issues . . . and as I said before, we had to deal with the Ron Paul maniacs at our GOP executive committee.

Look, as far as the OP is concerned, it is dead on. Ron Paul is a crackpot, a kook, and the GOP’s “national embarrassment” sorta like Alan Grayson is to the dems. That’s what I believe about Ron Paul, ESPECIALLY his foreign policy views.

That doesn’t mean that every issue he advocates falls into that category. What offended me was the fact that people were piling on and personally attacking people because they stated their position on the Fed (a “Ron Paul” issue but not really, there is a much wider audience for this issue than just Paul), or that Paul is a good person to have on monetary policy oversight.

It’s the personal attacks, not the policy discussion. Your post that I am responding to comes after several people voiced their opposition to the Fed and agreed that Paul would be a good person to audit the Fed. I happen to believe both of these things. You then proceed to characterize these people as responding to Paulbot baiting and supporting his vote which was the subject of the OP.

Maybe this subject is better for an open thread. I was just offended by the personal nature of some of these attacks against people who never said Paul is God, Paul should be elected president, etc.

Scope

on any issues. You are against people who are attacking those that support one area of Paul’s position that is with respect to the fed, yet, you are freely attacking Ron Paul on every other issue, other than the one you agree with. Isn’t that just a little hypocritical. If someone posted in support of Paul’s foreign policy positions, would you have something to say about that? You freely put that out there above.

If you choose to support any part of Paul’s ideas, that is your right to do so. If you support the Murray Rothbard book, which I have not read, and have no interest in reading, that is your right to do so. I just don’t think you will get much support from many here on any of Paul’s ideas, financial or otherwise. When one consistently opens his mouth to exchange feet, it brings into question anything he says. Paul may be his own worst enemy, and, has convinced many that enemy is the money word here.
http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

Contrary to what you said, I am not against people who are attacking those other people who support one area of Paul’s position re: the fed. I am not attacking anyone, in fact. I am trying to point out that you don’t have to resort to name-calling and demagoguery against someone who advocates an idea or policy that Ron Paul also happens to advocate.

There is a big difference. I pointed this out above when I said:

What offended me was the fact that people were piling on and personally attacking people because they stated their position on the Fed

And I’m not being hypocritical. To me, the issue isn’t Ron Paul, who I find distasteful and wrongheaded on many things, but rather the issue of the Fed. The fact that I or others agree with Paul on something makes me a “Paul supporter”?

If someone posted in support of Paul
Raven

He is the topic of the thread and he is the biggest problem with a lot of issues.

Is he right to want to audit the Fed? Maybe. Maybe not.
Is HE the one we want to audit the Fed? Well, do you want the guy on the street corner holding the sign that reads “The End Is Near!” to manage government response to an actual emergency? Because it’s the same thing.

The man is insane, as you admitted yourself. We can take the occasional idea he has or regurgitates and consider, or even enact it, but that doesn’t mean we need or Want him anywhere near the process of doing so.

“Out of the mouths of babes” doesn’t mean we want those children implementing their own ideas.
http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

jwebb

We may be neighbors. I’m in the Texas SD17/SD11 area

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

When I get back to the states here in a couple days I’ll get home to Alan Grayson’s (soon to be former) district near Orlando FL

OneCleverCookie

So, you’ve read Mr. Rothbard’s book then? What evidence can you share with me that repudiates Mr. Rothbard’s position? I’m always willing to look at factual evidence to the contrary of my positions. Please share.

streiff

was really interesting to him and to you. Just because he wrote it and you like it aren’t really good reasons for anyone else to read it or agree with it or even argue about it.

The fact that this story is about one of our crank politicians siding with a totalitarian dictatorship against an advocate of individual freedom implies that Ron Paul is not a fan of Mr. Rothbard’s philosophy so I’m not sure why you are invoking this author on a subject that isn’t being discussed.

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Rothbard
aesthete

Rothbard’s reflexive hatred of America didn’t make him much better than Paul on the individual liberty front. This was, after all, the man who celebrated the North Vietnamese victory over the south, and who eulogized Che Guevera saying that “his enemies were our enemies”.

whiskey_sierra

1) Under new House rules being circulated by the GOP transition team, House Republicans would prohibit resolutions on the floor that congratulate sports teams, recognize anniversaries or birthdays, according to Brendan Buck, spokesman for the transition team.

Ergo, this post makes you look very petty and has the same tone as most anti-palin arguments on the left.

2) I would take Ron Paul over a **100 SEAT MAJORITY** full of McConnell Republcian Big Government Neocons.

streiff

this is not the “new House rules.”

The people who wrote those rules voted for the resolution.

You had your wish over the last two years because you had a 255-178 Dem majority. How well did that work out for you because for the rest of us it really sucked.

Castor

Ron Paul

Raven

I did rather like his comments during the debate in ’08 about not telling Israel what to do. For the most part, I Like to hear that sort of thing come from a member of our government. ANY member of our government.

Scope

is as important as Paul’s position on not supporting Israel in what they’ve done. Paul is an anti-Semite, and, that has been pretty well documented. I’ve just read your sig line. Paul has surely been recruited from what’s left.

Raven

Did I?

Getting_Back_to_Basics

Stands with the totalitarians? Give me a break. He always votes against these resolutions because they are a waste of time and it is not the business of Congress to agreeing or disagreeing with a “prize.”

Ron Paul is a hero for the Constitution. That this disparaging diary would be put on the front page is a serious disappointment for otherwise thoughtful website.

streiff

He doesn’t always vote against these. Read the story. An apology is required if you want to keep your account.

Getting_Back_to_Basics

I didn’t read the diary as carefully as I should have. I went back and read it. I don’t know why Ron Paul voted against this resolution. But it was worthy of a no vote on principle, not to side with totalitarians, but because these resolutions are a waste. What is wrong is that he would vote for the other resolutions, such as the Chi Chi resolution.

While I acknowledge I didn’t read the diary as carefully as I should have, I am not going to apologize for my comment because the diary’s headline is outrageous and distorting. If anyone thinks Ron Paul is pro-China, then I suggest they get they don’t know the paleoconservatives very well — consequently, that is my objection to the needless hyperbole of the diary’s headline (akin to the way DKos writes headlines and not the way RedState front page posts usually are).

streiff

explain why Ron Paul would vote on a resolution in favor of Chi Chi Rodrigues and not vote on one favoring a democracy advocate?

At best Ron Paul is a crank without a coherent political philosophy.

Getting_Back_to_Basics

He should have voted against it. Despite the oddity of the Chi Chi vote, I would take his consistency with principles and adherence to the Constitution over anyone else in the current Congress.

If you think Ron Paul does not have a coherent political philosophy, then you are obviously not listening to him. You may disagree with his views, but he does espouse a coherent philosophy of small government, strict adherence to the Constitution, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of foreign governments. It’s your right to disagree with those principles.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

And complete morons are rare
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Anyone who takes the Chi Chi vote and starts talking about Ron Paul, porker king, and his *consistency* is a deluded individual.
streiff

his idea of the constitution is not something that would have been recognized by the Founding Fathers. His objection to big government is limited to fooling the nincompoops that support him. When was the last time he voted against an earmark? That’s a rhetorical question. He hasn’t.

Paultards aren’t really welcome here. We banned them during the primaries and I’m not particularly opposed to opening season again.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

But haikus too easy were–
Sonnets might suffice.
Getting_Back_to_Basics

the party if that’s what you want.

I’m floored at the banning suggestion. Has non-intervention become an unspeakable position to discuss on this site — and were I to believe you, within the GOP?

I will take a non-interventionist foreign policy over an over-stretched empire of cards built on debt any day. And I will take my vote elsewhere if we paleocons are just considered a fly buzzing around the elephant’s ears.
itrytobenice

They just spout their talking points with no analysis, that’s why they’re so easy to spot.

Plus, as someone (Becker maybe?) pointed out…Ron Paul is a loser. He’s had over 20 years in a Congressional seat. There have been about a thousand other people pass through that house while he’s been a member and thus far he’s never persuaded a single one of them to support him or his “platform.” He’s never managed to get a single one of his ideas to the floor, let alone passed. In 20 YEARS!

I know Rome wasn’t built in a day, but if Ron Paul had been its proponent, they’d still be debating what to make their coins out of.
aesthete

The Republican party should not be so small that it cannot include some good-faith disagreement on the extent of our foreign commitments — nor is the reigning conservative/Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy so unassailable that it requires monolithic obeisance to it. However, Paul has several personal problems that have nothing to do with his policy, and everything to do with the fact that he is a crank.

JSobieski

We are in need of a WFB to marginalize him, but no such person or opportunity appears to be on the horizon. Rand Paul being a newly elected Senator further complicates the situation.

In the upcoming year, Paul will get more coverage on MSNBC than anyone besides President Obama. He will be used as a surrogate for the tea party movement and the Republican party. The conspiracy theories he espouses as well as many of his other views will be used to discredit the tea party movement.

Ron Paul is no hero for the Constitution, but he is an achilles heel for a movement that he asserts to support. Maybe he won’t be as damaging in an effort to avoid shooting Rand in the foot, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I suspect Rand Paul will distinguish himself from the views of his father in public within one month of Paul holding a hearing.

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Plus they’re connected like crazy to the paleocons and Ron Paul himself. Did you know that Paul was the kenote speaker at their 50th anniversary celebration? I know. Shocking.

I’m actually a bit worried about a resurgence of the JBS and the fact that, to your point, we have no WFB to swat them away. According to some media reports, they’ve seen a surge in membership this year, and I’m concerned that the Tea Party could become so wrapped up with them that it becomes self-marginalizing.

Did you know that they had a table at CPAC this year? Mind boggling. http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5990-the-john-birch-society-at-cpac

JSobieski

I’m surprised that they re-formed under the same name. Seems nuts, and yet here we are.

Robert Allen Leeper

And here it is:

“History shows that meddling in other countries

Robert Allen Leeper

chihank

Now that Ron Paul’s son is a US Senator, Ron Paul is free to resume his crazy old self. If Ron Paul made these recent statements regarding Wikileaks during the KY Senate primary, Rand Paul would have lost to Trey Grayson.

acat

Is it wrong to hope the milkman was involved?

Mew

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

If anything, Ron Paul has picked up and is chewing on an apple that fell from Ayn Rand’s tree. You can’t hold Ayn Rand responsible for what Ron Paul says or does with her philosophy.

Joshua Persons

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

He only started calling himself Rand during Poppa Paul’s 88 campaign.
http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Ayn Rand represented one strain, Milton Friedman another (the sane stream), Hayek another (similar to Friedman’s), Rothbard the last.

Paul is closer to the Rothbard anarcho-capitalist crowd than the other major factions, in my opinion (This is certainly true of his personal associations). They’re the most dangerous faction because they have attached themselves to the legacy of Ludwig von Mises, who was a legitimate thinker, and they publish aggressively and market themselves well.

I think that the worldview of Rand or Rothbard would lead ultimately to the same place, though: a society like the underwater city of Rapture from the video game BioShock: scary as hell.

acat

What did you make of BioShock 2 ?

Mew
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

I have eight kids and haven’t even finished BioShock 1 yet. And I’ve had it for a few months. Same deal with Arkham Asylum. Sad. I just don’t have the time. Naturally, since I’m so short on time, I’ve started to dip my toe into local (Charlotte) politics, so by the time I finish those games, Sony will be rolling out the PS4.

Have you played BioShock 2? Is it as brilliant as the first?
acat

so I don’t play myself, but the offspring does… I learn by osmosis.

I’d rather you play BioShock 2 and draw your own conclusions – my conclusion is that it does to the theocracy-seekers what BioShock 1 did to the anarchist-libertarians.

Mew
aesthete

Unfortunately, it is not *as* good as the first. It is worth a play-through, however.
jamesmackey

Were both anarcho capitalists.

belcatar

I’m disillusioned when it comes to Ron Paul. It seems the more I find out about him the less there is to like. Chi-Chi Rodrigues? REALLY? If you’re going to break your own rule about voting for dumb resolutions, why pick a really dumb one to vote for? Why not vote for one that seems to advance the cause of freedom?

“Freedom” and “Chaos” are not the same thing. I think Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” lays out the argument pretty well.

Honestly, I don’t think I’d blame the moderators if they kicked me off for supporting Dr. Paul in the past. I hope they don’t, because I enjoy posting here.
Sean (SIConservative)

The header is completely unfair. To be sure, I disagree with Paul’s stance on intervention. I think that the United States should use diplomatic and economic means to promote human rights in other countries. Of course our ability to actually do anything has been compromised by our massive debt. If Congress were serious about human rights in China, they should’ve thought of that before we borrowed a trillion from them. Now, all they can do is pass these meaningless resolutions to make themselves feel better about it.

That said, there are two entirely separate issues here. One issue is whether Liu’s imprisonment is justified. The other is whether the US government should have anything to say about it. Clearly, Paul agrees on the first that Liu should be released. Whether the US government should have anything to say about it is another matter. Saying that he sides with the Chinese policy on this is like saying that anybody who ever votes with anyone else agrees with them on everything. It’s disingenuous.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Since he’s as nutty as a fruitcake.
Raven

Sean (SIConservative)

The rest of the caucus sided with pro-choicers and pro-aborts (I’ll be generous in distinguishing between the two), who voted in favor of the resolution. Of course the resolution had nothing to do with abortion, so that’s really irrelevant.

The point that I was making is that it’s completely unfair to say that Paul was siding with totalitarians because it wasn’t a vote on totalitarianism. It was a vote on whether the United States government should have any say on a Chinese domestic policy issue.

Scope

work out with Jimmy Carter and Iran? How much has diplomatic measures worked out with Iran currently? How much have diplomatic measures worked with North Korea. How much have diplomatic measures worked out with Libya, and Kadifi (sp)? I could go on and on and on about trying to use “diplomatic measures” with country after country, which never solves the first problem, especially with respect to “human rights.” The US has tried, unsuccessfully for years and years and years to talk other countries into being kind to their populations, it has never worked. There are countries that thrive on hating America, and all of her citizens, as it threatens their dictatorial way of life. I am all for having bases in the many countries that we do, for our troops safety measures, and, to be on top of some country that is posing any threats to our country. I am all for keeping a strong military presence, and a well funded and strong military, but, other cultures will never adopt our ways. They’ve never known what real freedom is. You don’t miss something you never had or knew to begin with. Isn’t that what Petraeus has been about in Iraq and Afghanistan? We must be ever vigilant against our haters. Paul has never given the first indication that he sympathize’s with other countries positions, because we are really the infidels around the world. Yup, to Ron Paul we really are the infidels, the radical Islamofacists told him so. Paul has never given the first indication that he wants America to be strong. Paul has never indicated that he even believes in American exceptionalism (sp). Paul has some sick and sorry ideas of our being some grandiose people that need to be brought to heel. He is a sick SOB, that even distorts his fiscal positions with being the pork king. Does Mr. Constitution believe that earmarks, and the way they are done, comport with the Constitution.

Raven

We are the infidels and the heretics. It is why we are great.
Sean (SIConservative)

American security and human rights abroad are two separate issues.

jerry39

and I expounded

here –

http://www.redstate.com/jerry39/2010/12/09/its-the-nobel-commitee-stupid-and-other-reasons-ease-up-on-hit-pieces/

Getting_Back_to_Basics

The disparaging remarks and threats of banning are over-the-top. If the GOP does not want the paleocons around or are embarrased by them, I’m happy to take my vote elsewhere to a third-party.

lexington_concord

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Scope

Some think that threatening to vote for a third party will teach the conservatives a lesson. The lesson is, you will not get anywhere with your threats. The conservatives are on the move, and, you are in the minority, as it should be. I want to live in a safe country.

http://www.matthewhurtt.com Matthew Hurtt

… 14 Republicans didn’t even show up to vote! Let’s write tirades against them!

How dare Congressman Bachus, the soon-to-be Chair of the full Financial Services Committee, DARE MISS THIS IMPORTANT VOTE!!!

Someone sat on a cactus.

lexington_concord

Between not showing up for a non-binding resolution standing against totalitarians, and making sure that you do show up so that you can vote against it, then I can’t really help you pull your head out of your nether regions.

http://www.matthewhurtt.com Matthew Hurtt

Interesting that you’ve taken to defend a man who loathes the tea party against a man who embodies the libertarian strain of the tea party.

Frankly, seems to me you’re tilting at windmills.

There’s a cancer, and one Republican who doesn’t vote the way you like 100% of the time ain’t it. You seem to be missing – oh, how do you say – the big picture.

lexington_concord

by idiocy masquerading as analysis. We just like to save commenters future embarrassment whenever we can. Your failure to address the point raised in my comment doesn’t bode well in your case.

Scope

as cocky as they were going into the elections. Problem is, if you look at the candidates that were supported by Ron Paul, very very few of them won diddly squat.

Scope

nor is he a Conservative, big or small letter for both. Ron Paul went to the buffet and decided what he liked from all the parties, and has tried to define a new party which I would call the Contrarians. Shoot the Libertarians can’t get more than a fraction of a percent of the vote, how much support do you think the Contrarians will get? Zip. Ron Paul reminds me of Jim Jones with his cultist supporters.

Read Chesterton
dhecht

Statement on H Res 1717, to Congratulate Chinese Democracy Advocate Liu Xiaobo on Nobel Peace Prize

By Ron Paul

8 December 2010:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution as I do not believe it is our place, as Members of the US Congress, to dictate internal policy to the Chinese government. Obviously, as an advocate of minimal government and personal liberty, I do not support imprisoning individuals for their political views and believe that anyone held anywhere for merely holding unpopular views

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ron Paul Stands With the Totalitarians

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL