 |
 | Ron Paul 08 |  |
 |
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
Libertas
Old Timer
| Joined: 03 Oct 2006 |
| Posts: 3196 |
| Location: Absurdistan |
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:32 pm |
|
 |
 |
|
|
| Stone X wrote: | | Libertas wrote: | | He ran for president once before as a Libertarian - he's the first Libertarian I voted for and I haven't looked back since. |
Just curious about your opinion on this Libertas (or anyone in general) - what do you think Ron Paul's defection to the Republican Party says about the state of affairs within the Libertarian Party? He is still clearly a libertarian (small 'L') in political philosophy, yet he switched parties anyhow... Because of how mismanaged the LP was and remains today? Perhaps.
Even though I am a party member myself, I wish the hell they would get their shit together...
(wow - ever since I saw V For Vendetta, the phrase "party member" sure does seem to have an ominous sound to it  ) |
That's an excellent question. At first, I kind of had an undercurrent of thought that he was a bit of a turncoat - can't get elected as a Libertarian, well, repackage yourself as something else. That's my BIGGEST problem with the Libertarian party today - they want to repackage themselves in order to make themselves more palatable to a wider demographic - but are sacrificing principle for expediency in the process. Even though Ron Paul is calling himself a Republican, he's still libertarian at heart and more often than not goes against the Republicans to where even they have pretty much disowned him. His minimal government, antiwar and anti-Patriot Act stance is what we need in congress right now - titles don't matter much. I'm finding that I'm tending to side a lot more with the left on a lot of these issues than with the "rah-rah" right.
I am a card-carrying registered member of the LP myself, though more and more I'm calling myself an independent rather than a (large L) Libertarian and have quit sending them financial support. I now only support liberty-minded groups like Downsize DC, Institute for Justice and LewRockwell.com - much more productive use for my money. Ron Paul is very active with many of these same groups and his articles regularly appear in LewRockwell.com. |
|
|
|
| | |
|
Marco5150
Yapper
| Joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
| Posts: 297 |
| Location: Boise |
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| Stone X wrote: | | Libertas wrote: | | He ran for president once before as a Libertarian - he's the first Libertarian I voted for and I haven't looked back since. |
Just curious about your opinion on this Libertas (or anyone in general) - what do you think Ron Paul's defection to the Republican Party says about the state of affairs within the Libertarian Party? He is still clearly a libertarian (small 'L') in political philosophy, yet he switched parties anyhow... Because of how mismanaged the LP was and remains today? Perhaps.
Even though I am a party member myself, I wish the hell they would get their shit together...
(wow - ever since I saw V For Vendetta, the phrase "party member" sure does seem to have an ominous sound to it ) |
Personally, I see it as a savvy move. What I like about him is that he adapts himself to fixed institutions (such as the 2 party system), but maintains his principles and ideals. He certainly goes against the party grain. Sometimes it seems to make sense to work within the system, rather then trying to bust down the door to be heard (or burn the place down all togather).
I still think this country has a lot of potential in it. I just think that we (as a nation in general) have forgotten our roots. Forgotten that we rebelled against tyranical government, fought for our freedom from oppression. Most people will say that we don't have it so bad. But, from my perspective, any time that we have to give up liberties for security or safety, we should step back and look at the big picture....do we really want to gravitate more and more towards authoritarianism(is that a word?) and totalitarianism?
Ben Franklin once said, "Those who give up liberty for security do not deserve liberty or security".
I personally applaude Ron Paul and what he stands for. What worries me is that in his run for president, will he by default lose his place in the legislative branch? We need lawmakers in the house and senate that will vote against liberty limiting legislation, in my opinion.
Do you really think that he has a chance against the Neocon? I doubt it. His name isn't necessarily a household handle like John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, so I don't give him much hope in winning. What excites me tho, is when he speaks, hopefully more and more Americans will see that this country's politicians are not ALL the same and that there are chooses out there.
I don't know that their is a lot of hope for the "Party of Principle" in becoming one of the two big parties. But it is an important organization. More and more people, I believe, are coming back to the middle, becoming more centrists, and realizing that NEITHER the republicans or the democrats represents the majority of the people anymore. |
|
|
|
| | |
|
Libertas
Old Timer
| Joined: 03 Oct 2006 |
| Posts: 3196 |
| Location: Absurdistan |
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| Marco5150 wrote: | Personally, I see it as a savvy move. What I like about him is that he adapts himself to fixed institutions (such as the 2 party system), but maintains his principles and ideals. He certainly goes against the party grain. Sometimes it seems to make sense to work within the system, rather then trying to bust down the door to be heard (or burn the place down all togather).
I still think this country has a lot of potential in it. I just think that we (as a nation in general) have forgotten our roots. Forgotten that we rebelled against tyranical government, fought for our freedom from oppression. Most people will say that we don't have it so bad. But, from my perspective, any time that we have to give up liberties for security or safety, we should step back and look at the big picture....do we really want to gravitate more and more towards authoritarianism(is that a word?) and totalitarianism?
Ben Franklin once said, "Those who give up liberty for security do not deserve liberty or security".
I personally applaude Ron Paul and what he stands for. What worries me is that in his run for president, will he by default lose his place in the legislative branch? We need lawmakers in the house and senate that will vote against liberty limiting legislation, in my opinion.
Do you really think that he has a chance against the Neocon? I doubt it. His name isn't necessarily a household handle like John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, so I don't give him much hope in winning. What excites me tho, is when he speaks, hopefully more and more Americans will see that this country's politicians are not ALL the same and that there are chooses out there.
I don't know that their is a lot of hope for the "Party of Principle" in becoming one of the two big parties. But it is an important organization. More and more people, I believe, are coming back to the middle, becoming more centrists, and realizing that NEITHER the republicans or the democrats represents the majority of the people anymore. |
Excellent points, Marco. I don't think he will necessarily have to give up his seat to run for President - at least Hillary and all the other klass klowns still hold fast to their seats while running. Indeed, when Joe Leiberman was on the ticket with "AlBore" back in 1980, he was simultaneously running to keep his Senate seat - damn good thing for him.
Personally, I think that the Libertarian Party itself is sort of fading away. I'm seeing less and less support for it. In Maryland, The LP used to have people running for all of the different state offices. This year, the best they could do was run a "joint" candidate with the Green Party and some other tiny political party of which I don't remember the name.
But I do agree that people are tending to move more towards the center - trusting neither of the Big Two. |
|
|
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
anthonyehlman
Old Timer
| Joined: 03 Oct 2006 |
| Posts: 1188 |
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:12 am |
|
|
|
|
|
The way the electoral college is set up now, if you arn't a republican or democrat, you can NOT be president. So I think he change to an "official" party is a sign that he is serious about begin president. Or it could mean that he's been bought and paid for by the New World Order?
I'll be honest, this is the first I've heard of the guy. I never paid much attention outside the two parties, because I never really saw the point. (Yes, it's where all the good people are, but with the system the way it is, they'll never really have much power.) There was only one president with no party affiliation, and that was George Washington, who said that partizan politics will destroy this nation. And I think with the Clinton/Linwinski mess, we saw the beginning of the end. Yea, Bush hasn't done much to help the situation much ether. I think we should focus on getting more other party congressmen/women who can change election law. As such, maybe Ron Paul could have done more good as he was, then by a presidential run.
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Libertas
Old Timer
| Joined: 03 Oct 2006 |
| Posts: 3196 |
| Location: Absurdistan |
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:20 am |
|
|
|
|
|
| anthonyehlman wrote: | The way the electoral college is set up now, if you arn't a republican or democrat, you can NOT be president. So I think he change to an "official" party is a sign that he is serious about begin president. Or it could mean that he's been bought and paid for by the New World Order?
I'll be honest, this is the first I've heard of the guy. I never paid much attention outside the two parties, because I never really saw the point. (Yes, it's where all the good people are, but with the system the way it is, they'll never really have much power.) There was only one president with no party affiliation, and that was George Washington, who said that partizan politics will destroy this nation. And I think with the Clinton/Linwinski mess, we saw the beginning of the end. Yea, Bush hasn't done much to help the situation much ether. I think we should focus on getting more other party congressmen/women who can change election law. As such, maybe Ron Paul could have done more good as he was, then by a presidential run. |
Here are a collection of his articles and speeches posted on Lew Rockwell.com. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Anthony, maybe it'll give you a better feel for the guy (most of them are short speeches before congress). I like him, but you're right - someone without (big P) Party backing has almost no chance of becoming elected President. On the other hand, from what I understand, the Republicans threw their backing behind his opponent in the primaries, but Paul still won the election. People also got fed up back in 1984 or 1988 and Ross Perot could have pulled it off if he hadn't self-destructed.
What pisses me off is people like O'Reilly dismiss Paul as an ignorant weenie. Far from the truth.
I keep hoping that people will wise up and see what's happening with the Duopoly in control - but the way things are now, that's a pipe dream. |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
     
Page 1 of 30
|
|
|
|
| |
