Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

1246762

Posts

  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    I think it's funny that people have such a problem with the potential that Ron Paul will veto whatever congress sends him regardless of how necessary or reasonable it is. On two points, the latter more relevant to the discussion:

    1) Look at who's sitting in the chair right now and the things he's chosen to veto. Holy hell.

    2) All the democrats think he's crazy...all the republicans think he's crazy...for the shit that obviously is good for the country, I'm pretty sure the bipartisan overturning of said vetoes would be unprecedented.

    1) Because Ron Paul obviously wouldn't be trying to veto things like stem cell research, SCHIP, funding in Iraq, and taxes on the oil industry.

    2) See above. How many vetoes have we managed to override so far?
    Rygar wrote: »
    Congress would never allow the crazyness to become law, and he would reform the Presidency to what it should be. What did become law would be earmarkless constitutional bills, unless the Republicans and Democrats allied against him.

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

    Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for. It is apparent that much of this has nothing to do with programs permitted, or mandated, by the Constitution. You figure out what clause of the Constitution enumerates the spending in question. I’m not an expert on the workings of Congress but reading through the funding requests I am under the impression that Paul was seeking multiple funding for some of these projects. I don’t know if this is cumulative, but that is the impression I got. Either way asking for it once is bad enough.

    1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”

    2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

    3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

    4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”

    5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.

    6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”

    7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

    8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)

    9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.

    10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”

    11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”

    12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”

    13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.

    14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.

    15. $5 million for highway spending.

    16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.

    17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.

    18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.

    19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.

    20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.

    21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.

    22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million

    23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million

    24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.

    25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Gaine wrote: »
    The very idea of a dual currency in a single country doesn't seem ... problematic?

    No doubt the thread's already gone elsewhere, but I saw this on the first page and thought I'd bring it up.

    We have many currencies in the US. There is the national currency, and a wide variety of local currencies. Most of these are for individual cities/towns, but some of them span multiple states.

    Yes, but for the most part, nobody uses those, even in those communities, largely because good ol' American Dollars are legal tender for all debts public and private, whereas (say) Ithaca Hours are "kind of sort of" tender in Ithaca only and only if the business chooses to accept them (i.e. at the farmers' market or food co-op).

    Implementing this kind of shit on a national scale with federal backing would be a huge clusterfuck. Which is why it'll never happen even if Paul gets elected, so it's not really an issue.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Rygar wrote: »
    he would reform the Presidency to what it should be.

    What should it be?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Rygar wrote: »
    he would reform the Presidency to what it should be.

    What should it be?

    a figurehead.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Rygar wrote: »
    he would reform the Presidency to what it should be.

    What should it be?

    Old and crazy.
    Big ears too

    Edit: To be a bit serious here, many people get pissed at the Administration, think that every problem created by them can be placed at the feet of the President, and decide that if only he was less powerful, every other stupid fuck there wouldn't screw us over.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    A lot of the shit people talk about when citing what the government does for us that Ron Paul, apparently, would do away with is stuff that's already handled by the state governments (read: roadways).

    And the lack of Democratic power to override Bush's bills wouldn't be an issue. Humorously, because both Democrats and Republicans don't agree with him on many of these issues. The overrides would be, like I said when I fucking brought them up, bipartisan.

    And on foreign policy. We all pretty much seem to agree that we've made some pretty stupid foreign policy decisions. The difference is that most of you speaking against what Ron Paul is saying are suggesting that staying the course, despite it being fucked up, is the right call. What if it's not? What if we stay the course in Iraq until we're so dependent on foreign countries loaning us money that one day they all decide to stop giving us money in exchange for our lack of natural resources (corn is about all we've got going)? Our economy is *fucked.*

    I mean is the consequence of leaving Iraq and pulling out of our other military bases around the world as big a risk as spending trillions of dollars we don't have?

    I'd rather run the risk of the terrorists following us home where we can easily eliminate and prevent their attacks instead of dooming my children and grandchildren to a Christian fundamentalist controlled 3rd world country.

    jotate on
  • Options
    stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    And on foreign policy. We all pretty much seem to agree that we've made some pretty stupid foreign policy decisions. The difference is that most of you speaking against what Ron Paul is saying are suggesting that staying the course, despite it being fucked up, is the right call. What if it's not? What if we stay the course in Iraq until we're so dependent on foreign countries loaning us money that one day they all decide to stop giving us money in exchange for our lack of natural resources (corn is about all we've got going)? Our economy is *fucked.*

    I mean is the consequence of leaving Iraq and pulling out of our other military bases around the world as big a risk as spending trillions of dollars we don't have?

    I'd rather run the risk of the terrorists following us home where we can easily eliminate and prevent their attacks instead of dooming my children and grandchildren to a Christian fundamentalist controlled 3rd world country.
    I have no idea who you’re addressing when you claim everybody here wants us to stay in Iraq. Aside from that, China could rape our economy today if they wanted. We don’t have to stay in Iraq for that to be a possibility.

    As for pulling out of Iraq immediately, that’s not a good choice because the country would probably collapse, which could very well cause us problems in the future. This doesn’t violate my disclaiming a desire to be out of Iraq; it’s just practicality. We simply can’t pack up and leave immediately. Because of this, your last comment is irrelevant.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • Options
    SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    That's the falsest false dichotomy in the history of dichotometric argumentation

    Senjutsu on
  • Options
    stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    That's the falsest false dichotomy in the history of dichotometric argumentation
    I checked the wiki page on logical fallacies trying to find that name, but didn’t see it.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    And the lack of Democratic power to override Bush's bills wouldn't be an issue. Humorously, because both Democrats and Republicans don't agree with him on many of these issues. The overrides would be, like I said when I fucking brought them up, bipartisan.
    I don't think you understand how hard it is to override a veto.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    And the lack of Democratic power to override Bush's bills wouldn't be an issue. Humorously, because both Democrats and Republicans don't agree with him on many of these issues. The overrides would be, like I said when I fucking brought them up, bipartisan.

    Except that they rarely disagree with Ron Paul on the same issue. Yes, there are a few exceptions to this. I'm sure that the Voting Rights Act, for instance, would manage to gather enough votes to pass regardless of the veto. But if the best thing you have to say about your candidate is, "well, he might be crazy, but at least he won't be able to deny black people from voting without feeling the wrath of congress," then I would rethink your strategy.
    And on foreign policy. We all pretty much seem to agree that we've made some pretty stupid foreign policy decisions. The difference is that most of you speaking against what Ron Paul is saying are suggesting that staying the course, despite it being fucked up, is the right call.

    No, the difference is that we recognize that there might be options in between the extremes. If your best friend gets into an accident where a giant pike of metal has impaled him, you have more options than just "yank it out of him immeadiately, infection and blood loss be damned" and "leave in the forever, or until it resolves itself on its on." You can acknowledge that there's a problem, while also acknowledging that there needs to be a methodical and controlled way to go about the solution.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    But if the best thing you have to say about your candidate is, "well, he might be crazy, but at least he won't be able to deny black people from voting without feeling the wrath of congress," then I would rethink your strategy.

    I don't disagree it's a shitty way to rationalize things. But who's the better option? What's the difference in the lessest of the 19 evils we have for choices and the evil who encourages himself to be checked and balanced?
    No, the difference is that we recognize that there might be options in between the extremes. If your best friend gets into an accident where a giant pike of metal has impaled him, you have more options than just "yank it out of him immeadiately, infection and blood loss be damned" and "leave in the forever, or until it resolves itself on its on." You can acknowledge that there's a problem, while also acknowledging that there needs to be a methodical and controlled way to go about the solution.

    My friend has had a giant pike of metal in him for damn near 5 years. How long would you want to live with a metal pike in you while the doctors say "We're working on it." I personally would tell them to pull it out and see what happens. Can't be much worse than what it's been.

    jotate on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    But if the best thing you have to say about your candidate is, "well, he might be crazy, but at least he won't be able to deny black people from voting without feeling the wrath of congress," then I would rethink your strategy.

    I don't disagree it's a shitty way to rationalize things. But who's the better option? What's the difference in the lessest of the 19 evils we have for choices and the evil who encourages himself to be checked and balanced?

    Obama. If you want to get into the unrealities where Ron Paul actually is considered a viable candidate then I'll throw Biden in there too.
    No, the difference is that we recognize that there might be options in between the extremes. If your best friend gets into an accident where a giant pike of metal has impaled him, you have more options than just "yank it out of him immeadiately, infection and blood loss be damned" and "leave in the forever, or until it resolves itself on its on." You can acknowledge that there's a problem, while also acknowledging that there needs to be a methodical and controlled way to go about the solution.

    My friend has had a giant pike of metal in him for damn near 5 years. How long would you want to live with a metal pike in you while the doctors say "We're working on it." I personally would tell them to pull it out and see what happens. Can't be much worse than what it's been.

    You/Ron Paul want us to change our foreign policy. I agree that that's a good idea. So does everyone else. The difference is, they want to change our foreign policy for the better. Do you not see the idiocy between only allowing the options to be 'change nothing' (Which is a policy position which none of the Democratic candidates support anyway so what's your point here anyway?) or 'become as isolationist as a 30' wall around the country can make us'? There are other options and they're called not electing Giulliani or Paul for POTUS in '08.

    moniker on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    A lot of the shit people talk about when citing what the government does for us that Ron Paul, apparently, would do away with is stuff that's already handled by the state governments (read: roadways).

    "Ron Paul: Ending the Federal Government's Stranglehold on Your Inalienable Freedoms...
    ...and Giving It to the States."

    That's a fucking compelling message you've got there, chief.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    jotate wrote: »
    A lot of the shit people talk about when citing what the government does for us that Ron Paul, apparently, would do away with is stuff that's already handled by the state governments (read: roadways).

    "Ron Paul: Ending the Federal Government's Stranglehold on Your Inalienable Freedoms...
    ...and Giving It to the States."

    That's a fucking compelling message you've got there, chief.

    I like John Hodgeman's State Motto for New Hampshire: "Welcome, we hope you've brought your own roads."

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm getting rather sick and tired with how people here are dealing with this topic. Yes, Ron Paul does have some craziness, we get it. But a lot of the claims about what he would do don't make sense or are hyperbole. It's like some of you expect he would institute a Randian "utopia" or cause anarchy if he was elected, and some of this is talking out of both sides of the mouth.

    For example:
    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

    Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for...

    In that list there is spending on transportation infrastructure, healthcare research and education. What reason would I have to believe he would do something like, for instance, abandon the interstate highway system? I mean, hell, the Constitution explicitly says it's cool with interstate commerce.

    Savant on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    I'm getting rather sick and tired with how people here are dealing with this topic.

    Oh, come off it already, dude. You're smarter than that. This is the fourth Paul thread in as many months - the last few covered him pretty exhaustively, as you well know, and the OP here has brought nothing new to the table except a reiteration of the ancient litanies, to wit:

    - He is completely revolutionary and unlike either party, but don't worry, Congress won't let him actually do any of the revolutionary things you don't like.
    - Freedom is worth any sacrifice, but don't worry, the government roles you like will be taken over by the states.
    - He is the only candidate who understands his very idiosyncratic view of the Constitution.

    So yeah, if people are tired of the merry go round, I can hardly blame them.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    stilist wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    That's the falsest false dichotomy in the history of dichotometric argumentation
    I checked the wiki page on logical fallacies trying to find that name, but didn’t see it.
    ...? hit up the rules thread. false dichotomy is hardly rare.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Rygar wrote: »
    he would reform the Presidency to what it should be.

    What should it be?

    Controlled by the Democratic Party.

    Plutonium on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Rygar wrote: »
    he would reform the Presidency to what it should be.

    What should it be?

    Controlled by the Democratic Party.

    A+++, would read post again

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    I'm getting rather sick and tired with how people here are dealing with this topic.

    Oh, come off it already, dude. You're smarter than that. This is the fourth Paul thread in as many months - the last few covered him pretty exhaustively, as you well know, and the OP here has brought nothing new to the table except a reiteration of the ancient litanies, to wit:

    - He is completely revolutionary and unlike either party, but don't worry, Congress won't let him actually do any of the revolutionary things you don't like.
    - Freedom is worth any sacrifice, but don't worry, the government roles you like will be taken over by the states.
    - He is the only candidate who understands his very idiosyncratic view of the Constitution.

    So yeah, if people are tired of the merry go round, I can hardly blame them.

    I've been irritated about it for awhile but not said as much about it. But it a lot of these political discussions here people just say things or make charges which just don't make any sense. "Vote for this guy and he'll put lead in your pipes like the Romans!" type shit, and it doesn't get called out.

    Monetary policy is one of the things that Paul has an in depth position on that I really don't get. If you want gold or silver value, you are free to buy it in the commodities markets. I can see the problem it is trying to address though, as the current powers at be seem intent on turning the dollar into the Turkish lira.

    Savant on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been irritated about it for awhile but not said as much about it. But it a lot of these political discussions here people just say things or make charges which just don't make any sense. "Vote for this guy and he'll put lead in your pipes like the Romans!" type shit, and it doesn't get called out.

    Well....it's a couple of things. First off, as we saw the last couple of times, any thread about Paul usually ends up being an entree into Libertarian Thread Number 35,057, with the Paul fans also waxing enthusiastic about toll roads, private police forces, and ending the hideous crushing tyranny of all government everywhere. They certainly don't pull out his record on wildlife preservation or highway maintenance to calm the skeptics - and if someone did, they'd probably be embarrassed about it. As was Schrodinger's intention.

    I mean, if his defenders are saying - as they have here several times already - "don't worry, Congress won't let him do anything really crazy" then you would probably be well served to dial down the indignation at people who may have gotten the impression that there's something to the Paul = crazy thing.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been irritated about it for awhile but not said as much about it. But it a lot of these political discussions here people just say things or make charges which just don't make any sense. "Vote for this guy and he'll put lead in your pipes like the Romans!" type shit, and it doesn't get called out.

    Well....it's a couple of things. First off, as we saw the last couple of times, any thread about Paul usually ends up being an entree into Libertarian Thread Number 35,057, with the Paul fans also waxing enthusiastic about toll roads, private police forces, and ending the hideous crushing tyranny of all government everywhere. They certainly don't pull out his record on wildlife preservation or highway maintenance to calm the skeptics - and if someone did, they'd probably be embarrassed about it. As was Schrodinger's intention.

    I mean, if his defenders are saying - as they have here several times already - "don't worry, Congress won't let him do anything really crazy" then you would probably be well served to dial down the indignation at people who may have gotten the impression that there's something to the Paul = crazy thing.

    I don't have problem with people thinking that he is at least a bit of a nutter, because he is somewhat, and he does attract nutters. He does bring up some important issues in a much more serious way than the other candidates do though, even if his solutions are impractical.

    It's just that libertarianism seems to be treated specially as the Red Menace here, when the reality of it is that it is simply somewhat delusional, and often not a ton more delusional than an number of other hip or widely held sociopolitical positions. Even if the loonies of the libertarians garnered some more influence, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as a lot of suggestions I've heard here.

    And it's pretty clear by looking at Paul's record that he isn't nearly as much of a true believer libertarian as some of his more vocal supporters are.

    Savant on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    There is some serious grade school shit up in this thread. It's very, very disingenuous to call all of his supporters stupid college kids or immigrant-hating Neo-Nazis. There are a great deal of 40-something couples who have high 5-low 6 figure jobs who idolize Paul and not all of them hate Mexicans or have Waco-esque hideouts.

    I know that many people on this forum think that smaller government is cliche and is idealistic and that you have to watch those evil fatcats in their factories, but Jesus. I get it, you're cool, you're edgy, you're caustic- you can come up with some biting retorts to Paul.

    But is it too much to ask for them to be substantial? God forbid someone actually tries to ascertain any composed, authentic arguments against the guy's plans.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    It's just that libertarianism seems to be treated specially as the Red Menace here

    Like conspiracy theories, I think it gets a response roughly proportionate to the number, and obtuseness, of true believers who start pie-eyed threads about it. Curse of the Internet, you know? I don't think myself or AngelHedgie or Than or Phobos spend our days and nights in RL fretting about the Heinlein reader menace.
    when the reality of it is that it is simply somewhat delusional, and often not a ton more delusional than an number of other hip or widely held sociopolitical positions.

    Okay, what did you have in mind?
    Even if the loonies of the libertarians garnered some more influence, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as a lot of suggestions I've heard here.

    That's a matter of opinion, but I hardly think they're being off-base considering the horror scenarios I've read have been pulled from the pages of not too distant history. It is incumbent on a Libertarian to explain, for instance, why getting rid of the FDA wouldn't lead to The Jungle - not on the person making that charge to prove that it would.
    And it's pretty clear by looking at Paul's record that he isn't nearly as much of a true believer libertarian as some of his more vocal supporters are.

    I think that's absolutely true, but I don't see how that recommends him. If you're not in his camp, it's not going to make him seem palatable, and if you are, you're going to see that your hero has feet of clay.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    There is some serious grade school shit up in this thread. It's very, very disingenuous to call all of his supporters stupid college kids or immigrant-hating Neo-Nazis. There are a great deal of 40-something couples who have high 5-low 6 figure jobs who idolize Paul and not all of them hate Mexicans or have Waco-esque hideouts.

    I know that many people on this forum think that smaller government is cliche and is idealistic and that you have to watch those evil fatcats in their factories, but Jesus. I get it, you're cool, you're edgy, you're caustic- you can come up with some biting retorts to Paul.

    But is it too much to ask for them to be substantial? God forbid someone actually tries to ascertain any composed, authentic arguments against the guy's plans.

    To clarify, I wish I had typed this more softly (and I'd edit it, but I figure people have already read it by now).

    D&D has some amazingly smart people, and I really, really enjoy browsing these threads (and occasionally posting in threads about Israel). I don't mean to disparage the posters, and I know that people here have a tendency to present their points with an incisive flourish.

    However, I came to this thread (in a forum about debate) because I wanted to see what some of the smart folks here at D&D had to say about Ron Paul's points. Despite coming from a country that would be severely stunted by some of Ron Paul's policies, I was (and am) genuinely interested in some of his ideas. However, I know how 'trendy' a lot of people my age (people who are the major source of my information) can be, and so I know that in part, at least, the wool's probably being pulled over my eyes. I thought when I opened this thread that among the 125+ replies there would be some that would teach me something, but there were actually very few. I now know how childish and stupid and naive and deceitful Ron Paul's policies are... except I don't. All I now know is a hundred different ways to infer all of that sarcastically.

    So uh, I know you guys don't live to serve the ignorant or anything. However, this really strikes me as antithetical to the spirit of a 'discussion' form. This thread seems like a group of 'well informed' people sitting around, waiting for someone to make an innocuous statement or ask a genuine question, and then just tearing into it. It's not constructive. To lift a term from Senjutsu, it strikes me as a 'wankfest'.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    I refer you to my replies to Savant. People are, I think, burned out on the topic.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    when the reality of it is that it is simply somewhat delusional, and often not a ton more delusional than an number of other hip or widely held sociopolitical positions.

    Okay, what did you have in mind?

    Let's start with the bible-thumpers to the extent of young earth creationism. Probably don't have to go too much into that here. Protectionism seems to be growingly in vogue in segments of the population, particularly with the more populist types, beyond what is economically sensible. Then there's the growing nationalist stuff, which includes some of the "terrorists!" hubbub. Some of the lefties use the phrase "fascism" for that, but the nationalism hasn't gotten nearly that bad or extreme. I'd put communism but that isn't hip anymore.

    There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head.

    Savant on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Let's start with the bible-thumpers to the extent of young earth creationism. Probably don't have to go too much into that here. Protectionism seems to be growingly in vogue in segments of the population, particularly with the more populist types, beyond what is economically sensible. Then there's the growing nationalist stuff, which includes some of the "terrorists!" hubbub. Some of the lefties use the phrase "fascism" for that, but the nationalism hasn't gotten nearly that bad or extreme. I'd put communism but that isn't hip anymore.

    There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head.

    I of course agree with you about all of these - but I think libertarianism gets discussed disproportionately more because of the simple nature of the demographics of the internet, video game players, and video game playing forum users.

    I think there's also the way that, being considerably less well represented in real life, and lacking the support of the sympathetic communities that Christians, nationalists, and naive college kids enjoy, libertarians and Ron Paul fans act on the internet like music fans who've just discovered a new indie band and want to get out there and spread the word. I think it's that air of arm-tugging "hey man, hey man, check this out" that inspires some of the perhaps untoward mockery.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    Scott BairdScott Baird __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Honestly I don't know which would be funnier - if Colbert got elected or if Ron Paul did.

    Probably Ron Paul.

    Scott Baird on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    In that list there is spending on transportation infrastructure, healthcare research and education. What reason would I have to believe he would do something like, for instance, abandon the interstate highway system? I mean, hell, the Constitution explicitly says it's cool with interstate commerce.

    As happens when Rush Limbaugh gets caught with drugs and when republicans get caught with the gay sex, the issue is hypocrisy. Most non-libertarians would accept that these things are a valid interpretation of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Ron Paul, however, does not. If you can't support the department of health and the CDC, then why are you asking for money to fund healthcare research? If you want to get rid of the department of education, then why are you asking for federal funds?

    AFAIK, the transportation requests that Ron Paul is asking money for aren't truly interstate, unless you want to say that all roads in general are interstate, because they would in theory allow people to cross state lines, in theory. But when you do that, then you have to broaden the definition of interstate congress. Which most people end up doing -- just not the libertarians.
    It's just that libertarianism seems to be treated specially as the Red Menace here, when the reality of it is that it is simply somewhat delusional, and often not a ton more delusional than an number of other hip or widely held sociopolitical positions. Even if the loonies of the libertarians garnered some more influence, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as a lot of suggestions I've heard here.

    Except that they do have influence. Just not in elected office. But they tend to have a lot of influence when money is involved, among people who benefit from seeing a decrease in government restrictions. Which is probably one of the main reason you see so many outspoken libertarian voices in the popular media.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Libertarians...in popular media? About the only one I could think of would be someone like Bill Maher. Fox News has the nationalist end covered, and the other news networks seem to be lukewarm populist or liberal when they show their biases.

    I know Paul has no love for the federal government providing healthcare, but when did he say he would abolish the Department of Health and CDC if he could? His On the Issues on healthcare doesn't mention that. Just that he would like to abolish Medicare and replace it with other optional savings plans.

    Oh, and it appears the libertarian solution and alternative for lack of federal government oversight groups would be lawsuits and private consumer protection groups. That seems silly given that there will be an information mismatch between consumers and corporations, but unfettered lawsuits could prevent some egregious malpractice by companies.

    Savant on
  • Options
    Dance CommanderDance Commander Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    And the main reason that despite only picking up 2% in polls, Paul has a $5 million campaign war chest.

    Dance Commander on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    A lot of the shit people talk about when citing what the government does for us that Ron Paul, apparently, would do away with is stuff that's already handled by the state governments (read: roadways).

    Sidenote: The roadways in Texas, for nigh on 10 years now, have been the absolute worst shit of any state I've been in.

    Unrelated?

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    A lot of the shit people talk about when citing what the government does for us that Ron Paul, apparently, would do away with is stuff that's already handled by the state governments (read: roadways).

    Sidenote: The roadways in Texas, for nigh on 10 years now, have been the absolute worst shit of any state I've been in.

    Unrelated?

    The highways in GA aren't too bad, so it's probably not the only factor.

    MKR on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    A lot of the shit people talk about when citing what the government does for us that Ron Paul, apparently, would do away with is stuff that's already handled by the state governments (read: roadways).

    Sidenote: The roadways in Texas, for nigh on 10 years now, have been the absolute worst shit of any state I've been in.

    Unrelated?

    The highways in GA aren't too bad, so it's probably not the only factor.

    Isn't Atlanta known for having crappily designed roads?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    A lot of the shit people talk about when citing what the government does for us that Ron Paul, apparently, would do away with is stuff that's already handled by the state governments (read: roadways).

    Sidenote: The roadways in Texas, for nigh on 10 years now, have been the absolute worst shit of any state I've been in.

    Unrelated?

    The highways in GA aren't too bad, so it's probably not the only factor.

    Isn't Atlanta known for having crappily designed roads?

    Atlanta is not the only place in Georgia, and I assumed he was referring to the maintenance, not the design.

    MKR on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    "referring to the maintenance" yep

    I'm being unfair, Texas is fucking huge.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The roads in Dallas were always pretty good. And there are a lot of roads in Dallas.

    But I'd drive out past the cut off line for democrats to the small towns and such and they usually did go to shit.

    Quid on
  • Options
    LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think there's such a backlash to Ron Paul on these forums because, while naivete is endearing in a child, it isn't in a Presidentiial candidate nor a political philosophy. I'm tired of Liberatrians and Paul supporters getting their say and no one doing anything about it. I mean, if you say something like we should withdraw from the UN then you'd better give me one hell of a reason to justify leaving an organization formed explicitly to prevent World War III, especially in the modern climate. If you want to cut the DoE then you'd better tell me what you'll be doing with those billions and how that's of equivalent value to providing public education. There's none of that. All I get is "rar government bad" which is just a load of horseshit.

    Look, I come from a poor urban area. I've got friends who rely on governmental aid to make a living. The guy that got me into tabletop gaming, my uncle, works for the IRS. You want to give me the "we needs ta be free from tha man!" line then you'd better start thinking about your propositions.

    LibrarianThorne on
This discussion has been closed.