Blogcritics Comments on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Comment by andy on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:09:23 EST

"Bases present at the agreement of the host country hardly make an empire." Empire: A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. Considering that when any country does something the USA don't like they tend to intervene, I think the definition would match. BTW: I don't think you could say the bases in Europe are a result of 'agreement', and I would guess the same applies to many bases all over the world - I would guess that many were 'agreed on' by a CIA-imposed pro-USA government.... "The federal government has an established and legitimate role in protecting the rights of citizens from the abuses of state government. To paraphrase Jefferson, majority rule doesn't mean allowing minorities to be oppressed, even when the people of a state vote to be oppressive." That is absolutely right. Can you explain me how does the VOLUNTARY prayer at school oppress the minorities? Can you explain me how the 'ten commandments' piece of stone in a court building does oppress minorities? "The constitution should be the ultimate authority, especially the Bill of Rights, and Paul places states rights ahead of individual rights when it's convenient for him." Actually, I think Paul would be first to say that the state must not oppress individual rights. He favours private schools etc. However, given the current legal framework I would suggest, that if you want to ban prayer at school, you should amend constitution. I don't see that congress has any authority to do this - schools are paid by the states and congress doesn't have this power enumerated nowhere. Thus, see Bill of Rights, amendment 10. Do you suggest that the Federal Government should ignore the constitution?

Comment by RJ on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:00:24 EST

"The constitution should be the ultimate authority, especially the Bill of Rights, and Paul places states rights ahead of individual rights when it's convenient for him." I agree with the first part of your sentence, and disagree with the second part. I believe the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it pretty clear that most matters should be left up to the states. (And not recognizing homosexual and/or polygamous marriages is hardly "oppressive" ...)

Comment by Dave Nalle on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:06:33 EST

The US is an empire. Have you seen the map of bases around the world? Bases present at the agreement of the host country hardly make an empire. Dave,he does not want to be in either, you didn't do the homework. He said the Federal government shall write no law regarding prayer in schools and gay marriage. And that is the point - in my bedroom I will do what I want to - but I will not get into your bedroom. (I got the liberals/conservatives really backwards...oops). And he's dead wrong. The federal government has an established and legitimate role in protecting the rights of citizens from the abuses of state government. To paraphrase Jefferson, majority rule doesn't mean allowing minorities to be oppressed, even when the people of a state vote to be oppressive. The constitution should be the ultimate authority, especially the Bill of Rights, and Paul places states rights ahead of individual rights when it's convenient for him. Dave

Comment by andy on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:51:30 EST

Phillip, the question was about the employees of the Federal agencies, not about poor people, not about medical aid. You have suggested, that if those people are laid off because of closing these agencies that there would appear a problem with unemployment. According to the 'fallacy of broken window' the people will have more money, they will try to spend it and these people would be fast employed. (FYI: on New Zealand they fired several thousands employees overnight because of closing state post office. There was no surge of unemployment because of this move. Actually the drop of unemployment began in the moment they abandoned labour union privileges.). I did not argue on health care with broken window fallacy. However, the problem used to be solved using the 'friendliness societies'(see the link above) and I just don't see why current state-provided solution is superior. There are people who suggest that not letting state help means wanting these people help themselves (I have an impression that objectivism would fall in this category though). RP is not objectivist and he would certainly argue that he doesn't want state interference, because it is inferior to people providing this help themselves. If I want to help you, I can just do it - I do not need to pay a state employee to help you on my behalf.

Comment by Canadian on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:02:27 EST

Marriage is like a tense, unfunny version of Everybody Loves Raymond, only it doesn't last 22 minutes. It lasts forever.~ Pete Quote from the movie Knocked up

Comment by Phillip Winn on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:22:01 EST

Andy (#229), I'm aware of the so-called "broken window fallacy," but that doesn't mean that I agree with it or that I think it applies in this case. It's all very good to say in the abstract that since I didn't break X, I'm not responsible for whatever short-term negative effects may result from fixing X. Human suffering isn't "X" and a broken window isn't the same as a broken health care system. What seems right on paper sometimes runs into trouble when you face down someone -- or thousands of someones -- who will die as a result of the abrupt removal of economic support they'd come to depend on. Should they have? No. Should they die for making that mistake? This is an example of what I mentioned above: different people value different things. Some people would define "justice" as nobody having their property taken away from them and given to someone else. Others might look at the result -- people dying for lack lack of food or cheap medicine in one of the richest countries in the world, and see only "injustice." Which is wrong? Which is right? I think that both are wrong and both are right, in different ways. To take from the rich to give to the poor is unjust. For where you live to dictate whether you live or die as a result of sanitary conditions is unjust. Can you solve either problem without impacting the other? It's hard to see how. Of course, even asking the question reveals that I'm a squishy liberal bleeding heart, a muddle-headed thieving looter, right? Maybe not for you, Andy, but certainly for many of the commenters above. The moral clarity of living in a walled city can be comforting.

Comment by Phillip Winn on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:01:08 EST

Thanks, Franklin! I had forgotten that my current "Writer URL" is my wife's magazine site until referrers started showing up, but I'm glad it put the bubble in the soda for you. Your comment stands as more brilliant satire than my own, though, and I bow to your brilliance. The unlinked and unsubstantiated false claims you make are far more clever than my statements, for which I was foolish enough to provide links and further explanations when questioned. Next time I'll go all the way and just say what I want without worrying about "evidence" or "truth," and only then will I have achieved the sort of subtle satire you evidently see I'm capable of producing. Thanks for your faith in me!

Comment by Charlotte on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:54:54 EST

For more info check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Comment by Franklin on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:49:24 EST

This is hillarious! Brilliant even. Most of the satire I see about Ron Paul is so obvious that it's not that funny. This, on the other hand, is so subtle that it actually seems like is was written by someone who truly dislikes Paul. The ad hominem, misleading use of facts and, in a few places, pure fabrication. Brilliant, I tell you. The only mistake (IMO) was linking the author to a food blog. It makes it more funny but takes away from the subtle nature of the satire.

Comment by andy on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:10:58 EST

The US is an empire. Have you seen the map of bases around the world? Dave,he does not want to be in either, you didn't do the homework. He said the Federal government shall write no law regarding prayer in schools and gay marriage. And that is the point - in my bedroom I will do what I want to - but I will not get into your bedroom. (I got the liberals/conservatives really backwards...oops). The amendment 10 says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Which part of 'are reserved to the states or to the people' is not clear? Regarding the gay marriage Paul has stated that any contract made by 2 adult citizens should be respected. And that marriage is a religious matter and he would probably like government out of this business. Philipp: I didn't want to be personal. Asking what would happen to federal employees and at the same time being aware of the "fallacy of broken window"/"what is seen and what is not" economic reasoning seems to me mutually exclusive. (actually this has nothing to do with libertarian point of view and everything with economics)

Comment by jugzter on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:13:34 EST

Quick money making schemes: #1 attack Ron Paul and watch the ad revenue flow in!

Comment by Dave Nalle on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:17:24 EST

Dave...there cannot be somebody like Paul who has other policies like him except war. You cannot have sound fiscal policy while maintaining empire. What empire? The US has no empire. Somebody put it this way - liberals want to be in your bedroom, conservatives want to be in your wallet. I think you got that exactly backwards, but goo try. Is there something bad on voting for a guy, who does not want to be in neither while all other candidates seem to be in both? Who was that guy again? Last I checked Ron Paul was in favor of prayer in schools and opposed to gay marriage. Dave

Comment by Phillip Winn on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:38:26 EST

Thanks to everyone who commented today, and I'm sorry I couldn't supply a personal response to comments #194-224. I'm glad most of you have found someone who motivates you politically, and I hope that many of you continue to feel motivate after your candidate returns to South Texas. I suspect he'll never again do as well as will in 2008, so I hope he achieves something. I'm sorry some of you are engaging in shallow discourse laced with personal invective rather than considering the issues I've raised, but hey, I guess I started it. I meant what I said above. I've been familiar with Paul for more than a decade, but I'm willing to pick up a book and re-acquaint myself with his views and discuss them with a reasonable Paul supporter with a radio-friendly voice and demeanor. If you're interested in talking weekly for a while in 2008, the offer is open. Just contact me using the the first letter of my first name followed by my last name at this sites URL. Thanks!

Comment by gravel kucinich paul nader on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:22:18 EST

Gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist. The people know too much, democracy rising democracy now. Rage against the machine. Honesty compassion intelligence guts. No more extortion blackmail bribery division. Divided we fall.

Comment by Stephanie on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:30:35 EST

Ron Paul's ideas are radical, but a vote for him represents a vote against the scary status quo and for the troops to come home from Iraq. Ron Paul is extremely intelligent, by the way. He knows how the government works and isn't delusional about how his ideals would have to be carried out. One of the best things about Ron Paul is that he unites Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. No other candidate does these things.

Comment by Josh on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:24:23 EST

Sir Phillip, I would like to sincerely thank you for supporting the Ron Paul Revolution. Any publicity is good publicity. I have one answer for you, to this question: "Not worried about where all those ex-federal employees are going to work?" No, I am not. I have been hoping for years that they would be sent out to get a job that contributes to our economy, rather than sucking off of it. Maybe then the value of our fake money would increase.

Comment by Markus on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:12:59 EST

Another piece of bad journalism with wrong stats.

Comment by Healthydose on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:35:22 EST

There's an article about a person in Springfield Ill. receiveing threats to take down his R.P. signs... from City Hall no less. This is happening all around the country. Why is he garnering so much love and hate? During the American Revolution there were 3 groups. 1/3 for freedom, 1/3 were Tories--stay with England, and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone. Our Founders were definitly radicals. Cornwallis commanded that "The World Turned Upside Down" be played when the British surrendered at Yorktown. The Founders did indeed turn the world on its' head. We inspired the French and South American revoulutions. They saw and had first hand experience of a heavy handed Gov. and wanted no part of that. Freedom and liberty were their battle cry. So what did they do? They gave us the freest form of Gov. possible...a Republic and to boot they gave us...their posterity... an Operating Manual with exact simple-to-follow instructions to keep ourselves in that free state. They also gave us admonitions, and spoke prophetically as to what would happen should we disregard their instructions. Now look at u. s. today. The Founders were right, not because they had a crystal ball, but because human nature doesn't change. We have, though careful conditioning, become so accoustomed to Gov. doing so many things for us, that when some one comes alone and wants to take away the "blanky" they throw a temper tantrum and run to "mommy". Ron Paul is hated by some because his election means the end of their thievery and pillaging of the American people. Others because it means the end of their easy ride of living off of others being forced to "contribute" to their existence. Others because they are purposely misinformed by the media about him He is loved by many because he courageously stands for the Constitution, even if that means standing alone. He is consistent because he votes by principle NOT because he was paid to vote a certain way. Unfortunately, many people erroneously believe that returning our Gov. to the original course set by the Founders is wrong. They established a minimal gov. plan with maximum freedom. They purposely put a straight-jacket on the Fed. Gov. We were to be responsible for ourselves...period. ANY politician saying he wants to do thus and such for you is comitting a Constitutional no, no. Ron Paul doesn't want to run your life, that's your business. Ron Paul does want to have Gov. obey the Operating Manual. We The People of these United States of America are sick of the travesty of what has become of our great Republic. Ron Paul has the correct diagnosis. But, are we willing to follow through on the treatment.

Comment by Alan on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:56:47 EST

'..online fever failing to translate into real-life success" I can think of 4.2 million reasons why you're wrong on that issue let alone the rest of this smear job of an article. I'll just touch on the Russian thing. Firstly the Soviet system was doomed at conception because such a system cannot substain itself. Secondly it was much more than a bit of funding the US gave to the Afghans, it was a radical new version of Islam. Do a search for "schoolbooks, Taliban, CIA". Thirdly the very reason for doing so? And I vaguely quote: "To give the Russians their own Vietnam (quagmire)". This neoconned version of Islam ultimately led to 9/11, which was used as an excuse for the 20th century's very own Vietnam-like quagmire. Can we say "blowback"? Well the CIA can, as did the 9/11 Commission Report but hey, keep calling the only politician that talks sense a loon, huh? By the way, the more hits you get without a corrosponding increase in clicks actually lowers your Google earnings. Guess you didn't know that either? Alan

Comment by andy on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:49:25 EST

Dave...there cannot be somebody like Paul who has other policies like him except war. You cannot have sound fiscal policy while maintaining empire. Imagine 2 people with different political opinion meet and they have to choose a policy. One wants public education and no army, the other wants private education and foreign aid. Possible outcomes: - (1) private education, privatly financed foreign aid - (2) public education, state financed foreign aid - (3) public education, private foreign aid - (4) private education, foreign aid Current candidates are mostly type (2), with democrats and republins leaning to 3 and 4 respectively. Paul is type (1). Democrats will never vote for type (4), republicans for type (3). You are claiming that if Paul was type (4), the democrats will change their party. Yes, thay will. But that is actually the point - they will vote for him, because he will not impose his values on them. Somebody put it this way - liberals want to be in your bedroom, conservatives want to be in your wallet. Is there something bad on voting for a guy, who does not want to be in neither while all other candidates seem to be in both?

Comment by Jason McCaffrey on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:43:43 EST

Phillip (#182), Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination or the election, I won't think my "naivete" will have been in vain. This will be my third time voting in a presidential election, and should Ron Paul lose, it will be my third time voting for a loser. The next time around I'll still do what Ron Paul does--vote with principled integrity. If there isn't a candidate that fits that principled integrity, I will probably stay home. You can call that naive if you want to. And if I did check back in a year and you were right and I was wrong, how does that answer the question regarding what is to be preferred: your brand of experienced cynicism or the wide-eyed hopefulness of young voters? If we have a system where one is justifiably viewed as naive, crazy or dumb to hope for any of the candidates that aren't the media's golden children, then suicide isn't necessarily the best option, but it's one of them. Another option would be defecting to Switzerland or something. Also, could you please provide links to the bills that you mentioned in your blog that Ron Paul voted yes on. I tried to look them up on vote-smart.org, but I can't find them. I'm not questioning your accuracy, I just want to know more than one sentence about each bill. Thank you for trying to respond to all of these comments. It's nice to see that your blog is an arena for discourse.

Comment by Dave Nalle on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:55:20 EST

Jason in #211 illustrates the fundamental problem with the Paul campaign. Too many of his supporters are like Jason - fairweather friends who are crossing party lines to support Paul with no real interest in the basic values Paul or the GOP believe in. They are supporting him solely on opposition to the war and won't stick with the GOP if someone other than Paul - who may have many of the same policies aside from the war - gets the nomination. Their involvement delegitimizes Paul in the eyes of many Republicans who see the war as just one issue among many and might want to support Paul on other issues, but see him as tainted by pandering to the left on the issue of the war. What Jason doesn't get is that Paul doesn't just oppose the Iraq war, he opposes an interventionist foreign policy, which includes opposing funding the UN, opposing funneling aid money into africa and certainly opposing sending US aid to our precious friends in Darfur. Dave

Comment by Fabio on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:13:01 EST

Guys, just my two cents from Germany: In 1963, your former president JFK came to my capital, Berlin. He said: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner." I was becoming what your ridiculous isolationist Neocon-Media calls "anti-american" after the bullshit your leaders have done in the past 6 years. Elect Dr. Paul and I`ll take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Amerikaner".

Comment by Andrew on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:10:30 EST

Okay, I'm done being "that guy." So, what other issues do you want to discuss. What is on the other side of that equation? Like Jim Rome says, "have a take, don't suck."

Comment by Andrew on I Don't Have A Crush On Ron Paul

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:07:22 EST

Wow, I can't get through two paragraphs without finding something else. "...but at the same time somehow still manage to win the Cold War so we're not all speaking Russian." Are you serious? The cold war was won not by us tempting the Reds to start a hot war, but by the very superiority of our economic system. Theirs was walking dead for decades before it finally gave up the ghost. Yes, we did spend them into oblivion with national defense, but this only accelerated the issue. We would have just fine having them collapse a few decades later, perhaps. Or just by quietly adopting capitalism along the way like China may be doing, without firing a shot. As for Reagan...it's not our fault you were fooled by Reagan's inability to control his people. And Ronald Reagan was no Ron Paul.