Republican hatred of Ron Paul

[Lucille]

I think this is true.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/03/mailvox-republican-hatred-of-ron-paul.html


Stickwick wonders why conservatives react in such a stereotypically liberal manner to Ron Paul:


I have a question about the conservative perception of Ron Paul. Rachel Lucas seems like a reasonable right-of-center person whose political views are moving towards libertarianism. In fact, she now refers to herself as a libertarian. However, she still hangs on to the idea of American interventionism. In a recent post (http://www.rachellucas.com/2013/03/im-genuinely-sorry-i-ever-supported-john-mccain/) she criticizes McCain for his criticism of Rand Paul and for his overly-interventionist policy, but agrees with Ace that *some* interventionism is necessary:

I don't agree with it, but at least their position is stated reasonably. What I find odd is how her commenters are using this as an opportunity to dump all over Ron Paul. Here's a typical example:

"For the record, I cannot STAND Ron Paul. Fiscally he makes sense, but in every other conceivable way he's a senile, batshit crazy old fuck."

Why do some right-of-center people get so vitriolic about Ron Paul? They go right past "I strongly disagree with his ideas on foreign policy," and straight to "crazy old fuck." This is exactly the sort of thing they denounce when the left gets personal in its attacks or calls right-of-center ideology a "mental disorder."

Why do conservatives call Ron Paul crazy instead of just disagreeing with him? Would you shed some light on this?

It's not at all hard to understand why so many conservatives hate Ron Paul with all the fury of a thousand suns. The reason is that he shames them for their hypocrisy. He reveals the inconsistency in their non-conservatism. He forces them to confront the fact that they are not the proponents of small government and liberty they believe themselves to be.

Big government, international interventionist, and monetarist "conservatives" hate Ron Paul for exactly the same reason the Pharisees and Sadducees hated Jesus Christ. Because he exposes their intrinsically false nature to themselves. And the reason they dismiss him as crazy instead of responding rationally to the arguments he presents is because they know they cannot do so without losing.

[itshappening]

Ron has never helped himself with his brash style. Look at Rand, that's how you do it. Ron was never interested in playing the game. He always had bad advice to "tell it like it is". His advisers would revel in the criticism and seemed to enjoy it rather than reaching out and persuading them instead of being antagonistic.

[Quark]

Same reason why progressives dislike Rand so much. He's a threat to their ability to gain and maintain power. They are alright with big government as long as it's on their side of the lobby.

[FriedChicken]

Which is one thing that really got Ron a lot of attention and helped get the strong base of the movement. I loved how Ron was NOT a politician but I'm glad that Rand is. Does that make sense?

I think this response to why he is hated is somewhat true.
He is hated by a lot of the everyday republicans just because they've been lead into hating him by those who make a good comparison to pharisees.

[itshappening]

Yeah Ron's style reached me and countless others so I suppose it was a good thing but his former advisers now tell us to forget about the GOP and politics in general and to "secede!". Which is odd because you'd think they would want to help to build a lasting legacy. Bottom line: Now Ron's retired they're not interested. He was their cash cow and will continue to be in retirement.

Look at this way, even some of the best liberty candidates we have elected are not calling for secession. They always need to take the most extreme position. Even if we managed to convince a state to secede they would probably find something else to think of that we should do. Secede from your state! Secede from your County! Secede from your street! Where does it end? I don't know.

[itshappening]

Why don't we all put our money together (including the million dollars left in Ron Paul's campaign account) and buy a self-governing island in the Caribbean? We could call it Lew Rockwell Island and elect Ron as honory President (he wouldn't want to take executive power though so it's just an honory position). The island could be governed on an anarchist basis using the models found in Rothbard textbooks.

Come on Lew, this would be a great idea and Ron is a prolific fundraiser. He could raise the few million to buy the island easily then we can all move over there and declare ourselves an independent anarchist State where your education mission of the entire population being educated will be complete.

What do others think of this idea?

[supermario21]

I always thought Ron could be elected president of the Second Texas Republic! But that sounds much better.

[FriedChicken]

Why don't we all put our money together (including the million dollars left in Ron Paul's campaign account) and buy a self-governing island in the Caribbean? We could call it Lew Rockwell Island and elect Ron as honory President (he wouldn't want to take executive power though so it's just an honory position). The island could be governed on an anarchist basis using the models found in Rothbard textbooks.

Come on Lew, this would be a great idea and Ron is a prolific fundraiser. He could raise the few million to buy the island easily then we can all move over there and declare ourselves an independent anarchist State where your education mission of the entire population being educated will be complete.

What do others think of this idea?

I'm up for anything in the Caribbean.

[Emerick]

Yeah Ron's style reached me and countless others so I suppose it was a good thing but his former advisers now tell us to forget about the GOP and politics in general and to "secede!". Which is odd because you'd think they would want to help to build a lasting legacy. Bottom line: Now Ron's retired they're not interested. He was their cash cow and will continue to be in retirement.

Look at this way, even some of the best liberty candidates we have elected are not calling for secession. They always need to take the most extreme position. Even if we managed to convince a state to secede they would probably find something else to think of that we should do. Secede from your state! Secede from your County! Secede from your street! Where does it end? I don't know.

If you truly understand libertarian philosophy, the answer to your question should be obvious: individual self-determination, which means the possibility of secession from any group whatsoever.

If this is practical or not, if this can be achieved or not, if anarchocapitalism is desirable or not (I really think it is), is another problem; but, it's very clear, libertarianism, when followed through logically, inevitably leads to this. That's why the great Ludwig von Mises said that secession was a general principle, that should be applied as extensively as possible.

But, of course, you have a point: once you get to better place, you shouldn't dump it, like some people are doing.

[itshappening]

Anyone got any other ideas for Lew Rockwell Island and what it would look like and how it would be governed and organized?

Lew should jump at the idea and can get Ron to help raise the funds. Why waste time organizing conferences all over America when we can have our own island with a 100% educated population? Conferences will not be necessary as we would all be fluent in Rothbard and Hayek. Think of the efficiency savings. Business opportunities could be presented by people visiting our little island to wonder and marvel at the only anarchist state in the World with Ron Paul as president.

We could sell our own passports and citizenship. It could be quite lucrative actually. All profits can be used to build up gold reserves and to sustain the island forever

[Lucille]

I would move there in a heartbeat.

Also, it seems Republicans, much like their friends on the left, have a terrible time admitting when they've been disastrously wrong. Until they do, Americans will not trust them to govern.


An Iraqi citizen describes how the Great American liberators implemented democracy in Iraq:

“It is like I am standing naked in a room with a big hat on my head. Everyone comes in and helps put flowers and ribbons on my hat, but no one seems to notice that I am naked.”

The neo-cons set in motion a chain of events that will ultimately result in the collapse of the Great American Empire. The hubris and arrogance of our leaders over the last ten years is a reflection of our military industrial complex capturing the government in collusion with the Wall Street cabal and bankrupting the nation through foreign aggression and domestic pillaging of the middle class. The warfare/welfare state benefits bankers, arms dealers, and mega-corporations. They use their riches to buy off the politician puppets in Washington.

Their lackey at the Federal Reserve prints the fiat currency needed to sustain and further their enrichment. The corporate media provides the storylines of terrorists, imminent threats from 3rd world countries sitting on our oil, and our successes in helping Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans and all of the peoples yearning to be free like us.

We build chicken factories in the desert, fake its success, have our leaders proclaim the success to the corporate media, and the MSM mouthpieces do their duty. Edward Bernays would be so proud of what America has become.

HAPPY 10th ANNIVERSARY!!! (http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=50688)

[Peace&Freedom]

This blessed Libertarian/anarchist island would last until somebody in the Pentagon or in the banking cabal decided it was "too unaligned" or independent. If the island country would not "cooperate" with the big country decrees concerning financial disclosure, IRS enforcement, promoting fiat currency or a central bank, international copyright, sharing (forking over) their natural resources to western corporations, et al, it would swiftly become a target. At which point, rumors of "Al Qaeda infiltration" of the island would start to fly, leading to economic sanctions, or military invasion to "rectify."

[jkr]

ARGH ]they be NOT republican, they be STATISTS

[heavenlyboy34]

Which is one thing that really got Ron a lot of attention and helped get the strong base of the movement. I loved how Ron was NOT a politician but I'm glad that Rand is. Does that make sense?

I think this response to why he is hated is somewhat true.
He is hated by a lot of the everyday republicans just because they've been lead into hating him by those who make a good comparison to pharisees.
This!^^ People often say in surveys and discussion groups that they want politicians to stop being slick and to tell the truth. In practice, they usually don't. They want the 'beautiful lie'.

[FSP-Rebel]

I'm just wondering how this first city in the Woods' IA tour is going to pan out. I mean, if Woods is overtly anti-restore the GOP then it seems like this will go over badly. However, I don't see Woods in the same strict ancap/Rockwell camp in that he can't part with it to suit the needs of his audience which is why I assumed he was chosen to begin with. He's got great oratory skills and with the right shtick I think he could really make successes out of this startup tour. I just wonder how this is being marketed in terms of maximizing turnout outside of our bunch. Tho, even if it just targets our bunch at least I hope it energizes them to stay engaged and bring others on board. Perhaps I should've started a separate thread on this and I still might but I'm looking for community feedback as their insights on the likely happenings of this upcoming tour. Also, wouldn't mind hearing from Steve about any developments.

[itshappening]

No Woods is happy to educate in the GOP but he's always complaining why they didn't vote for Ron. Well gee Tom, it might have something to do with how you messaged him and advised him. The voters want it sugar coated and that's why Rand is more acceptable to them. They don't want their potential leader to get dragged into debates about legalizing heroin and god knows what else

[Lucille]

And Jeb Bush comes along to prove my point:


So it seems that Jeb Bush isn’t nearly as politically savvy as his admirers would have us think:


Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says a possible 2016 run for president would not be affected by his brother’s lingering unpopularity.

“I don’t think there’s any Bush baggage at all (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-gops-bush-baggage/) [bold mine-DL],” Bush said on “Fox News Sunday” when confronted with a poll that showed almost a full majority of Americans have an unfavorable impression of former President George W. Bush.

What to make of this? This is a clear misreading of his brother’s political legacy. Of course, no one expects him to denounce or attack his brother, but minimizing the difficulties he would face as the third presidential candidate from the same dynasty just makes him seem clueless. Even if George W. Bush had been a merely mediocre, unremarkable president instead of a disastrous failure, it seems unlikely that the public would have much appetite for a third Bush presidency in less than thirty years. It isn’t entirely the fault of the dynasty, but since the Bushes started running the GOP the party has gone from routinely winning landslide victories to not being able to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. How stupid would the Stupid Party have to be to go back for a third helping of such brilliant political leadership?

It might seem unfair to punish Jeb Bush because of how his brother governed, but Jeb Bush never showed any signs publicly or privately that he disagreed with what his brother was doing. It’s not as if his preferred policies are meaningfully different from those his brother pursued. He isn’t likely to repudiate anything that his brother did. So it would be entirely appropriate to view a Jeb Bush candidacy as an attempt to revive the Bush era and to rehabilitate the Bushism that his brother promoted. Bushism was a huge liability for both of the last two Republican nominees, and it would become a bigger one if the next nominee actually bore the name. A Republican Party that allowed its nomination to go to another Bush so soon after the failures of the last decade would effectively be declaring its political bankruptcy as a national party. If Republicans don’t think that their opponents will keep using George W. Bush as a club with which they bludgeon the party in the next few elections, they forget how much they have relied on trying to paint every Democratic nominee as the next Carter. Bush is their Carter, and the longer it takes them to break with what Bush represented the longer their political woes will last.

[jmdrake]

Because Ron challenges basic held assumptions that these fake conservatives feel cannot be questioned. Take Mark Levin for instance. In his recent praise of Rand he attacked John McCain. Now you're saying "what's wrong with that." Well....part of his attack was to attack John McCain for calling waterboarding "torture" and thus "accusing the U.S. military of committing torture." Now consider his "tortured" argument for a second. Rather than having a rational discussion of what constituted torture, Levin used a straw man wrapped in a circular argument. The straw man was the false assertion that saying that some in the military engaged in torture meant the entire military engaged in torture. Just because some U.S. servicemen have been found guilty of rape in Japan does that mean "the U.S. military rapes people?" The circular reasoning part is, since the U.S. military doesn't torture, and since it used waterboarding, waterboardingg cannot be torture.

[itshappening]

Levin is really incoherent. He opened his show the other night with a monologue about the Fed. it was great and I'm pushing him hard to get Schiff on his show to discuss it more to see if he'll have a real Austrian on there.

I actually heard him mention AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS on one show once, in passing, so he's very aware. Levin is an author, former editor of NRO and if you watch his twitter feed is tweeting conservative related articles all day long so he's very well read and smart. He's also a constitutional lawyer so you'd expect him to understand the 5th amendment better and that if Obama accuses someone of a crime then they get due process. But Levin was then praising Rand and THEN attacking due process. it was very bizarre and I found it difficult to listen to his latest show as he was all over the place. I think he's genuinally contorted between his own beliefs and knowledge as a lawyer and his mission to be a propagandist for the State and ensure he stays in their good graces so he continues to get on affilates. Levin like Rush says he gets phone calls from the GOP so I think in some way they're all "tied in" .

The thing that annoys me with him is that he's always going on that ITS A TIME OF WAR... but wait Mark, congress hasn't declared a war for 60 years so there isnt a war and due process applies to every "person" that Obama accuses of a crime. It's that simple. He's a lawyer so should understand this and it's very annoying. I wish someone would call up and challenge him but he tends to get very nasty when challenged.


I also heard him mention Alex Jones in passing when he was covering the ammo purchases by DHS, he said "i'm not talking about black helicopters here or the Alex Jones conspiracy crowd... ". He;s a lot smarter and well read than you give him credit for but this means he's doing his propagandizing for the state knowingly and is very aware of what he's doing.

[belian78]

Ron has never helped himself with his brash style. Look at Rand, that's how you do it. Ron was never interested in playing the game. He always had bad advice to "tell it like it is". His advisers would revel in the criticism and seemed to enjoy it rather than reaching out and persuading them instead of being antagonistic.
That's exactly what brought millions of us into this movement. Principle over politics, plain and simple.

[sailingaway]

Of course it is true. And to itshappening, I get it that you like a different style, but there are those who disagree, and I'm one of them. The only reason these topics are broachable at all now by 'politicians' is because Ron hammered at them while they were unpopular until they were popular, always being consistent and explaining the interwoven necessity of the issues.

I agree with those statements in the OP as well.


Levin is really incoherent.

Can't disagree there.

[Christian Liberty]

I used to be a neocon. At the time, the son of Paul (Rand) would not have been able to convert me. It took Ron.

Rand isn't "Smarter" than Ron, he's just less consistent, more of a warhawk, and more of a hypocrite. He's way better than most other options, but he doesn't even deserve mentioning in the same sentence as Ron Paul.

[green73]

I used to be a neocon. At the time, the son of Paul (Rand) would not have been able to convert me. It took Ron.

Rand isn't "Smarter" than Ron, he's just less consistent, more of a warhawk, and more of a hypocrite. He's way better than most other options, but he doesn't even deserve mentioning in the same sentence as Ron Paul.

Of course. As Doug Casey always says, you have to be radical to get through to people.

[itshappening]

I used to be a neocon. At the time, the son of Paul (Rand) would not have been able to convert me. It took Ron.

Rand isn't "Smarter" than Ron, he's just less consistent, more of a warhawk, and more of a hypocrite. He's way better than most other options, but he doesn't even deserve mentioning in the same sentence as Ron Paul.

Oh dear.

Rand is not by any stretch of the imagination a "warhawk". He loudly denounced the Libya intervention. If he was a "warhawk" he would have been out there supporting it like most of the GOP. So how is he a "warhawk" exactly? He has said he will only prosecute a war if Congress declares it which is exactly Ron's position. Funny that.

You've been here 5 minutes and are making these stupid, ridiculous statements.

I'm starting to think you're a provocateur and infiltator. Sailing, please keep an eye on this one.

So Freedom, care to tell us more about your conversion from Neocon to Ron Paul? When did this occur exactly because you've been registered on the forum a matter of days... was it recent? Describe it to me please. I'm highly curious. Not that i'm not welcoming to new members... on the contrary, we need more new members but you're making ridiculous statements and seem like an agitator to me. So it'll be nice if you can tell us about your conversion. I love hearing these stories anyway, some of the best posts on the forum are about when the lightbulb went off.

[Christian Liberty]

You know what, it was kind of funny in my case. I thought that the US government invading tyrannical countries (In complete opposite of a "Typical" neocon, the country I really hated was North Korea, not Iran. I did think it would be acceptable to bomb Iran if they tried to build nukes, but at the time the country I really hated and wanted to see die was North Korea) would help make them more free at only minimal cost to ourselves (Absurd, I know, I was 15....) That said, I always cared the most about the fiscal issues I think. And I knew Ron Paul was actually conservative on the fiscal issues, while the other candidates weren't. The Patriot Act never really sat right with me either, and I was strongly in favor of the second amendment (Still am strong on the 2nd, and now even more anti-unpatriotic act). I liked that Ron Paul fully supported the 2nd and was fiscally conservative. So I actually supported Ron even while being pro-war.

I'm sure I would have supported Rand at the time as well (I still support him now, I just don't buy the BS that he's exactly the same as his dad... NOBODY would say that Rand is as libertarian as Ron if they weren't related, its just insane) but Rand would have only dragged me halfway over, since he only takes the libertarian view a little more than half of the time.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh dear.

Rand is not by any stretch of the imagination a "warhawk". He loudly denounced the Libya intervention. If he was a "warhawk" he would have been out there supporting it like most of the GOP. So how is he a "warhawk" exactly? He has said he will only prosecute a war if Congress declares it which is exactly Ron's position. Funny that.

You've been here 5 minutes and are making these stupid, ridiculous statements.

I'm starting to think you're a provocateur and infiltator. Sailing, please keep an eye on this one.

I said "More of." If I were comparing to the mainstream GOP, or even a mainstream Democrat, I'd say that Rand is quite peaceful. But compared to Ron, he is indeed more hawkish.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't trying to say that Rand is a warhawk compared to the center. Compared to the center, Rand is great. I'll vote for him. I'd try to convince anyone else to vote for him. But he is more hawkish than Ron. Where is that freaking transcript again?

[Lucille]

I used to be a neocon. At the time, the son of Paul (Rand) would not have been able to convert me. It took Ron...

Props for admitting to your former neoconnery! It took Red Pill Ron to wake me up too (2007, debate, Guiliani). I think it's important to set an example for other conservatives to follow who are afraid they'd spontaneously combust if they admit they were wrong.

[FSP-Rebel]

That's exactly what brought millions of us into this movement. Principle over politics, plain and simple.
Agreed but millions more are currently swinging to this side because of Rand's divergent style, lingo and manner. Most of the conservative media has been more than neutralized, they're being acclimated because the iron clad repackaging of the message. They see the base's appetite for what Rand offers and their credibility is vanishing if they don't see the writing on the wall. And yes, this was all made possible because of the trailblazer that Ron is.

[Christian Liberty]

Props for admitting to your former neoconnery! It took Red Pill Ron to wake me up too (2007, debate, Guiliani). I think it's important to set an example for other conservatives to follow who are afraid they'd spontaneously combust if they admit they were wrong.

I didn't even get into when I was really young and wanted to nuke everyone... That God for Ron Paul...

[itshappening]

I didn't even get into when I was really young and wanted to nuke everyone... That God for Ron Paul...

Why would you want to nuke everyone? I smell BS here.

When did this all occur? when did you start noticing Ron? And why are you only recent registrant to the forum?

A lot of things aren't adding up with you...

[Christian Liberty]

And you seriously think Rand wouldn't have voted for that? Ron actually regrets that vote, while Rand stil thinks it was a good idea. Rand, on the other hand, supports sanctions and supports military intervention for "America's vital interests." Ron just wants to bring everybody home.

[Christian Liberty]

Why would you want to nuke everyone? I smell BS here.

When did this all occur? when did you start noticing Ron? And why are you only recent registrant to the forum?

A lot of things aren't adding up with you...

First paragraph: When I was like 10 and didn't know anything. Lol. I took the assumption that the US was doing something good when we went to war, and combined that with the assumption that we should win as quickly as possible, being 10 I never thought of the consequences. I didn't have real political views back then.

Second Paragraph: I learned about Ron Paul from the internet in 2010. I liked him at the time because I liked his stances on economic issues, guns, and sort of the Patriot Act (I was more "Skeptical" than "Completely against" at the time.) I didn't care quite as much about the foreign policy stuff, so I liked him even though I disagreed with his foreign policy.

As for being a recent registrant, I was referred here by a member of some other forum that I am regularly on. I don't know what his username is on here though. I actually registered a few weeks ago but it took forever for them to approve my account for some reason.

[Sola_Fide]

I think this is true.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/03/mailvox-republican-hatred-of-ron-paul.html

Couldn't agree more with that post.

[sailingaway]

No Woods is happy to educate in the GOP but he's always complaining why they didn't vote for Ron. Well gee Tom, it might have something to do with how you messaged him and advised him. The voters want it sugar coated and that's why Rand is more acceptable to them. They don't want their potential leader to get dragged into debates about legalizing heroin and god knows what else

quit provoking people.

[itshappening]

quit provoking people.

Back on topic.

One of Ron's problems I felt was that he willing to entertain these questions on heroin. Rand would never entertain it and probably quickly change the subject.

The best way to answer a question about heroin to a GOP crowd is to say that we "believe in states rights and that I dont think any state is going to vote to legalize heroin but in Washington and CO they did vote to legalize weed and in 24 states we have medical marijuana so I support states rights"

[torchbearer]

just got this in my email from C4L:



Last week, my son, Senator Rand Paul, stood for 13 hours filibustering Senate business to defend our Constitution.

Because of Rand's principled stand, Barack Obama hedged and finally gave Rand the answer he and other freedom lovers were asking for in writing.

Rand is currently holding a Stand With Rand Money Bomb to rally millions of Americans to help defend the Constitution.

I'm proud of my son's principled stand, so I'm personally asking you to sign your Defend the Constitution Petition and make a generous contribution to the Stand With Rand Money Bomb (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/11770436:14831813800:m:1:170856766:E0DE226B6163519 6D4BD2B126AEF84C9:r).

The Money Bomb ends tomorrow at midnight.

So please sign your Defend the Constitution Petition today (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/11770436:14831813800:m:1:170856766:E0DE226B6163519 6D4BD2B126AEF84C9:r).

[sailingaway]

just got this in my email from C4L:

are you sure that is from C4L? Because I know someone here bought the RandPaul2016 dot com back a ways and I thought they had transfered it to him. and this looks like a site a group of unknown supporters put together. You know a lot more about IPs etc than I do, are you sure this came from C4L?

[Christian Liberty]

Back on topic.

One of Ron's problems I felt was that he willing to entertain these questions on heroin. Rand would never entertain it and probably quickly change the subject.

The best way to answer a question about heroin to a GOP crowd is to say that we "believe in states rights and that I dont think any state is going to vote to legalize heroin but in Washington and CO they did vote to legalize weed and in 24 states we have medical marijuana so I support states rights"

IIRC that's also all Ron actually said, although Ron did also imply support for legalization.

[sailingaway]

IIRC that's also all Ron actually said, although Ron did also imply support for legalization.

He implied support for government being small enough to drown in a bathtub if needed, by the citizenry. What they do beyond that would be their own responsibility, so long as they took responsibility for it and hurt no one else.

[DamianTV]

The Republican Party has very few true Republicans left. Mostly it is a bunch of bought out Facists supporting a Plutocracy. As such, most of these fuckers have absolutely no right to speak. Ron Paul was one of the very few true Republicans left, so it is any wonder why these fakes and phonies hate him.

[supermario21]

And you seriously think Rand wouldn't have voted for that? Ron actually regrets that vote, while Rand stil thinks it was a good idea. Rand, on the other hand, supports sanctions and supports military intervention for "America's vital interests." Ron just wants to bring everybody home.

Rand only says he would have supported it because he thought it would be a temporary fight, not a document used to have a worldwide battlefield.

[sailingaway]

That's a good article, if short. It IS very telling that they jump way past 'disagreement' to 'crazy'. No need to protest so much if a logical argument will do.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand only says he would have supported it because he thought it would be a temporary fight, not a document used to have a worldwide battlefield.

While there's probably some truth to this, Ron has also pretty clearly condemned the "War on terror." Rand says that we need a "War on Radical Islam." Ron would probably call Rand out if they weren't related. Other than being broadly pro-liberty the two really aren't very alike.

[Peace&Freedom]

Rand only says he would have supported it because he thought it would be a temporary fight, not a document used to have a worldwide battlefield.

That encapsulates Rand's practical approach, love it or hate it. Share the same rhetoric, and to some extent the same mentality as the enemy, including some superficial votes when in office. The point is to neutralize the neo-cons or perform harm reduction over the damage they do. The vote on the sanctions (bad, but doesn't need to lead to invasion and escalation) puts him on the same side of the table as the enemy, from which position he can reach more of them and turn the tide.

This was not possible using the full fledged principled, confrontational stance of Ron, which was always going to have a roof as to how many rank and file Republicans could be reached. The question remains, has Rand tactically compromised enough that he can rest on the deposit he has built up? And, is Rand really a mole on our side, or will he ultimately fold into a full neo-con on war issues?

[Sujan]

Essentially, Ron Paul message was one of liberty but also self-responsibility.
Most people would like the first idea, but to be self-responsible? Whoa.

That’s a tough message to convey, because most people want something like an anymous government institution to take care of things.
And that is why they vote socialist. It’s the same anywhere on the planet.

This the reason why a purely libertarian society is utopian. But I hope Rand Paul will introduce some libertarian ideas in the White House in 2017.

[heavenlyboy34]

Essentially, Ron Paul message was one of liberty but also self-responsibility.
Most people would like the first idea, but to be self-responsible? Whoa.

That’s a tough message to convey, because most people want something like an anymous government institution to take care of things.
And that is why they vote socialist. It’s the same anywhere on the planet.

This the reason why a purely libertarian society is utopian. But I hope Rand Paul will introduce some libertarian ideas in the White House in 2017.
It seems utopian, but that's because statism is so ingrained into culture. You know, as recently 400 years ago, the typical Westerner would have said society without chattel slavery and/or an intermingling of races was utopian. Turns out it wasn't true. There are a lot of interesting and encouraging trends out there like bitcoin which make me believe that even if society isn't "officially" libertarian, it would function like one because most or all activities could be done without the regime's knowledge. I've come to the conclusion that making the regime irrelevant through independence is more probable and practical than any political means.

What's really utopian is expecting a "limited" government to stay limited for any longer than a generation at best.

[Brett85]

Rand says that we need a "War on Radical Islam."

No, that simply isn't true. Rand said that radical Islam is a threat, and that we might need to support a policy of containment in regards to radical
Islam. He never said that he supports a "global war on radical Islam."

[Brian4Liberty]

Why do conservatives call Ron Paul crazy instead of just disagreeing with him? Would you shed some light on this?

Lol.

http://www.postconsumers.com/education/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/gorilla-300x228.jpg

[sailingaway]

Lol.

http://www.postconsumers.com/education/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/gorilla-300x228.jpg

^^yep.

[WM_in_MO]

Anyone got any other ideas for Lew Rockwell Island and what it ook like and how it would be governed and organized?

Lew should jump at the idea and can get Ron to help raise the funds. Why waste time organizing conferences all over America when we can have our own island with a 100% educated population? Conferences will not be necessary as we would all be fluent in Rothbard and Hayek. Think of the efficiency savings. Business opportunities could be presented by people visiting our little island to wonder and marvel at the only anarchist state in the World with Ron Paul as president.

We could sell our own passports and citizenship. It could be quite lucrative actually. All profits can be used to build up gold reserves and to sustain the island forever

Clearly you are a regime friendly to terrorism, therefore we are required to liberate the shit out of you.

[Christian Liberty]

Wait, how can you have an "Anarchist state"? "Anarchist government" maybe (My church has a government but it ain't a state) but anarchy is defined by abolition of the state.

[sailingaway]

Wait, how can you have an "Anarchist state"? "Anarchist government" maybe (My church has a government but it ain't a state) but anarchy is defined by abolition of the state.

I think we're just daydreaming here.....

[Christian Liberty]

I think we're just daydreaming here.....

I'm not even an anarchist (I'm not very far from it, but I'm still not.) But an anarchist state literally can't exist. Its like daydreaming about a square circle, lol.

+1.

[Carson]

I think this is true.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/03/mailvox-republican-hatred-of-ron-paul.html


Stickwick wonders why conservatives react in such a stereotypically liberal manner to Ron Paul:


I have a question about the conservative perception of Ron Paul. Rachel Lucas seems like a reasonable right-of-center person whose political views are moving towards libertarianism. In fact, she now refers to herself as a libertarian. However, she still hangs on to the idea of American interventionism. In a recent post she criticizes McCain for his criticism of Rand Paul and for his overly-interventionist policy, but agrees with Ace that *some* interventionism is necessary:

I don't agree with it, but at least their position is stated reasonably. What I find odd is how her commenters are using this as an opportunity to dump all over Ron Paul. Here's a typical example:

"For the record, I cannot STAND Ron Paul. Fiscally he makes sense, but in every other conceivable way he's a senile, batshit crazy old fuck."

Why do some right-of-center people get so vitriolic about Ron Paul? They go right past "I strongly disagree with his ideas on foreign policy," and straight to "crazy old fuck." This is exactly the sort of thing they denounce when the left gets personal in its attacks or calls right-of-center ideology a "mental disorder."

Why do conservatives call Ron Paul crazy instead of just disagreeing with him? Would you shed some light on this?
It's not at all hard to understand why so many conservatives hate Ron Paul with all the fury of a thousand suns. The reason is that he shames them for their hypocrisy. He reveals the inconsistency in their non-conservatism. He forces them to confront the fact that they are not the proponents of small government and liberty they believe themselves to be.

Big government, international interventionist, and monetarist "conservatives" hate Ron Paul for exactly the same reason the Pharisees and Sadducees hated Jesus Christ. Because he exposes their intrinsically false nature to themselves. And the reason they dismiss him as crazy instead of responding rationally to the arguments he presents is because they know they cannot do so without losing.

I think when we call people names like this it is often more a reflection of ourselves. If you find yourself doing it, it is often time to step back and take a look at yourself.

Looking at yourself is one thing. To look into someone else's motives is another.

I would hate to have to look into these examples on a case by case basis. I'm pretty sure though that it has nothing so much to do with Ron Paul.

Except maybe for being so right. :D

[eleganz]

We all know this is mentality is out there, why are we worrying about what the haters think instead of discussing ways to reach out to those that aren't siting on their hands and bitching all day?