ron paul fans, save yourselves
admit it. the veiled fantasy of every ron paul fan or even casual admirer: liberty will set the american public on fire, in the person of one ron paul, "congressman no". the timing is perfect — self-styled republicans bailing on "the party", a growing anti-losing-war stance (i.e., not pro peace), record levels of disgust in the "war on drugs", and ......well, hang on a sec. my last item was going to be something about the clamoring for a more constitutional, weak presidency.
ron paul fan? give up now. a ron paul candidacy for US president would perhaps be the world's most expensive semi-voluntarily-financed failed education program. there's nothing he can offer beyond that, except a massive demonstration of principle failure from those who call themselves anything along the lines of voluntarists.
support a constitutionally weak US executive? okay, then what is president paul going to do other than invalidate most of the pile of "executive orders" polluting the world (itself a dubious proposal), and send out to staples for a rubber stamp "VETO"?
do you agree that it's the masses who drive all politics, and that the notion of "leadership" is ludicrous? then do you expect the slavery-slurping, indolent US public to get soul and brain transplants in wild synchronicity with a ron paul campaign?
say ron paul gets elected president. he's not the constitutionally pristine man commonly portrayed. he's voted for unconstitutional legislation, and co-sponsored piles of it. popping the powerful drug of the US presidency won't improve that record. as i've said repeatedly, ron paul is hallowed because he has no power.
but assume ron paul, through miracle and fluke, is elected and inaugurated president. you think congress hasn't the will to defy a president? wait until he starts vetoing the socialist tripe they shovel to the oval office for sig. wait until they issue dishonest rants to their lever-slinging, swill-junkie lackeys back home. what's he going to do — give speeches? plead? sermonize?
i'd enjoy watching that, but not what would follow. the american public wants wars, and socialism bordering on communism. what would ron paul's response be to a CIA actuated "terrorist" attack, or another katrina? will he dissolve the nauseatingly illegal FEMA, for example?
there's the dilemma, and everybody in favor of ron paul knows it in his heart. if ron paul is what he should be, he will fail; if he does what he needs to "win hearts and minds", we will lose. and as we watch ron paul growing more corrupt each day, he will continue to call himself a libertarian or whatever. frankly, i don't want anybody associating himself with my politics if he's "running for office", an exercise in sanitary aggression.
the best i'm hoping for is that he kicks ass in debates, and does what the worthless MSM should have been doing all these many years. in the end, however, no voluntarist can support ron paul even at the congressional level; we may only tolerate this dreck as realists in a sick world.
so, all you stupid motherfuckers calling yourselves libertarian blah blah, have at it. you must be tolerated for the next year as you whore yourselves out for the enjoyment of watching your supposed principles destroyed in the name of themselves. good times!
Labels: derailleur, emperor factory, liberty
posted by saltypig @ 19:54
So I take it that Dr. Paul can count on your vote?
only if he's the doctahhh of love, baby! i wants me a federal pussy bill — an' not one cost me dollah, yo. he wants mah vote, the pig gots ta float!
Your not very smart, are you? Dr. Paul want's to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS, and thats huge. No congressmen or presidential candidate talks of such things. Thats almost enough to have me vote for him.
He also has great views on morality and ethics. I also love his views on border protection. Do your homework before you talk trash on someone, porky.
QED.
As a conservative, I will vote for Ron Paul in "08". The GOP and the propagandist media are trying to "Shove" Guliani,Mccain,Romney etc...down our american throats. As a conservative republican, I am an American citizen 1st and foremost before labeling myself with any affiliated party.It amazes me how a person will vote for anybody as long as they are affilliated with their party. If the GOP refuses to hear the people and nominates one of the above then I will vote the constitution party. Goodbye GOP...R.I.P.
Katie
katie, what's a "conservative", as you use it?
> support a constitutionally weak US executive? okay, then what is ron paul going to do other than invalidate most of the pile of "executive orders" polluting the world (itself a dubious proposal), and send out to staples for a rubber stamp "VETO"?
Amongst my weaponry would be such diverse elements as these, and also the real "nuclear option": not breaking a filibuster, but rather provoking one, and preferably ASAP. Let your imagination suggest what wonders might be wrought in this nation by POTUS tickling the Senate in just the right spot, and then simply getting out of the way and letting it hogtie itself into impotence for four years. (A man can dream of keeping the US Senate in perpetual filibuster, can't he? :)
> he's not the constitutionally pristine man commonly portrayed. he's voted for unconstitutional legislation, and co-sponsored piles of it.
The last bit of legislation that his vote puzzled me about was this. Whatever happened to "no constitutional authority" to disburse "federal funds" in the first place?
And historically, TTBOMK he does seem to want to impose his own strong personal anti-abortion views (the view that the federals have no legitimate role in funding abortions is not, however, an "anti-abortion" view, except from the viewpoint of people who don't want power devolved from the state to the individual).
> as i've said repeatedly, ron paul is hallowed because he has no power.
For somebody with no power, he sure seems to be attracting disproportionate opposition this early in the election cycle -- not that I expect a full-blown candidacy to develop, or win if it did. (Or could the Establishment's opposition -- as expressed through its wholly-owned subsidiaries -- be a double-bluff tactic, to trick us into thinking he's more opposed to them than he actually is, and vice versa?)
> but assume ron paul, through miracle and fluke, is elected and inaugurated president.
It would have to be one or both of those things, since all the electors are either Democrats or Republicans. And I still contend that if this ever happens, then inside-job, "false-flag"/"lone-gunman" assassination attempts become a given; it all depends on how much of a threat to their interests the Establishment perceives him to be.
> you think congress hasn't the will to defy a president?
No, it's possible they have -- but then it has to be admitted there's slim-to-no recent evidence of it.
> wait until they issue dishonest rants to their lever-slinging, swill-junkie lackeys back home.
Isn't that what they do right now, today?
> will he dissolve the nauseatingly illegal FEMA, for example?
Certainly he should; but now you come to mention it, in his articles at LRC he stops short of advocating FEMA's abolition. ("Curiouser and curiouser," said Alice.)
IMO the worst thing he could do--the real flaming danger signal early on--would be to surround himself with campaign advisers &/or cabinet appointments who are either members of, or have close ties to, the Establishment. He does know about the Conspiracy, so he has no excuse.
> do you agree that it's the masses who drive all politics, and that the notion of "leadership" is ludicrous? then do you expect the slavery-slurping, indolent US public to get soul and brain transplants in wild synchronicity with a ron paul campaign?
Sad to relate, I fear your point is dead-on.
Mark Odell
pulling out the monty python lead-ins, mark? very nice.
i'm a harry browne fan, and bought the book from which much or all of that list came. some of it is constitutional. then he gets into the "stroke of the pen" deal. not the best language, considering the famous quote from that fuckface clinton associate.
re the library thing, i suspect... well, i don't agree with this necessarily, but ron paul obviously finds himself in situations where he votes to lessen violations of law, though it's in bills that presume there was no violation (e.g., legislation to increase FICA breaks for business owners). one could argue, mildly obtusely, that voting to limit "federal funding" under specfic conditions is at least limiting the violations of the constitution. my opinion is that when you've been reduced to such filthy "effectiveness", it's time to seek honorable employment. one reason i have little respect for ron paul on balance.
For somebody with no power, he sure seems to be attracting disproportionate opposition this early in the election cycle
call me crazy, but it wouldn't shock me to see ron paul get 25%+ in "republican" polls. he can only skyrocket from where he was last month. and there hasn't been a candidate in 50 years better positioned to do so.
Isn't that what they do right now, today?
yeah. i meant specifically about pres. paul — right before he gets waxed but good (and dead). no way would an effective, constitutional pres. paul make it through even 6 months. whatever happens, i don't expect the 2008 election to be normal (except in its vileness).
I have to say, I'm rather puzzled by your assessment. First of all, I would call it a stretch to say Ron Paul supports and has co-sponsored unconstitutional legislation, or that he is increasingly corrupt. Please cite specifics to back up these allegations.
Further, you claim that a true Constitutionalist can only do one of two things: fail to get elected, or once elected, somehow fail to accomplish any good. I disagree, and furthermore would like to know your solution.
If you believe things are not as they should be, as you clearly do, then what do you think needs to happen to remedy the situation? If electing Constitutionalists is not part of that solution, then what is? It does nobody any good to simply shoot down a proposal but offer no alternative.
I would call it a stretch to say Ron Paul supports and has co-sponsored unconstitutional legislation, or that he is increasingly corrupt.
power generally, if not always, corrupts. generally, the more power ron paul gets, the more corrupt he will become. had he demonstrated 100% constitutionality, i'd consider he might be an unprecedented exception. he has not:
"Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.
[...]
"Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
[...]
"Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it."
part of his cosponsor record
Further, you claim that a true Constitutionalist can only do one of two things: fail to get elected, or once elected, somehow fail to accomplish any good. I disagree,
okay. you're wrong. as explained in the post, no politician can do something the public turds overwhelmingly oppose. you think that's not true, or do you think the american public isn't overwhelmingly socialistic and ignorant? tell the average voter dumbass, for example, that the department of education is unconstitutional; he'll look at you like you're a nut. bastiat had the word on those imbeciles, and nothing's changed. say you're opposed to government doing something about an issue (e.g., food, education, health), and they hear it as you being opposed to anyone doing something. they'll insist that's what you said.
It does nobody any good to simply shoot down a proposal but offer no alternative.
typical blather you're offering here. i find it disgusting. the support of RP for president is based on false premises, explained well enough in my post. the primary assumption is that throwing a constitution guy at the presidency will be an improvement. i think that's damned unlikely. there is no "solution" for the disaster of this country. however, if you are so unethical as to vote, and you want significant and assured improvement from the typical delusion of selecting some great candidate for president, support for president the most socialistic, disgusting commie democratic fuck you can find, and arrange for that shitbird a vocal RINO opposition in congress. that was the supposed disaster for liberty of the clinton years that ran counter to conventional predictions, and for good reason.
of course, the shallowest of the political voting scam world figured that liberty would fare far better under a "republican" president and congress, and in came the bush brigade. anymore need be said about that?
the people of this country are in dire need of individualists. running to ron paul as savior is rapidly turning marginal individualists into bumper sticker retards.
Thanks for the reply. You make a valid case with regard to Paul's voting record. I would have voted the other way, but at least he acknowledged explicitly the error in such a bill. That is far more than any other of our elected representatives would do or have done. So I have to give him that credit.
I also like that you refer to Bastiat. He is a very underappreciated historical figure, and he's one of my favorite reads. Kudos for that.
You are correct about the state of our society, which is why I believe we now need more than ever a high-profile proponent of individual rights. We do need a sea change in popular sentiment and education, but I think Paul's election would help us toward that end.
I would still like to know your recommendation, or if voting for socialists is your recommendation, I'd like to know the reasons why you believe that will improve things in the long run.
I would also still like to know the reason why you said that a Ron Paul presidency would wind up being more expensive. I presume you mean more expensive than a commie or RINO.
Thanks.
but at least he acknowledged explicitly the error in such a bill.
i think that almost makes it worse; he acknowledged that it's unconstitutional, then went and voted for it anyway. far as i'm concerned, he sank his ship right there. there's been no repudiation. he's not trustworthy. his anti-gay material's blatantly anti-liberty. hope it gets shoved right back in his face.
That is far more than any other of our elected representatives would do or have done. So I have to give him that credit.
the problem is that he's not getting credit in line with his record, but far above; he's being treated as the second coming of patrick henry or something. he preaches the only constitutional doctrine worth a damn (100% adherence), then fucks up the works for his bullshit abortion bill and cosponsor frills. makes me loathe the guy just thinking about it.
We do need a sea change in popular sentiment and education, but I think Paul's election would help us toward that end.
i'd like to be wrong on this. doubt i am. from traveling and yapping with people around the US, i know the socialism and entitlement mentality's fully ingrained. ron paul running for president will simply be one more failed gasp, mostly from pukes saying stupid shit like "ron paul and mike gravel should be running mates". seriously, what are you supposed to do when that kind of fool composes much of ron paul's support?
"I would still like to know your recommendation,"
the immediate cessation of all voting, paying "taxes", etc. -- all cooperation with criminals posing as something other than criminals. cut off the food supply from those parasitic sloths and psychopaths. drop out. refuse. there is no other alternative for liberty but to shake off the yoke of domination. i'm an adult, and there's not a goddamned other adult in the universe qualified to run any aspect of my life.
"or if voting for socialists is your recommendation, I'd like to know the reasons why you believe that will improve things in the long run."
i don't recommend voting for socialists. however, for those criminal enough to vote and participate in this scam, their avowed goal of at least slowing the growth of the state will more likely be obtained by voting for a socialistic democrat president and a rabid RINO congress. i don't think even a constitutional president, much less ron paul, would slow government better than that.
I would also still like to know the reason why you said that a Ron Paul presidency would wind up being more expensive. I presume you mean more expensive than a commie or RINO.
i said "a ron paul candidacy for US president would perhaps be the world's most expensive semi-voluntarily-financed failed education program" -- referring to the campaign. i'm beginning to suspect that his exchange with jizzliani will be his legacy. socialists are already starting to vocalize opposition to paul, for all the wrong reasons, of course.
the immediate cessation of all voting, paying "taxes", etc. -- all cooperation with criminals posing as something other than criminals. cut off the food supply from those parasitic sloths and psychopaths. drop out. refuse.
So I take it you believe it is time for Atlas to Shrug? ;-)
ron paul running for president will simply be one more failed gasp, mostly from pukes saying stupid shit like "ron paul and mike gravel should be running mates". seriously, what are you supposed to do when that kind of fool composes much of ron paul's support?
Man, sadly, you're right about that bit. As much as I like to see Ron being supported, it is almost nausiating to read stuff like that. The one hope I have is that if Ron Paul gets support from a bunch of people for all the wrong reasons, perhaps those people's own sense of "saving face" will lead them to be open-minded to Paul's message of true freedom whereas coming from anybody else they would be closed-minded toward it. I have to admit this happening to me sometimes in the past. When a message came from one person, I was unwilling to consider it, but coming from another, I was open to listening. Since these people have invested themselves in supporting Ron, they may therefore be more open to listening to ALL he has to say. I'm not saying this will definitely happen, but rather that it *might* happen, and that is the major reason why a Paul presidency just might turn things in the right direction for once.
My journalism teacher told us articles written with proper english and grammar will be taken seriously and after reading your article I have to agree. Let me give you a hint,after a period the next word is supposed to be capitalized. Thank you.
fortunately, i don't give a flying fuck if people as stupid as you consider that what i write should be "taken seriously". and i am not talking about your shit grammar/typing (the usual curse of those who bitch about spelling/grammar), which i couldn't care less about except as they expose your laughable position as pretend instructor.
<< Home