Rand Paul comes out against the Patriot Act but people on Rand Paul Forums .....

[sailingaway]

figure that no one here will care.....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278601-Sen.-Rand-Paul-releases-statement-on-PATRIOT-Act

At least that is what I take away from the fact that no one posted it here.

[Brett85]

People only comment on articles about Rand if he says something that they don't like.

[Sola_Fide]

People only comment on articles about Rand if he says something that they don't like.

Exactly.

It almost seems like the Maddow-esque memes have seeped into the consciousness of the sheep on this board and they have this strange inexplicable aversion to Rand even when he supports the same ideas of Ron.

It is a strange, strange phenomenon...

[Dr.3D]

Exactly.

It almost seems like the Maddow-esque memes have seeped into the consciousness of the sheep on this board and they have this strange inexplicable aversion to Rand even when he supports the same ideas of Ron.

It is a strange, strange phenomenon...

Maybe the don't like the ideas Ron has either. I'm beginning to wonder about things here.

[Sola_Fide]

Maybe the don't like the ideas Ron has either. I'm beginning to wonder about things here.

You very well may be right.

[Brett85]

Maybe the don't like the ideas Ron has either. I'm beginning to wonder about things here.

Many here don't support Ron's ideas when they openly say that they support anarchy and doing away with the Constitution.

[Dr.3D]

Many here don't support Ron's ideas when they openly say that they support anarchy and doing away with the Constitution.

And they are still here. Go figure.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I just thought everyone expected Rand to come out against it. Didn't seem like news, but more like "Of course he did. He should."

[Kludge]

I read the thread and everything seemed in check, so why would I bother communicating?

What do you want? "Yeah, right on! Rand is the man, man! I know you all think Rand is the man, too, but man - he's THE MAN!"

[specsaregood]

And they are still here. Go figure.

Not much lamer than an anarchist hanging out on a board named after a politician and dedicated to political activism.

[Dr.3D]

Not much lamer than an anarchist hanging out on a board named after a politician and dedicated to political activism.

LOL... a herd of cats looking for a leader....

[Sola_Fide]

Many here don't support Ron's ideas when they openly say that they support anarchy and doing away with the Constitution.


Many here don't support Ron and Rand's consistent libertarian pro-life view either.

If there is one thing that angers me the most about Ron's pro-abortion supporters, is that they don't have the decency to admit that they are arguing for a position Ron is completely against.

Ron's perception in greater conservative circles is UNDOUBTEDLY DAMAGED when pro-life people see his supporters arguing for the tyranny of abortion.

[low preference guy]

Many here don't support Ron's ideas when they openly say that they support anarchy and doing away with the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure Ron would've voted against ratifying the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were far superior.

[low preference guy]

Many here don't support Ron and Rand's consistent libertarian pro-life view either.

If there is one thing that angers me the most about Ron's pro-abortion supporters, is that they don't have the decency to admit that they are arguing for a position Ron is completely against.

Ron's perception in greater conservative circles is UNDOUBTEDLY DAMAGED when pro-life people see his supporters arguing for the tyranny of abortion.

says the guys who supports beating up kids....

[Dr.3D]

I'm pretty sure Ron would've voted against ratifying the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were far superior.

If that is the case, then he turned a 180 and now defends the constitution. Let's concentrate on what he does and not on what he would have done.

[Sola_Fide]

In fact, I would ask Ron's pro-abortion supporters to KINDLY ADMIT, at the outset of a discussion, that they are arguing a position contrary to what Ron believes.

Have the decency to not smear Ron with your tyrannical statist views on abortion. It only hurts him politically...and besides that, it is dishonest.

[Kludge]

So anyhoo, the circle jerk is quickly turning into a pointless flame war. There's some irony about!

[silverhandorder]

Stfu about anarchists we fully suport Ron because he moves us towards our idea of liberty. I would rather live in a minarchist society then what we have today.

[Aldanga]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#3m58s

Check about the 4 minute mark. Dr. Paul seems to state that his goal is total self-government, i.e., anarchy. Returning to the Constitution is just one step on the way there.

[jmdrake]

I read the thread and everything seemed in check, so why would I bother communicating?

What do you want? "Yeah, right on! Rand is the man, man! I know you all think Rand is the man, too, but man - he's THE MAN!"

LOL


So anyhoo, the circle jerk is quickly turning into a pointless flame war. There's some irony about!

Double LOL

As to the OP, some of us were supporting Rand on the Patriot Act even before this latest statement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278427-Ahead-of-Patriot-Act-vote-some-tea-party-lawmakers-express-reservations&p=3098677&viewfull=1#post3098677

I'm sure he'll do the right thing on this. No doubt about it.

[jmdrake]

says the guys who supports beating up kids....

Yeah. Kill your kids in utero so you don't have to worry about beating them. Makes sense. :rolleyes: I bet Rand got a spanking or two growing up.

[low preference guy]

Yeah. Kill your kids in utero so you don't have to worry about beating them. Makes sense. :rolleyes: I bet Rand got a spanking or two growing up.

I'm against abortion, so I won't do that. I see you enjoy doing that a lot, that's why you project your wishes on me. Please don't do it. Please don't kill your kids. Let someone adopt them if you think they'll be a burden.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm against abortion, so I won't do that. I see you enjoy doing that a lot, that's why you project your wishes on me. Please don't do it. Please don't kill your kids. Let someone adopt them if you think they'll be a burden.

Huh?

[rich34]

I've been saying that a lot of folks that supported Rand in Kentucky are actually HUCKABEE supporters for president.. Sure I'm glad they supported Rand, but if they thought he would be a statist like their boy Huck fin, they are now getting a dose of reality. Rand don't swing that way baby!!!

[sailingaway]

I read the thread and everything seemed in check, so why would I bother communicating?

What do you want? "Yeah, right on! Rand is the man, man! I know you all think Rand is the man, too, but man - he's THE MAN!"

Yeah, that's good.....

[Sola_Fide]

I've been saying that a lot of folks that supported Rand in Kentucky are actually HUCKABEE supporters for president.. Sure I'm glad they supported Rand, but if they thought he would be a statist like their boy Huck fin, they are now getting a dose of reality. Rand don't swing that way baby!!!

I think your analysis may be right. There are a good number of Dixiecrats here in Kentucky who would support the Huckster in 12 unfortunately.

[Brett85]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#3m58s

Check about the 4 minute mark. Dr. Paul seems to state that his goal is total self-government, i.e., anarchy. Returning to the Constitution is just one step on the way there.

Then why did he vote for the war in Afghanistan, border security, the ban on partial birth abortion, a missile defense system, etc?

[__27__]

LOL@ the level of idoltry here. Ron Paul is a human, not a god. I dearly love the great Dr., but that doesn't mean i have to copy/paste my viwws from him. I am an individual and I can make up my own damn mind, I don't need for Ron to tell me what I should think of something, my own mind works quite well. And if you think Ron supports anything other than individuals using their own faculties to determine their course in life than you haven't listened to a word he's said.

"Government is the enemy of liberty." ~ Dr. Ron Paul, CPAC 2010

[Pericles]

Not much lamer than an anarchist hanging out on a board named after a politician and dedicated to political activism.

Which is very lame +rep

[jmdrake]

I'm against abortion, so I won't do that. I see you enjoy doing that a lot, that's why you project your wishes on me. Please don't do it. Please don't kill your kids. Let someone adopt them if you think they'll be a burden.

Right. You're against abortion but you want to make sure it's "safe and legal" for others to kill their kids. Whatever dude. Tell me this. If Ron comes out and says that he spanked Rand (and he doesn't now "apologize" for it) will you mistreat him like you mistreat his supporters?

[jmdrake]

Huh?

LPG is reserving his right to attack you and simultaneously complain when he is attacked. Nuttin to worry about.

[Aldanga]

Then why did he vote for the war in Afghanistan, border security, the ban on partial birth abortion, a missile defense system, etc?

Because those are related to the role of government according to the Constitution.

[low preference guy]

Right. You're against abortion but you want to make sure it's "safe and legal" for others to kill their kids.

Yet another lie. I think murder should be illegal in all cases, that includes murder of humans before and after birth.

[Dr.3D]

"Government is the enemy of liberty." ~ Dr. Ron Paul, CPAC 2010

So what would an anarchist be doing in congress? If anything, that would be hypocritical.
I'm pretty sure he is talking about uncontrolled government. In other words, a government not controlled by a constitution. This is something we are dealing with right now.

[Vessol]

Not much lamer than an anarchist hanging out on a board named after a politician and dedicated to political activism.

You ask most most here why they support Ron Paul, it's because he advances the ideas of liberty and by voting for him and putting him in the news and even possibly elected, he is going to spread those ideas to others.

This is why I, and many other anarchists on this board support him. We're not "BURN THE SYSTEM DOWN!", we realize that it is only through education and spread of the philosophy of liberty, that is our goal. I'm not here to go for the big win, I'm not deluded into thinking that if Ron Paul does win the election that suddenly everything will magically change. I'm here for the long haul.

Self-government I think is the natural and logical step past minarchism, eventually you have to stop looking for excuses and look into the mirror to realize that you are your only ruler. I mean, afterall, the minarchists excuse for a government is that it has to protect the life, liberty and property of it's citizens. How can it protect either of those when it must involuntarily take your property away in the first place to even exist.

As for Rand Paul. I was skeptical of him during his campaign because of his rhetoric he used to get elected. Now that he is showing his true liberty colors, I'm 100% behind him.

[Chieppa1]

ahh the random abortion debate, great way to abort any rational discussion from a thread.

[low preference guy]

Self-government I think is the natural and logical step past minarchism, eventually you have to stop looking for excuses and look into the mirror to realize that you are your only ruler. I mean, afterall, the minarchists excuse for a government is that it has to protect the life, liberty and property of it's citizens. How can it protect either of those when it must involuntarily take your property away in the first place to even exist.


false. that's not necessary, and many advocates of limited government advocate for voluntary funding of government. examples (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html).

[Vessol]

false. that's not necessary, and many advocates of limited government advocate for voluntary funding of government. examples (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html).

Point taken, thank you. While I agree that a voluntary government is most certainly possible(though probably only in the locality or region), this is actually what I'd foresee happening in a Stateless society.

But, the United States government certainly was not a voluntary government at it's founding or at any other time.

Anyone ever heard of Shay's Rebellion? An American Revolutionary veteran returns to his farm after years of fighting and being wounded. Unpaid of course. He returns and he finds that the state of Massachusetts levied upon him massive amounts of unpaid taxes and then takes his farm because he couldn't pay his taxes. This happened to many other veterans, and they attempted to start a rebellion, but they were crushed by a private army hired by Boston merchants.

This is actually the reason why the U.S Constitution was drafted, to make sure that the states can protect each other effectively and crush those who stand up against involuntary taxes. Thomas Jefferson himself was against the U.S Constitution and insisted that the Articles of Confederation stay.

[jmdrake]

Yet another lie. I think murder should be illegal in all cases, that includes murder of humans before and after birth.

Well good for you. So your attack on AquaBuddha was just you being gratuitous. Still waiting for your answer about what you're going to do if you find out Rand was spanked.

[__27__]

P
"Government is the enemy of liberty." ~ Dr. Ron Paul, CPAC 2010

So what would an anarchist be doing in congress? If anything, that would be hypocritical.
I'm pretty sure he is talking about uncontrolled government. In other words, a government not controlled by a constitution. This is something we are dealing with right now.

Dr. Paul is an incrementalist, I am an abolitionist. There were plenty of people wholeheartedly against slavery but who worked instead to limit it rather than abolish it because they thought they would see better results. Dr. Paul is the same way with government, but he has made his ultimate belief in voluntarism clear many times, unfortunately for his chosen route it is something that needs to be kept quiet for political reasons. Do you think Ron would be where he was if he ran on the platform of complete and immediate abolition of government? By your own words even you wouldn't be here now.

And as for your constitution (which I never consented to, btw):

"Whether it be one thing or another this much is clear, the constitution exists and so does our current level of government; therefore the constitution either authorizes this level of government or it is powerless to stop it, either way it is unfit to exist." ~ Lysander Spooner

For people who are so froth at the mouth angry over the supposed force of abortion you sure have no problems shoving guns in the faces of fully grown humans and forcing them to comply to your wishes. I only wish you had the compassion for fully grown humans that you show for unborn fetuses.

[Dr.3D]

P

Dr. Paul is not an incrementalist, I am an abolitionist. There were plenty of people wholeheartedly against slavery but who worked instead to limit it rather than abolish it because they thought they would see better results. Dr. Paul is the same way with government, but he has made his ultimate belief in voluntarism clear many times, unfortunately for his chosen route it is something that needs to be kept quiet for political reasons. Do you think Ron would be where he was if he ran on the platform of complete and immediate abolition of government? By your own words even you wouldn't be here now.

And as for your constitution (which I never consented to, btw):

"Whether it be one thing or another this much is clear, the constitution exists and so does our current level of government; therefore the constitution either authorizes this level of government or it is powerless to stop it, either way it is unfit to exist." ~ Lysander Spooner

For people who are so froth at the mouth angry over the supposed force of abortion you sure have no problems shoving guns in the faces of fully grown humans and forcing them to comply to your wishes. I only wish you had the compassion for fully grown humans that you show for unborn fetuses.

Oh gracious... I didn't know I was doing anything like you have described. Perhaps I should go to a liberal or neo-con forum.

[Constitutional.Reset]

No political question - just the heart of every Congressman's oath:
1) Does the Patriot Act & ObamaCare trespass against our Constitution?
2) Does your oath to support and defend the Constitution determine your vote on either ObamaCare ot the PATRIOT Act?
3) Do you support or sponsor a version of H.R.3171?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108%3AHR03171:@@@L&summ2=m&

http://www.virginiaruleoflaw.com/home/blog_b.jpg (http://www.virginiaruleoflaw.com/)

http://www.facebook.com/constitutional.reset

[low preference guy]

Well good for you. So your attack on AquaBuddha was just you being gratuitous.

you're obviously not very smart.

the point was that it's ironic that someone who defends beating up kids wants to give others lessons on how to create a positive impression for Ron Paul.

get it?

beating up kids=bad?


Still waiting for your answer about what you're going to do if you find out Rand was spanked.

that's as relevant as me asking what you're going to do if you find out Rand wasn't spanked. it's absolutely irrelevant. but it's good. you progressed from posting lies to asking irrelevant questions.

[__27__]

Oh gracious... I didn't know I was doing anything like you have described. Perhaps I should go to a liberal or neo-con forum.

Unlike you, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to tell you where you should go. I believe in individual freedom and the NAP.

I support your right to voluntarily live under a government rule with the constitution and would never dream of forcing you to do otherwise. Will you afford me the same courtesy to voluntarily live w/o government rule and not have force initiated against me for that choice?

[low preference guy]

This is actually the reason why the U.S Constitution was drafted, to make sure that the states can protect each other effectively and crush those who stand up against involuntary taxes. Thomas Jefferson himself was against the U.S Constitution and insisted that the Articles of Confederation stay.

good points. i also agree the Articles of Confederation were superior.

[Brett85]

Because those are related to the role of government according to the Constitution.

Right. That was my point. Ron Paul supports the Constitution, not anarchy.

[Sola_Fide]

you're obviously not very smart.

the point was that it's ironic that someone who defends beating up kids wants to give others lessons on how to create a positive impression for Ron Paul.

get it?

beating up kids=bad?



that's as relevant as me asking what you're going to do if you find out Rand wasn't spanked. it's absolutely irrelevant. but it's good. you progressed from posting lies to asking irrelevant questions.


Why would you be so disingenuous as to say I defended "beating up" kids when everyone can pull up the post to see I defended spanking.

Spanking children is not beating them up. You lose all credibility when you exaggerate like that. You know that, right?

[Dr.3D]

Unlike you, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to tell you where you should go. I believe in individual freedom and the NAP.

I support your right to voluntarily live under a government rule with the constitution and would never dream of forcing you to do otherwise. Will you afford me the same courtesy to voluntarily live w/o government rule and not have force initiated against me for that choice?

Sure, I sure hope you find a place on the planet where this is no government so you can enjoy living there.

[Vessol]

Right. That was my point. Ron Paul supports the Constitution, not anarchy.

I don't think Ron Paul actively supports anarchy, but I think he certainly pushes an almost complete level of self-government, would you disagree with this?

The key point however that many of us are trying to say is this.

I do not want to push my ideas on government(or lack there of) onto anyone here, I however expect the same if it comes to it. I support Ron Paul because he advances the ideas of liberty and self-governance. Is this not enough to be a part of this 'Revolution'? Is there any real disagreement between you and I?

We both desire a free society eventually, there is such a mild disagreeance between us, is there any reason really to reject each other? I respect constitutional conservatives, minarchists, libertarians, classical liberals, because they all desire the same thing: less government. I just take it a step further and desire NO government for myself if I can, I do not wish to push this upon anyone else.

Just like I'd rather live in the current United States over North Korea. I'd prefer to live in a minarchist nation over anything we have now.

[Pericles]

P

Dr. Paul is an incrementalist, I am an abolitionist. There were plenty of people wholeheartedly against slavery but who worked instead to limit it rather than abolish it because they thought they would see better results. Dr. Paul is the same way with government, but he has made his ultimate belief in voluntarism clear many times, unfortunately for his chosen route it is something that needs to be kept quiet for political reasons. Do you think Ron would be where he was if he ran on the platform of complete and immediate abolition of government? By your own words even you wouldn't be here now.

And as for your constitution (which I never consented to, btw):

"Whether it be one thing or another this much is clear, the constitution exists and so does our current level of government; therefore the constitution either authorizes this level of government or it is powerless to stop it, either way it is unfit to exist." ~ Lysander Spooner

For people who are so froth at the mouth angry over the supposed force of abortion you sure have no problems shoving guns in the faces of fully grown humans and forcing them to comply to your wishes. I only wish you had the compassion for fully grown humans that you show for unborn fetuses.
The same is true of anarchism. By default it had to be the original state of government for humanity and the fact that it nowhere now exists as a governance model shows it was powerless to protect itself against encroachment.

[Sola_Fide]

The same is true of anarchism. By default it had to be the original state of government for humanity and the fact that it nowhere now exists as a governance model shows it was powerless to protect itself against encroachment.

Hmmmm.

27? Your reply?

[low preference guy]

Why would you be so disingenuous as to say I defended "beating up" kids when everyone can pull up the post to see I defended spanking.

Spanking children is not beating them up. You lose all credibility when you exaggerate like that. You know that, right?

lol.

so where do you draw the line? spanking once is fine, right? what about spanking 1000 times? where do you draw the line?

and i don't care if you put the number at 5 or 20. once you support physical violence against children, you have accepted that it's ok to exert physical violence against children. that's wrong.

[jmdrake]

you're obviously not very smart.

the point was that it's ironic that someone who defends beating up kids wants to give others lessons on how to create a positive impression for Ron Paul.

get it?

beating up kids=bad?


You obviously don't know what gratuitous means. And spanking != beating up kids. Get it? :rolleyes:



that's as relevant as me asking what you're going to do if you find out Rand wasn't spanked. it's absolutely irrelevant. but it's good. you progressed from posting lies to asking irrelevant questions.

That's a good question. And the answer is that I could care less. Unlike you I'm not running around with a corporal punishment litmus test. You bring up spanking in a thread about the Patriot Act in response to AquaBuddha pointing out that some folks don't agree with some of Ron's Paul's positions (like abortion) and you have the nerve to lecture me about relevance? Yeah, that's definitely ironic. :rolleyes:

Unless Ron had taken some official position about spanking your point had no relevance. It was just you carrying a grudge. Enjoy nursing it.

[jmdrake]

lol.

so where do you draw the line? spanking once is fine, right? what about spanking 1000 times? where do you draw the line?

and i don't care if you put the number at 5 or 20. once you support physical violence against children, you have accepted that it's ok to exert physical violence against children. that's wrong.

Fine. That's your opinion. You have a right to it. But that's irrelevant to the point AB was making about official positions Ron has taken on issues like abortion. As far as I know he's taken no official position on spanking. That doesn't mean you can't. But your post had no relevance to AB's point.

[Pericles]

Hmmmm.

27? Your reply?

I think it will be a while, as a google search of Rothbard won't bring up an answer.

[Valli6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZSDBswx90Cs

[low preference guy]

Fine. That's your opinion. You have a right to it. But that's irrelevant to the point AB was making about official positions Ron has taken on issues like abortion. As far as I know he's taken no official position on spanking. That doesn't mean you can't. But your post had no relevance to AB's point.

if you want to lecture somebody about something, you better be good at it. if you support physical violence against children, you're not going to create a good impression. so you don't have credibility to lecture others about it.

[Dr.3D]

I think it will be a while, as a google search of Rothbard won't bring up an answer.

Wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to be thinking for ourselves.

[Dr.3D]

Proverbs 13:24
Proverbs 22:15

[__27__]

The same is true of anarchism. By default it had to be the original state of government for humanity and the fact that it nowhere now exists as a governance model shows it was powerless to protect itself against encroachment.

Anarchism is the absence of violent force as a means to gain political ends. Anarchism exists all around you, every time you make a voluntary exchange with another you are practicing anarchism. The many countries of the world themselves exist in a state of anarchy, there is no (yet) world government that is in charge of the countries as a whole. Because you skmply refuse to acknowledge the anarchism around you does not mean it doesn't exist.

Since you'd like to use this train of argument I suppose you could tell me why you support America and the many countries living in anarchy while not supporting it for their inhabitants? If one simply follows your logic string that limited government based on a piece of paper and enforced with a monopoly on force is the best form of government, then you must also support this on a world level. If there is no justification for a world government with the monopoly on force then there is no justification for any level of government with the monopoly on force.

[jmdrake]

if you want to lecture somebody about something, you better be good at it. if you support physical violence against children, you're not going to create a good impression. so you don't have credibility to lecture others about it.

LOL. Whatever dude. If I don't have credibility with you I'll count that as a badge of honor. I bet you think people who use rolled up newspaper to potty train their puppies are equivalent to the Atlanta Falcons era Michael Vick too. :rolleyes: And for the record, you started with the lecturing.

[__27__]

I think it will be a while, as a google search of Rothbard won't bring up an answer.

Oh my soul, its hurt too bad to continue. :rolleyes:

Unlike you I have a mind of my own. I don't need anyone to tell me how to think or act. Perhaps that is why I believe in individualism and you believe in using guns to get your way.

[Sola_Fide]

lol.

so where do you draw the line? spanking once is fine, right? what about spanking 1000 times? where do you draw the line?

and i don't care if you put the number at 5 or 20. once you support physical violence against children, you have accepted that it's ok to exert physical violence against children. that's wrong.

No, it is not wrong to spank your child. It is perfectly acceptable to do so.

Spanking is not child abuse, just like yelling is not child abuse, or grounding is not child abuse. Obviously, there are instances of child abuse and they have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

If I choose to spank my children, or yell at them to try to get them to understand the severity of something, I'll be damned if some CPS worker is going to beat down my door and tell me how to parent.

The government has no jurisdiction over how I discipline or educate my children. They are my children, not the government's.

[jmdrake]

Proverbs 13:24
Proverbs 22:15

It disagrees with the gospel according to LPG so it doesn't count. ;)

[__27__]

No, it is not wrong to spank your child. It is perfectly acceptable to do so.

Spanking is not child abuse, just like yelling is not child abuse, or grounding is not child abuse. Obviously, there are instances of child abuse and they have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

If I choose to spank my children, or yell at them to try to get them to understand the severity of something, I'll be damned if some CPS worker is going to beat down my door and tell me how to parent.

The government has no jurisdiction over how I discipline or educate my children. They are my children, not the government's.

Your children are human individuals, not your property.

[dannno]

"Government is the enemy of liberty." ~ Dr. Ron Paul, CPAC 2010

So what would an anarchist be doing in congress? If anything, that would be hypocritical.
I'm pretty sure he is talking about uncontrolled government. In other words, a government not controlled by a constitution. This is something we are dealing with right now.

Ron Paul is a freedom fighter. In joining congress he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, so he does it. He is a man of his word, it's pretty simple.

It is also clear that he would support any sort of free society whether it be based on "The Constitution" or not. He looks up to anarcho-capitalists and even people who are pro-choice.

The divisiveness in this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

[Sola_Fide]

Dbl....

[Sola_Fide]

Your children are human individuals, not your property.

They are not "mine" in the sense that I own them like property, but they are mine in the sense that they are my RESPONSIBILTY, not the government's, or any other person.

You can see the difference.

[low preference guy]

LOL. Whatever dude. If I don't have credibility with you I'll count that as a badge of honor.

i was talking about aqua buddha's credibility. you're too self-absorbed. sometimes people use "you" instead of "one". plus, i was responding to your thoughts regarding AquaBuddha, not jmcrazy.



And for the record, you started with the lecturing.

actually, that was Aqua Buddha.

[__27__]

Ron Paul is a freedom fighter. In joining congress he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, so he does it. He is a man of his word, it's pretty simple.

It is also clear that he would support any sort of free society whether it be based on "The Constitution" or not. He looks up to anarcho-capitalists and even people who are pro-choice.

The divisiveness in this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Sorry if I get a little agitated when people advocate the use of violent force for political gain.

[sailingaway]

WTF happened to this thread?

[YumYum]

Jesus told the kids regarding their parents: "If they spank you on one cheek, turn the other one to 'em!"

[YumYum]

WTF happened to this thread?

It got spanked!

[Dr.3D]

WTF happened to this thread?

Seems somebody must have advocated the use of violent force for political gain. Don't ask me who did it though.

[jmdrake]

Your children are human individuals, not your property.

True. But those human individuals are the responsibility of parents to raise as they see fit. Let's get away from the "spanking" debate for a second because that subject is too emotionally tied. Look at grounding or taking away TV privileges or any other alternative punishment a parent might choose. If we were talking about another adult that wouldn't make sense. (I can't ground my wife or tell her she can't watch TV or put her in time out). So the mere fact that we are talking about a dependent minor means that this is a different relationship with this particular human individual.

Anyway, the government is all for removing the corporal punishment option from the home as it already has done in the school and replacing it with this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgNjZcFcnHg

[low preference guy]

Anyway, the government is all for removing the corporal punishment option from the home as it already has done in the school and replacing it with this.

that's a good argument for the elimination of public schools, not a good argument for physical violence against kids.

[Sola_Fide]

WTF happened to this thread?

All I asked was that Ron's pro-abortion supporters kindly admit, at the outset of a discussion about abortion, that they do not have the same view of abortion that Ron does.

I said that Ron's pro-abortion supporters were a detriment to him getting the nomination in a Republican primary, which is plainly obvious.

This cut to the heart of some of the people here so they tried to change the subject and go ad hominem.

That's it in a nutshell:)

[dannno]

BTW, I just had a discussion with a couple super progressive and RABIDLY pro-choice individuals the other day. Although they were rabidly pro-choice, they didn't believe abortion should be legal after the first, or maybe 1.5 trimesters. They are still pro-choice and I'm still pro-choice, but they now see the issue in a whole new light and they see those who are pro-life COMPLETELY different than before (especially those who are against the offensive wars we are waging overseas, otherwise they still see them as completely hypocritical)

I'm sorry, but after dozens of pages of debates on abortion nobody has offered me any evidence that having an abortion before the fetus is aware is any different than wearing a condom. Both are a mass of cells that contain potential life and are unaware of itself. That is MY view, and the view of many others, and there is no logical way to prove otherwise. Your view can be different, and it can be yours, and there is no way I can prove otherwise.. which is precisely why this issue should be handled locally.

I never remember Ron Paul saying that his pro-choice supporters should stop supporting him. He believes in states rights on the issue, just like I do. So, actually, Aquabuddha, my view on abortion at the Federal level is identical to Ron Paul and yours is not. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about here.

[dannno]

Sorry if I get a little agitated when people advocate the use of violent force for political gain.

You aren't creating the divisiveness I was referring to.

[jmdrake]

WTF happened to this thread?

This


People only comment on articles about Rand if he says something that they don't like.

Sadly controversy tends to drive threads more than anything else. There's nothing controversial about Rand doing what everybody expected he would. But a few random people arguing about something that's not even on the political radar and isn't really that important? Now that's the start of an epic thread! ;)

[dannno]

All I asked was that Ron's pro-abortion supporters kindly admit, at the outset of a discussion about abortion, that they do not have the same view of abortion that Ron does.


You don't have the same view as Ron Paul on abortion at the federal level, but you don't admit it at the outset of all discussions on abortion.

[Danke]

It is a little unsettling to me to see members seriously arguing about such idiotic minucia.

[Sola_Fide]

BTW, I just had a discussion with a couple super progressive and RABIDLY pro-choice individuals the other day. Although they were rabidly pro-choice, they didn't believe abortion should be legal after the first, or maybe 1.5 trimesters. They are still pro-choice and I'm still pro-choice, but they now see the issue in a whole new light and they see those who are pro-life COMPLETELY different than before (especially those who are against the offensive wars we are waging overseas, otherwise they still see them as completely hypocritical)

I'm sorry, but after dozens of pages of debates on abortion nobody has offered me any evidence that having an abortion before the fetus is aware is any different than wearing a condom. Both are a mass of cells that contain potential life and are unaware of itself. That is MY view, and the view of many others, and there is no logical way to prove otherwise. Your view can be different, and it can be yours, and there is no way I can prove otherwise.. which is precisely why this issue should be handled locally.

I never remember Ron Paul saying that his pro-choice supporters should stop supporting him. He believes in states rights on the issue, just like I do. So, actually, Aquabuddha, my view on abortion at the Federal level is identical to Ron Paul and yours is not. So I'm not sure what the hell you are complaining about here.


Ron believes life begins at conception, you don't.

Ron believes that protections of the law extend to people who haven't been born yet, you don't.

All I am asking is that you show Ron the decency of not smearing him with your statist views on abortion (btw, Ron said abortion was statist tyranny, not just me). I just think on this issue it would be decent and respectful of Ron to admit that you differ on this point.

[low preference guy]

It is a little unsettling to me to see members I respect and almost always agree with arguing about minucia.

aw...

*tear*

[specsaregood]

I never remember Ron Paul saying that his pro-choice supporters should stop supporting him. He believes in states rights on the issue, just like I do. So, actually, Aquabuddha, my view on abortion at the Federal level is identical to Ron Paul and yours is not. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about here.

Has Ron ever said he would not vote for a constitutional amendment banning abortion? I don't recall hearing that. He has stated that constitutionally it should be dealt with at the state level; but an amendment would change that. Rand said he would support such an amendment, I don't see why his father would not as well.

[Justinjj1]

Wow, good for Rand. I'm glad to see he didn't backtrack on this issue.

[low preference guy]

Has Ron ever said he would not vote for a constitutional amendment banning abortion? I don't recall hearing that. He has stated that constitutionally it should be dealt with at the state level; but an amendment would change that. Rand said he would support such an amendment, I don't see why his father would not as well.

Ron doesn't have a consistent position. He voted for making it illegal at the Federal level while at the same time he argued it was a bad idea.

Some quotes: (I skipped some paragraphs)


The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

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. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

Link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html)

[Danke]

aw...

*tear*

Just seems a little like the 'ol divide and conquer. But go ahead, spar away.

[sailingaway]

Ron doesn't have a consistent position. He voted for making it illegal at the Federal level while at the same time he argued it was a bad idea.

Some quotes: (I skipped some paragraphs)



Link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html)

He suggested in one speech that he thought it was a state matter but SINCE the SCOTUS had messed that up by unConstitutionally passing RvW, he might think federal action was necessary. I think he HAS proposed a Human Life amendment to the Constitution, in the past, actually. But I just read that last, somewhere; that isn't my own research.

[Sola_Fide]

Ron doesn't have a consistent position. He voted for making it illegal at the Federal while at the same time he argued it was a bad idea.

The confluence between federal and state law, and all of the other procedural crap is really not important to my argument.

Ron believes life begins at conception, and the protections of the law must extend to the unborn. He goes so far as to say that the supporters of abortion are the supporters of tyranny.

I think if Ron puts it in those terms, his pro-abortion supporters should at least point out that they differ with Ron on this issue, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE ARGUING WITH CONSERVATIVES.

[sailingaway]

Wow, good for Rand. I'm glad to see he didn't backtrack on this issue.

Thank you for responding to the OP. Check out the video on another thread.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Many here don't support Ron and Rand's consistent libertarian pro-life view either.

If there is one thing that angers me the most about Ron's pro-abortion supporters, is that they don't have the decency to admit that they are arguing for a position Ron is completely against.

Ron's perception in greater conservative circles is UNDOUBTEDLY DAMAGED when pro-life people see his supporters arguing for the tyranny of abortion.

SO we have to agree with every single issue? I don't think so. Besides, the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate really is a very small issue. His pro-life supporters can't be blamed for any damage.

[specsaregood]

Just seems a little like the 'ol divide and conquer. But go ahead, spar away.

The best fighters spar with friends and acquaintances regularly.

[Bergie Bergeron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSDBswx90Cs

[low preference guy]

The confluence between federal and state law, and all of the other procedural crap is really not important to my argument.

Ron believes life begins at conception, and the protections of the law must extend to the unborn. He goes so far as to say that the supporters of abortion are the supporters of tyranny.

I think if Ron puts it in those terms, his pro-abortion supporters should at least point out that they differ with Ron on this issue, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE ARGUING WITH CONSERVATIVES.

great thought, or whatever, i don't really care but i think it doesn't belong to the thread "Rand Paul comes out against the Patriot Act but people on Rand Paul Forums .....".

so i'm going to be reporting this thread in case a MOD has the energy to split it, including my responses to the abortion stuff.

[Sola_Fide]

The best fighters spar with friends and acquaintances regularly.

Good analogy.

I look at our mental sparring matches like that as well.

[Sola_Fide]

great thought, or whatever, i don't really care but i think it doesn't belong to the thread "Rand Paul comes out against the Patriot Act but people on Rand Paul Forums .....".

so i'm going to be reporting this thread in case a MOD has the energy to split it, including my responses to the abortion stuff.

I tried not to divert the thread!

I think the thread got diverted when you said I am in favor of "beating up kids". Lololol

[Sola_Fide]

Where's my neg rep, Low Preference Guy?

I don't see one yet.

[low preference guy]

I tried not to divert the thread!

I think the thread got diverted when you said I am in favor of "beating up kids". Lololol

yeah. the thread was diverted when I responded to a post already made about ABORTION in a thread about the PATRIOT ACT.

[low preference guy]

Where's my neg rep, Low Preference Guy?

I don't see one yet.

i know you enjoy physical suffering and also the mental suffering when i neg rep you, but i'm not here to satisfy your masochist desires.

[Sola_Fide]

Just give me the neg rep already!

[Vessol]

Just give me the neg rep already!

You just want it, don't you, you bad boy.

[Sola_Fide]

I need some abuse!

[speciallyblend]

babies come from storks! wtf is the big deal geez;)

[__27__]

And for what it's worth Rand really put me off with alot of his hawkish rhetoric during the campaign but since taking office he has been a great success for liberty, I hope he continues.

[Danke]

The best fighters spar with friends and acquaintances regularly.

About meaningful topics, but...go ahead and knock yourselves out.

[mczerone]

To OP: I'll be excited when I see Rand voting against funding the wars. I don't think there was even a thread saying "Look how Ron voted!", because we expected it. Most of us also expected that Rand would be against the domestic spying program, and we were more interested in discussing the other people who voted against and weren't expected to do so, or some other topic.


Ron Paul is a freedom fighter. In joining congress he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, so he does it. He is a man of his word, it's pretty simple.

It is also clear that he would support any sort of free society whether it be based on "The Constitution" or not. He looks up to anarcho-capitalists and even people who are pro-choice.

The divisiveness in this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Note that the thread went on the path: Supporting Rand, questioning why someone may not, questioning if some even support Ron, questioning why not, Bringing up abortion, and then being divisive to anarchists. _27_ has merely defended his position, possibly harshly.


The same is true of anarchism. By default it had to be the original state of government for humanity and the fact that it nowhere now exists as a governance model shows it was powerless to protect itself against encroachment.

I like the "anarchy is every voluntary trade" argument, but I have a couple more retorts. First, early culture was likely a culture of tribes and extended families. These 20-200 population groups had internal order, not though government, but through cooperative cultural rules, and non-aggressive remedies. Only as populations grew did this social governance begin to fail. The transition from these various forms into states was not immediate, but grew from the old forms into more elaborate mechanisms designed to replicate the old structures with something else.

This transition left people thinking that every geographically bound group needed a single deciding body, because there was only a single deciding body each day before. This is where states came from. They most likely had wide support in their initial phases, as the first kings were chosen, the first senates were formed, and the first society wide voting took place. These were each seen as an extension of the old ways of making group decisions, but lacked one very important element: they were no longer making decision for only the participants, but for everyone within the borders.

This usurpation of sovereignty only led, and continues to lead, to socialism, nationalism, bellicose behavior towards other people and groups, conquering, plundering, and caste creation. Once it has been declared okay for one person to exercise authority of another, there is no stopping the progression to more outrageous violations of liberty. The fact that there are everywhere governments today only proves that the virus grows, not that the cure doesn't work.

Second, check out "The Art of Not Being Governed" by James C. Scott. There are still extant examples of anarchic societies, and they only recently have been limited to small areas. For most of history states occupied very little of the inhabited portions of the Earth. While the last 200 years have seen the near completion "statification" of the globe, the evidence is showing that this social arrangement in unsustainable. It will fail, as badly as Rome failed, if not worse. And what will be the peaceful order to emerge? Anarchy. At least until some brute recruits a brain to fashion a theory of a state that he can use to rule over others. But I'd guess that voluntary trades would occur many millions of times before another state came about.


I never remember Ron Paul saying that his pro-choice supporters should stop supporting him. He believes in states rights on the issue, just like I do. So, actually, Aquabuddha, my view on abortion at the Federal level is identical to Ron Paul and yours is not. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about here.

You win the thread. +rep

[specsaregood]

About meaningful topics, but...go ahead and knock yourselves out.

If we only debated "meaningful topics" around here, it would be awfully quiet. I mean, how many times can you debate the pros vs. cons of plus sized women?

[jmdrake]

BTW, I just had a discussion with a couple super progressive and RABIDLY pro-choice individuals the other day. Although they were rabidly pro-choice, they didn't believe abortion should be legal after the first, or maybe 1.5 trimesters. They are still pro-choice and I'm still pro-choice, but they now see the issue in a whole new light and they see those who are pro-life COMPLETELY different than before (especially those who are against the offensive wars we are waging overseas, otherwise they still see them as completely hypocritical)

I'm sorry, but after dozens of pages of debates on abortion nobody has offered me any evidence that having an abortion before the fetus is aware is any different than wearing a condom. Both are a mass of cells that contain potential life and are unaware of itself. That is MY view, and the view of many others, and there is no logical way to prove otherwise. Your view can be different, and it can be yours, and there is no way I can prove otherwise.. which is precisely why this issue should be handled locally.

I never remember Ron Paul saying that his pro-choice supporters should stop supporting him. He believes in states rights on the issue, just like I do. So, actually, Aquabuddha, my view on abortion at the Federal level is identical to Ron Paul and yours is not. So I'm not sure what the hell you are complaining about here.

Hello Dannno. Glad your outreach to "rabbidly pro choice" people went well. And I pretty much agree with your "solve the 1st trimester issue locally" position. That's the "repeal Roe v. Wade" argument. ;) I agree with Ron Paul that in the later terms the 14th amendment kicks in because you're definitely talking about a person. I can't speak for AquaBuddha, but speaking only for myself I don't even have a problem with those who are pro choice even later supporting Ron Paul. He needs all the votes he can get. What I do have a problem with is those who want to say that if you're pro life you're a "statist" and you're trying to "enslave women" or "you don't believe in liberty" or some other garbage. It just makes no sense to claim people who take a position that Paul has taken must be "anti liberty" and yet you want to support Ron Paul as a "liberty candidate". And least it makes no sense to me.

[low preference guy]

If we only debated "meaningful topics" around here, it would be awfully quiet.

i noticed the forums were kinda slow the last few days. and apparently one other got bored so he lighted up the place.

[low preference guy]

If we only debated "meaningful topics" around here, it would be awfully quiet. I mean, how many times can you debate the pros vs. cons of plus sized women?

that topic never ends...

[Sola_Fide]

Hello Dannno. Glad your outreach to "rabbidly pro choice" people went well. And I pretty much agree with your "solve the 1st trimester issue locally" position. That's the "repeal Roe v. Wade" argument. ;) I agree with Ron Paul that in the later terms the 14th amendment kicks in because you're definitely talking about a person. I can't speak for AquaBuddha, but speaking only for myself I don't even have a problem with those who are pro choice even later supporting Ron Paul. He needs all the votes he can get. What I do have a problem with is those who want to say that if you're pro life you're a "statist" and you're trying to "enslave women" or "you don't believe in liberty" or some other garbage. It just makes no sense to claim people who take a position that Paul has taken must be "anti liberty" and yet you want to support Ron Paul as a "liberty candidate". And least it makes no sense to me.

Definitely. I never said anything like "Ron's pro-abortion supporters shouldnt support him anymore" lol.

I am not going to keep re-posting what I said. I posted it like 4 or 5 times in this thread:)

[Dr.3D]

that topic never ends...

Somebody should reopen that thread. :D

[low preference guy]

Somebody should reopen that thread. :D

i was just kidding. pictures related to that topic put a lot of people in my ignore list, just in case....

[jmdrake]

Ron doesn't have a consistent position. He voted for making it illegal at the Federal level while at the same time he argued it was a bad idea.

Some quotes: (I skipped some paragraphs)



Link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html)

I don't see that as inconsistent. Ron Paul was given then horrible choice between forcing the states to accept infanticide or violating state sovereignty. But state sovereignty had already been violated. The court had already struck down state late term abortion laws based on the fallacy that it might be necessary to "save the life or health" of the mother.

That said, I wish people who love to bash Lincoln would see his predicament in the same light. The constitution barred Lincoln from actually freeing any slaves. The E.P. was based on his interpretation of the commander in chief power. And yeah I know Lincoln did a lot of bad things as well. And before someone says something, what's another thread derail among friends. :D

[jmdrake]

I need some abuse!

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/06/05/PH2008060501094.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7JenUdEZbWQYQ2B3iAKbpNIZZIicWA Lz0TMNvCICUngJ35ahzCg

(And if I ever had any political viability, there it goes).

[amy31416]

I like to semi derail threads:

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/gbrooks_photo/sonopic2.jpg

Stats:

Likely Name: Meris Faye
Current Weight: 2lbs 6oz
Arrival: Sometime around tax day--she's looking healthy!
Demeanor: Likes to kick, and hates ultrasound imagery of herself, hostile toward spicy foods and overzealous sonogram techs
Nursery theme: Physics--quarks, muons, gluons and things of that nature
Her request: Shaddap about abortion and quit attacking people on your own side, we will never agree on everything.

[Suzu]

Am I the only one who wants to know where to find the "Rand Paul Forums"?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Am I the only one who wants to know where to find the "Rand Paul Forums"?

www.randpaulforums.com

[low preference guy]

I don't see that as inconsistent. Ron Paul was given then horrible choice between forcing the states to accept infanticide or violating state sovereignty. But state sovereignty had already been violated. The court had already struck down state late term abortion laws based on the fallacy that it might be necessary to "save the life or health" of the mother.

That said, I wish people who love to bash Lincoln would see his predicament in the same light. The constitution barred Lincoln from actually freeing any slaves.

That has the implicit assumption that Lincoln was more of an abolitionist than a centralizer. I don't buy that, because if he didn't believe in slavery, he wouldn't have enslaved all the people he enslaved with the draft. He not only enslaved them, he put them in a position that resulted in their deaths.

[jmdrake]

I like to semi derail threads:

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/gbrooks_photo/sonopic2.jpg

Stats:

Likely Name: Meris Faye
Current Weight: 2lbs 6oz
Arrival: Sometime around tax day--she's looking healthy!
Demeanor: Likes to kick, and hates ultrasound imagery of herself, hostile toward spicy foods and overzealous sonogram techs
Nursery theme: Physics--quarks, muons, gluons and things of that nature
Her request: Shaddap about abortion and quit attacking people on your own side, we will never agree on everything.

Yippee! May the federal income tax be aborted before Meris Faye is old enough to pay it.

[Aldanga]

Right. That was my point. Ron Paul supports the Constitution, not anarchy.
My point was that supporting the Constitution in midst of a tyrannical government is a means to an end, namely total self-government. It's not an inconsistent position.

[amy31416]

Yippee! May the federal income tax be aborted before Meris Faye is old enough to pay it.

:)

You see those fingers? She's gonna command a piano with those babies (she got those spindly things from me.)

[Feeding the Abscess]

Then why did he vote for the war in Afghanistan, border security, the ban on partial birth abortion, a missile defense system, etc?

He didn't vote for war in Afghanistan, he voted for authorization to hunt down those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. He's said several times that if he knew it would devolve into a war against a nation with some nationbuilding thrown in, he would have voted no.

[AlexMerced]

Many here don't support Ron's ideas when they openly say that they support anarchy and doing away with the Constitution.

It's not that Anarcho-Capitalist don't support Ron Pauls views although some feel that fixing the state actually gets in the way of the ultimate goal, getting people to reject the state. Although rejecting the state will be impossible if we are not free enough to make fairly formal replacement institution.

This is where anarchist like myself do want to participate in the political process and do support Constitutional values, and in all reality a constitutional size government is pretty damn close to anarchy all your left with is a monopoly on defense and law to deal with. So I'd rather get to a constitutional size government, then have the discussion about competition in law and defense at that point, but till then Libertarian, Constitutionalists, and Anarchist have too many other things we agree on that we can work on.

(at least half of the Mises Institute fellows that Ron Paul surrounds himself with are Openly Anarcho-Capitalists especially Walter Block, Robert Murphy, and Roderick Long. Don't forget Murray Rothbard was pretty hardcore anarchist as well, Ron Paul has read enough of all these guys work I'm sure he's pretty much come to a similar conclusion on the inside but the constitution is honestly the most practical tool to moving towards those ends.)

[matt0611]

It's not that Anarcho-Capitalist don't support Ron Pauls views although some feel that fixing the state actually gets in the way of the ultimate goal, getting people to reject the state. Although rejecting the state will be impossible if we are not free enough to make fairly formal replacement institution.

This is where anarchist like myself do want to participate in the political process and do support Constitutional values, and in all reality a constitutional size government is pretty damn close to anarchy all your left with is a monopoly on defense and law to deal with. So I'd rather get to a constitutional size government, then have the discussion about competition in law and defense at that point, but till then Libertarian, Constitutionalists, and Anarchist have too many other things we agree on that we can work on.

(at least half of the Mises Institute fellows that Ron Paul surrounds himself with are Openly Anarcho-Capitalists especially Walter Block, Robert Murphy, and Roderick Long. Don't forget Murray Rothbard was pretty hardcore anarchist as well, Ron Paul has read enough of all these guys work I'm sure he's pretty much come to a similar conclusion on the inside but the constitution is honestly the most practical tool to moving towards those ends.)

Cool, a lot of people on mises.org hate the Pauls, I never understood that. I rather make forward progress towards freedom than just sit here and talk about it.

[Andrew-Austin]

This thread is supposed to be a grumpy reaction to what exactly? The OP just linked to a thread where no one said anything critical?


OK. I officially love this man.



I like what he is wearing, the picture behind him.....

I am very happy with him, altogether, at this moment.....

Just disappointed I guess others didn't fawn over him as if they had a crush?

Yeah, I'm glad he isn't turning out to be a neocon, figured he wasn't a long time ago. During the election I practiced some skepticism, nothing close to being eat crow worthy. But yeah, I can respect any libertarian without fawning over them, just because this one is in the senate I'm not going to get starry-eyed.

[Pericles]

Just give me the neg rep already!
Must have mistaken me for you, because I sure got it. Which means I'm either an ass or hit too close to home.

[sailingaway]

This thread is supposed to be a grumpy reaction to what exactly? The OP just linked to a thread where no one said anything critical?




Just disappointed I guess others didn't fawn over him as if they had a crush?

Yeah, I'm glad he isn't turning out to be a neocon, figured he wasn't a long time ago. During the election I practiced some skepticism, nothing close to being eat crow worthy. But yeah, I can respect any libertarian without fawning over them, just because this one is in the senate I'm not going to get starry-eyed.


I was grumping that no one posted it in General, and the heading in Rand Paul forum wasn't completely clear. I thought others that don't go there would be interested in this one.

[AlexMerced]

Cool, a lot of people on mises.org hate the Pauls, I never understood that. I rather make forward progress towards freedom than just sit here and talk about it.

Really? I don't really join on the Mises forums, I'm more about education cause institutions like the government are only as powerful as people believe they are and egypt is a good example of this (although I rather render the government irrelevant because people have other decntralized institutions to depend on, an revolution based on violence or even protest doesn't address the root problem of how people think and believe)

Although, I disagree with most fellow anarchists that the political process has no fruit to bare, the political battle is important to the point that it frees us to solve our own REAL problems and there are a lot of problems we are currently not free to solve so must get involved politically.

[roho76]

Many here don't support Ron's ideas when they openly say that they support anarchy and doing away with the Constitution.

Anarchists and Libertarians are of the same opinion up to a point. One just wants to go a little further. And yet we praise Ron Paul when he actively works with a known Socialist to meet the same ends.