Ron Paul too old?

[Woyzeck]

Some anarchists are opposed to all hierarchical institutions, but not all anarchists are the same. Like I said, anarchism in and of itself is merely defined as opposition to the existence of the state. So anarcho-capitalists, being opposed to the existence of the state, are definitely anarchists.

Why don't anarchists like the state?

Depends on the type of anarchist we're discussing. Most, if not all, anarchists would answer that the state has proven itself to be one of the greatest mass-murdering entities in the history of the world. Which is valid. An anarcho-capitalist might respond that the state is institutionalized aggression, and that everything it does constitutes force which the anarcho-capitalist sees as illegitimate. Anarcho-communists might respond that the state props up capitalism, and that minus the state capitalism's inherent flaws would cause its collapse and bring about some kind of communist utopia.

And what does the government have that let's it get away with what anarchists despise?

 

[dblack]

Here's the $64,000 question, why is Paul still a Republican? If Ron Paul is so vastly different from the rest of the candidates, why does he not simply go the third party route?

Well, there is the obvious truth that the Democrats and Republicans have colluded to ensure that no alternative has a chance.

FWIW, I'll admit that there's a certain quixotic aspect to the RP campaign. He's trying to speak truth to power, and quite frankly, power doesn't wanna fucking hear it. But that's exactly why I keep sending him money.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here's the $64,000 question, why is Paul still a Republican? If Ron Paul is so vastly different from the rest of the candidates, why does he not simply go the third party route?

If I ran for office and the same position three times, never getting over 10%, I'd have second thoughts about what I'm doing. By the second time mind you, I would have come to the conclusion that either I have to change my views to gain more of the party's support in the primary, or leave the party.

From Ron Paul himself:

Ron Paul Sells Out The Liberty Movement - January 15, 2010 - YouTube

You know as well as any of us that running third party is pointless considering that the Republicans and Democrats work together to keep any and all third party candidates from even getting on the ballot if at all possible.

Yes, it might seem pointless after the second run if the issues you'd been talking about for your 30 year career hadn't suddenly become monumentally important in the political dialogue. The Federal Reserve is finally an issue, the debt is finally an issue, and even more Republicans are now questioning our militarism than in 2008. Who has more credibility on these issues than Ron Paul, the man who brought them to the forefront?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why don't anarchists like the state?

Depends on the type of anarchist we're discussing. Most, if not all, anarchists would answer that the state has proven itself to be one of the greatest mass-murdering entities in the history of the world. Which is valid. An anarcho-capitalist might respond that the state is institutionalized aggression, and that everything it does constitutes force which the anarcho-capitalist sees as illegitimate. Anarcho-communists might respond that the state props up capitalism, and that minus the state capitalism's inherent flaws would cause its collapse and bring about some kind of communist utopia.

And what does the government have that let's it get away with what anarchists despise?

Guns.

 

[Woyzeck]

Depends on the type of anarchist we're discussing. Most, if not all, anarchists would answer that the state has proven itself to be one of the greatest mass-murdering entities in the history of the world. Which is valid. An anarcho-capitalist might respond that the state is institutionalized aggression, and that everything it does constitutes force which the anarcho-capitalist sees as illegitimate. Anarcho-communists might respond that the state props up capitalism, and that minus the state capitalism's inherent flaws would cause its collapse and bring about some kind of communist utopia.

And what does the government have that let's it get away with what anarchists despise?

Guns.

Governments have been pulling the shit you listed before guns were invented, Kevin. Try again.

 

[Auxous]

Why don't anarchists like the state?

Depends on the type of anarchist we're discussing. Most, if not all, anarchists would answer that the state has proven itself to be one of the greatest mass-murdering entities in the history of the world. Which is valid. An anarcho-capitalist might respond that the state is institutionalized aggression, and that everything it does constitutes force which the anarcho-capitalist sees as illegitimate. Anarcho-communists might respond that the state props up capitalism, and that minus the state capitalism's inherent flaws would cause its collapse and bring about some kind of communist utopia.

And what does the government have that let's it get away with what anarchists despise?

Bailouts, subsidies, and unjustified wars just to name a few obvious governmental practices.

 

[Woyzeck]

Depends on the type of anarchist we're discussing. Most, if not all, anarchists would answer that the state has proven itself to be one of the greatest mass-murdering entities in the history of the world. Which is valid. An anarcho-capitalist might respond that the state is institutionalized aggression, and that everything it does constitutes force which the anarcho-capitalist sees as illegitimate. Anarcho-communists might respond that the state props up capitalism, and that minus the state capitalism's inherent flaws would cause its collapse and bring about some kind of communist utopia.

And what does the government have that let's it get away with what anarchists despise?

Bailouts, subsidies, and unjustified wars just to name a few obvious governmental practices.

And the ability to do those things is called...

 

[Modbert]

Well, there is the obvious truth that the Democrats and Republicans have colluded to ensure that no alternative has a chance.

FWIW, I'll admit that there's a certain quixotic aspect to the RP campaign. He's trying to speak truth to power, and quite frankly, power doesn't wanna fucking hear it. But that's exactly why I keep sending him money.

Except in the video I linked, even Ron Paul himself has admitted there is only so far he'll go as a "independent Republican".

 

[Paulie]

My comments are in blue

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfull
Is that your policy towards Iran?


PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were -- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries -- China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What's so terribly bad about this?



I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old


Ron "Mad Man" Paul explaining why foreign terrorists should be tried in american civilian courts and given miranda rights.


PAUL: Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried.

And we've -- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least -- near 300, we tried and put them in prison.

So this idea that we -- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish -- half a second -- this administration -- this administration... (BOOING) ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule.


I love this part below. The "Man Man" explains that Iran is deemed a threat because it has "some" militants.

PAUL: You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure -- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're...(CROSSTALK)

IMO Paul is far more dangerous than Obama.

He doesn't realize that it's a dangerous world and there are people who wants to destroy us because we exist.

Iran is a chief state sponsor of terrorism. Even though they may not invade the US, if they had a nuke they could give it to a terrorist group, who could use it against the US.

Iran is currently fighting america by proxy.

Paul is even against the raid that killed OBL.

IMO he is mad

No, it's because he realizes that the reason they want to attack us is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. There's a reason nobody attacks Switzerland. That being said the Iranian government is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like I said, a third-world tinpot dictator poses no threat to the world's preeminent military power.

Go tell that to Israel, and get back to me.

If Israel has so much to fear about Iran, perhaps they should knuckle up and do something about it themselves. Why should we have to be a part of it? They could "wipe Iran off the map" like it was light work and swing the gun barrel around in a cirle daring any of the other unfriendly muslim nations around them to even so much as attempt retribution. And we all know who loses that battle.

Whats the likelihood that Israel would even led a fucking hand if we engaged Iran instead? We did them a HUGE favor taking out Saddam and they barely even so much as thanked us for it, let alone helped us remove an immediate threat to them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And what does the government have that let's it get away with what anarchists despise?

Guns.

Governments have been pulling the shit you listed before guns were invented, Kevin. Try again.

Guns meaning a monopoly on the use of violence.

 

[Auxous]

And what does the government have that let's it get away with what anarchists despise?

Bailouts, subsidies, and unjustified wars just to name a few obvious governmental practices.

And the ability to do those things is called...

statism.

 

[dblack]

Except in the video I linked, even Ron Paul himself has admitted there is only so far he'll go as a "independent Republican".

WTF? He's acknowledging that the Republocrats have the system locked down. He's still doing everything he can to break that lock. He'd have less effect from the outside. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[Woyzeck]

Guns.

Governments have been pulling the shit you listed before guns were invented, Kevin. Try again.

Guns meaning a monopoly on the use of violence.

Which means they have...

 

[Modbert]

You know as well as any of us that running third party is pointless considering that the Republicans and Democrats work together to keep any and all third party candidates from even getting on the ballot if at all possible.

Yes, it might seem pointless after the second run if the issues you'd been talking about for your 30 year career hadn't suddenly become monumentally important in the political dialogue. The Federal Reserve is finally an issue, the debt is finally an issue, and even more Republicans are now questioning our militarism than in 2008. Who has more credibility on these issues than Ron Paul, the man who brought them to the forefront?

Except you're giving all this credit to Ron Paul. There are other reasons why these issues have suddenly become important. And they all have very little to do with Paul.

Paul's idea of what he wants for America is fantasy based, not reality based.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Governments have been pulling the shit you listed before guns were invented, Kevin. Try again.

Guns meaning a monopoly on the use of violence.

Which means they have...

I believe you're fishing for the term "hierarchy," but again that doesn't really answer the question. Like you said, businesses are hierarchical, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the use of violence or the right to use violence in any manner whatsoever.

 

[Paulie]

Here's the $64,000 question, why is Paul still a Republican? If Ron Paul is so vastly different from the rest of the candidates, why does he not simply go the third party route?

If I ran for office and the same position three times, never getting over 10%, I'd have second thoughts about what I'm doing. By the second time mind you, I would have come to the conclusion that either I have to change my views to gain more of the party's support in the primary, or leave the party.

From Ron Paul himself:

Ron Paul Sells Out The Liberty Movement - January 15, 2010 - YouTube

You know as well as any of us that running third party is pointless considering that the Republicans and Democrats work together to keep any and all third party candidates from even getting on the ballot if at all possible.

Yes, it might seem pointless after the second run if the issues you'd been talking about for your 30 year career hadn't suddenly become monumentally important in the political dialogue. The Federal Reserve is finally an issue, the debt is finally an issue, and even more Republicans are now questioning our militarism than in 2008. Who has more credibility on these issues than Ron Paul, the man who brought them to the forefront?

^ This is a good point, Modbert. I would have thought you would have understood this by now. You keep asking the same question about Paul and the R party and the Paul supporters keep trying to explain to you his reasoning, and it's like you're not listening.

Do you want us to tell you WHY, or are you waiting for us to just tell you what you want to hear?

 

[Wicked Jester]

No, it's because he realizes that the reason they want to attack us is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. There's a reason nobody attacks Switzerland. That being said the Iranian government is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like I said, a third-world tinpot dictator poses no threat to the world's preeminent military power.

Go tell that to Israel, and get back to me.

Israel has plenty of nuclear weapons itself, and is economically superior to Iran. Israel is perfectly capable of defending themselves from a third-world tinpot dictator as well.

Israel is suroounded by those who wish to destroy them.........It's best that Iran never has the capability to even try.......Iran's leaders are crazy enough, too include the Ayatollah, to launch if given the opportunity, thereby undoubtedly starting WW3.

They can never have the means to do so.........And we are the means to make sure it doesn't happen, while staying protected within our own borders.......Israel does not have that luxury.

 

[Modbert]

WTF? He's acknowledging that the Republocrats have the system locked down. He's still doing everything he can to break that lock. He'd have less effect from the outside. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.

He's also acknowledging the fact he's willing to play along. I have no problem with agreeing that he's unlike his party in a lot of ways. However, trying to paint him as someone who has never given in to party politics is laughable at best.

 

[Auxous]

You know as well as any of us that running third party is pointless considering that the Republicans and Democrats work together to keep any and all third party candidates from even getting on the ballot if at all possible.

Yes, it might seem pointless after the second run if the issues you'd been talking about for your 30 year career hadn't suddenly become monumentally important in the political dialogue. The Federal Reserve is finally an issue, the debt is finally an issue, and even more Republicans are now questioning our militarism than in 2008. Who has more credibility on these issues than Ron Paul, the man who brought them to the forefront?

Except you're giving all this credit to Ron Paul. There are other reasons why these issues have suddenly become important. And they all have very little to do with Paul.

Paul's idea of what he wants for America is fantasy based, not reality based.

BS. I would love to debate you on your unjustified opinion.

 

[Paulie]

You know as well as any of us that running third party is pointless considering that the Republicans and Democrats work together to keep any and all third party candidates from even getting on the ballot if at all possible.

Yes, it might seem pointless after the second run if the issues you'd been talking about for your 30 year career hadn't suddenly become monumentally important in the political dialogue. The Federal Reserve is finally an issue, the debt is finally an issue, and even more Republicans are now questioning our militarism than in 2008. Who has more credibility on these issues than Ron Paul, the man who brought them to the forefront?

Except you're giving all this credit to Ron Paul. There are other reasons why these issues have suddenly become important. And they all have very little to do with Paul.

Paul's idea of what he wants for America is fantasy based, not reality based.

Dude, you usually thank me for posts I make explaining to people where the tea party movement originated from, and now you're saying that these ideas have little to do with Paul?

What are these reasons you're talking about? Where else did the idea of less interventionism, hard lines against government spending, and Federal Reserve opposition come from all the sudden?