Ron Paul vs National Review Online
November 21st, 2007 at 08:27am Mark Noonan
Mona Charen writes a piece taking Ron Paul to task over various issues, Ron Paul’s communications director, Jesse Benton, fires back. After reading both pieces and Ms. Charen’s response to the rebuttal, I can only feel sympathy for Ms. Charen. Ron Paul might be the nicest guy in the whole world, but his people are, at best, tiresome. Earlier today, I received this in my in-box:
That is why there is an ever-increasing amount of independents. They are tired of the lies, the empire building, censored press, fascism and corruption. Who should we support then? The GOP? The DFL? Only a blind, deaf and dumb idiot might.
That is the way to win friends and influence people - call them idiots. While I have, like Ms. Charen, received well-reasoned emails from Paul supporters, the general run is like the quote - a rant about how everyone is evil except for Ron Paul. The question which immediately comes to mind is that if we GOPers are so idiotic and/or evil, why seek the nomination of our party? Why not seek the Libertarian party nomination for President? I’m sure they’d be delighted with the increased press, if nothing else.
Whatever the motivations of Paul’s supporters, I will have to say clearly that I cannot support Ron Paul for President of the United States. The more I’ve heard of Paul’s positions, the less I find them in accord with my Republicanism, my conservative beliefs and my Christian morality. As a for-instance from Mr. Benton’s email to Ms. Charen:
If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Indeed, we want peace, commerce and open friendship - but one must choose one’s friends carefully, and there is no way the United States can be actual friends with the likes of Venezuela’s Chavez, or Iran’s Ahmadinejad. Sure, Paul can say we won’t be friends with them, but friends with the people of Venezuela and Iran…and that is a nice concept, but also quite foolish…any commerce and friendship we give to Venezuela and Iran will merely strengthen Chavez and Ahmadinejad to the detriment not only of the United States, but the people of Iran and Venezuela. Isolationism is not an option for the United States, but its opposite is not open embrace of all and sundry.
The Republican party stands for things - respect for human life, respect for liberty, among them…we cannot be people of life and liberty if we in any way help those who deny life and liberty to others. Conservatism also stands for things - respect for inherited tradition, understanding that our duties to our fellow men far outweigh our rights vis a vis them…we cannot be conservative if we throw away tradition in favor of the latest fads, nor can we be if place the individual as the be-all and end-all of existence. Christianity stands for things - love of our fellow men, understanding of our fallen nature, among them…we cannot be Christians if we turn a blind eye to the sufferings of our brothers and sisters in the name of commerce, nor can we be if we pretend that human beings, unfettered by rules of right conduct, will do other than make a mess of things.
Ron Paul stands for a species of liberty which is actually license. For a version of free markets which is actually just permission for the rich to grind the faces of the poor. For a version of society which is every man for himself.
I can’t back that - not now, not ever.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
67 Comments
1. Bruce | November 21st, 2007 at 9:16 am
“He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
Is it not true that our ‘commerce’ was so restricted by the constant kidnappings and ransoms of our ships that it took half the national treasury every year until a fellow named Thomas Jefferson formed the US Navy and went after those Barbary pirates and made our commerce more open, peaceful, and free?
Is it a coincidence that the Barbary pirates Jefferson formed the Navy to fight were mostly North African Muslims? Hmmm…
2. Rana Quijotesca | November 21st, 2007 at 9:30 am
Yeah… we are only friends with countries that ensure the lives and liberties of their people… like Saudi Arabia and China!!!!!!
Yeesh… I know that there are probably exceptions for people who give us lots of oil and own a large portion of our debt… huh…
What a naive comment…
3. Bigfoot | November 21st, 2007 at 9:51 am
Bruce,
I will add that back in the days of Jefferson and those Barbary pirates, there was no state of Israel “occupying” any muslim land, no oil being imported from the Persian Gulf region to the west, and no American troops in (what is now) Iraq or Saudi Arabia. (At that time, there were hardly any American troops in America.)
Why did those muslim Barbary pirates attack U.S. shipping? The same Jefferson, along with Adams, met with a representative of the Dey of Algiers, whose state was one of those harboring those pirates. (Even back then there were states that harbored terrorists.) They would later report back to Congress that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
This is an important lesson for today. Muslim extremists believe that they have both the right and the duty to attack non-muslims simply for being non-muslim or not submitting to muslim rule. Even if the U.S. were to withdraw every single military person from every country in the Middle East, completely abandon Israel, and become independent of Persian Gulf oil, radical muslims such as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah would still hate us with the same bigotted murderous passion with which they do now.
Sorry about going off on a tangent, but there’s never a bad time to learn the lessons of history.
4. L.Step | November 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
You’re upset because you have been called an “idiot”? Big deal. As a Ron Paul supporter I’ve been called a “Nazi” an “anti-semite” a “fascist” a “kook”, etc. “Idiot” seems a rather mild retort.
Ah, and one web site does not allow the name “Ron Paul” to appear in their commentaries — only “Dr. Looney”. Yes, perhaps civility has taken a hit, but then again I’d rather be called an “idiot” than placed on a Water-Board.
5. bbartlog | November 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
any commerce and friendship we give to Venezuela and Iran will merely strengthen Chavez and Ahmadinejad to the detriment not only of the United States, but the people of Iran and Venezuela.
It’s true that trading with Iran and Venezuela strengthens them - one of the reasons that they’re both making so much noise on the world stage right now is that high oil prices have given them big budgets to play with. However, I don’t see anyone on either side of the aisle proposing to embargo their oil, so I don’t think it’s really fair to slam Paul for saying ‘we will trade with them’ when in fact we already do so for the biggest commodity in the world.
Further, while economic isolation does weaken the ability of dictatorial regimes to act internationally, it doesn’t seem to destabilize them. North Korea and Cuba haven’t suffered political turmoil as a result of various embargos.
To be fair, it seems like the best results are obtainable by promoting free trade for quite a while, and *then* threatening to pull the rug out from under the opponent once they’re thoroughly enmeshed in the international system. But in many cases the latter threat doesn’t even need to be made explicitly.
6. Francine | November 21st, 2007 at 10:30 am
Let me get this straight.
Republican/Conservatives “Leaders”: Ron Paul is too Liberal and/or Left-Libertarian.
Democrat/Liberal “Leaders”: Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Right-Libertarian.
Libertarian/left-libertarian, right-libertarian, neo-libertarian(oxymoronic label) “Leaders”: Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Liberal.
So to summarizes, according to these self-appointed political elitists i shouldn’t support Ron Paul because he is too Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian and/or not Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian enough.
Huh?
And they wonder why Paul supporters ignore the talking heads…
7. L.Step | November 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am
Francine: Good work in picking up the many unreflective and contradictory political labels — seems that those who use them have only one thing in common… they fear Ron Paul’s ideas — which rise above the semantical confusions generated by the MSM. Ah, as to the Barbary Pirates, Israel has over 300 nukes. It has a very, very large army and air force. It has the most modern of weaponry (thanks to Uncle Sam’s help) and can take care of itself. So let’s stow the “Anchors Aweigh” talk and start taking care of our own people. Item: over 500 homicides a year in Philadelphia for the past decade.
8. Retired Spook | November 21st, 2007 at 10:52 am
Jonah Goldberg has an interesting piece at TownHall.com today comparing Ron Paul with Mike Huckabee.
I must confess to being somewhat of a Libertarian on some things, so I don’t necessarily disagree with everything Ron Paul says. For that matter, I don’t always agree with Jonah Goldberg, but I find his observations interesting, if for no other reason than, at this point in the campaign, Huckabee is the candidate I find most genuine and most honest, although I also don’t agree with everything he says (are you sensing a trend here?).
No offense to Ron Paul fans (hey, I voted for Perot in ‘92, so I’ve got no room to be critical of anyone), but I agree with Goldberg when he says:
9. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
After reading everything about Dr. Paul I could lay my eyes to; I’ve concluded that he has embraced the dark side. A once rational man is now espousing the most dangerous isolationist foreign policy, absurd conspiracy theories and arrogantly displaying his total ignorance of history and world affairs.
Paul speaks of the founding Fathers cautionary anecdotes of “foreign entanglements” yet cannot muster an answer to Jefferson’s Tripoli adventure. Factually, when Washington used the words “foreign entanglements” he was referring to the treaties and agreements within Europe that forced countries to align themselves with others in purely regional disputes. The entanglements were never meant to preclude trade, buy oil, goods or having troops protecting American interests in free trade (as did Jefferson.)
Bigfoot brings up another in the Paul-holes; that all the retribution visited upon us by the Mohammedans are the result of our intervention in their lands and lives. This is not only historically laughable, it is dangerous thinking. This precedes the complete and total acquiescence to Dhimmitude, and an unwavering commitment to cowering at the threat of violence rather than taking our place among civilized nations.
Let Israel defend itself? Perhaps the Paul-Pots should read Pastor Martin Niemöller’s admonition that soon there will be no one left to speak for us.
The final absurdity for me is the sophomoric and naïve economic policies of the Paul-Pots; I honestly don’t know how Bernanke kept a straight face when Paul was accosting him with the with his stupidity; ““We don’t know what caused the tech bubble and we don’t know what caused the housing bubble.” WTF???? and when Paul spoke of money supply every first year econ student in the country cringed. Paul is in way over his head.
Lastly, know him by the company he keeps; and follow the money; Paul receives support from the most vile America hating, anti-Semitic, racist organizations around. Don’t take my word for it, former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live. “Please refrain in the future from using the label ‘Libertarian Republican’ in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.” “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball.”
Says it all.
10. AJ | November 21st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul317.html
That is a link to a piece where Ron Paul discusses santions.
He provides evidence in his work to support his argument. However, if you can provide evidence to illustrate that our sanctions are helping the situation in Venezuela or Iran I will gladly read and consider it.
Regarding the Christian morality point remember many were hoping the Messiah would be a militaristic leader but instead he was the prince of peace.
How many oppressive regimes did Jesus overthrow through fighting?
The Bible is full of examples that only strengthen Ron Paul’s arguments:
“He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”
“Do unto others…”
Jesus eating with the tax collectors (read Ron Paul talking to our “enemies”)
Jesus, not forcing people to follow him in order to get to heaven but instead dying on the cross at the hands of the people he was there to save
Ron Paul is not even close to Jesus but he is far and away more Christ like than any other candidate (yes even Huckabee)
I do not think you are an idiot just because you do not support Ron Paul. I just hope you consider that he may not be all that crazy after all.
Thanks
11. Steve | November 21st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hello Blogs for Victory
I am writing to discuss Ron Paul’s foreign policy of freedom. What do you think of the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”? In this book, Mr. Perkins asserts that there is a corporatocracy running our foreign policy. He asserts that criminals like Ahmadinejad and Chavez come to power due to our foreign policy. These leaders are reactionaries who arise due to corrupt government-market collaborations.
There are lots of hidden costs for the foreign policy that we follow. Have you noticed that many illegal immigrants are central americans? Maybe if we followed a peaceful foreign policy in central america, there wouldn’t be such a big immigration problem for the US.
I believe that Ron Paul is the greatest enemy of the America-hating tyrants and extremists of the world. I think that if we change our foreign policy, these vermin would lose credibility.
12. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
By AJ’s statements I can only conclude that AJ and Paul feel that America should not exist. Christianity should not exist. I would suggest they both read up on Battle of Tours.
If Jeremiah is reading this perhaps he can enlighten me, from my catechism I recall that Jesus is going to come and wipe out 200 million soldiers gathered to fight Him at the End of the Age. God frequently called upon His People to annihilate those that were a thorn in His side. Paul-Pots don’t seem to understand that Peace only comes from the other side of War.
In re Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. I’ve read this tome, long on self aggrandizement, short on facts. The premise is that Corporations (shorthand for Joooos) make shady deals by subverting third world countries self interests thereby gaining control over their governments. Problem is, he never establishes that the “loans” were actually granted under the terms he describes, the control was ipso facto, or that his inflated projections ever came to fruition. It is a self-serving confessional from someone that can’t prove that his actions bore any results.
Perkins evil military-industrial complex conspiracy theories were debunked years ago; subversive foreign policy is not institutionalized on behalf of corporations (Joooos), it is engaged in National self interest; for better or worse.
That’s the facts
13. rhys | November 21st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“The Republican party stands for things - respect for human life, respect for liberty, among them…we cannot be people of life and liberty if we in any way help those who deny life and liberty to others.”
Respect for human life requires that war be a defensive, not pre-emptory action. And by refusing to trade with others all we are doing is weakening their economy so that those in charge have even more power. When the middle class thrives, they demand justice from their leaders. When they are kept in poverty, they are not in a position to demand anything.
“Conservatism also stands for things - respect for inherited tradition, understanding that our duties to our fellow men far outweigh our rights vis a vis them.”
Our inherited tradition is the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution - two of the most anarchical political documents ever put into practice. I hardly believe that we are following tradition with our progressive foreign and domestic policies.
As far as our duties, conservatives are not socialists. Conservatives do not believe that individuals owe humanity anything. Again, you are confusing progressive social dogma for conservatism.
“Christianity stands for things - love of our fellow men, understanding of our fallen nature, among them…we cannot be Christians if we turn a blind eye to the sufferings of our brothers and sisters in the name of commerce, nor can we be if we pretend that human beings, unfettered by rules of right conduct, will do other than make a mess of things.”
Commerce is what allows our suffering brothers and sisters to raise themselves up. If we revoke our hand in trade, then we are truly destroying our siblings. We went in to Iraq to liberate Iraqis. By all accounts, hundreds of thousands have died. Now we stay in Iraq to fight the terrorists there instead of here. How does it alleviate suffering and bring liberty to starve Iraqis of food and medicine through embargo, force them to engage in a war for their own freedom, and then remain in their country as terrorists tear it apart so that the terrorists won’t follow us out? Our actions over the last 25 years have killed millions of Iraqi children and innocents. We have not brought peace. We have destroyed innocent foreigners in a distant land to protect ‘our’ oil. Our policies have destroyed humanity in the name of ‘commerce’.
Our actions are not Christian, our policies are not conservative, and its no wonder that the Republican party is shrinking when Republican stands for irresponsible progressive socialism. I wish you bible thumping, progressive socialists would move back to the Democrat party from whence you came so us free-trading, limited government, Constitutional Republicans could have a party again.
14. OhioOrrin | November 21st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
mark wrote - “The Republican party stands for things - respect for human life, respect for liberty, among them…we cannot be people of life and liberty if we in any way help those who deny life and liberty to others. ”
In it’s sell-out to the social “conservatives”, the GOP has adandoned it’s principles of actually shrinking the federal govt, balanced budgets, & respect for states’ rights.
Instead the GOP has become just another big govt party which cuts taxes while increasing spending (then selling T notes to the Chinese communists to finance the diff), growing the federal bureaucracy, & trampling 10th admendment rights.
oh & the chinese communists use US T notes as collateral for loans to finance their own projects which, u may be sure, are not in the interests of the US.
15. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Far left liberals are nothing more than conspiracy minded hacks, void of any reality or basis in historical fact.
Ron Paul is a conspiracy minded whack job masquerading as a libertarian.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Rhys is a good example of the rhetorical idiot. Some IT’S postings:
When the middle class thrives, they demand justice from their leaders. When they are kept in poverty, they are not in a position to demand anything. - rhys
Great statement for a college thesis, but actually means NOTHING
Conservatives do not believe that individuals owe humanity anything. - rhys
Again, another empty headed diatribe.
Liberals have ZERO solutions but sure love to complain and hear themselves talk.
16. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Respect for human life requires that war be a defensive, not pre-emptory (sic) action.
I think you mean preemptive, stopping a killer before he kills is respect for the life he intends to take. Aim your weapon at my child and find out how quickly I can show you respect for my child’s life.
And by refusing to trade with others all we are doing is weakening their economy so that those in charge have even more power.
More naive Paulisms; based on an analysis of 116 case studies since WWI, only 19% of economic sanctions have failed to achieve the goals of modifying a nation’s behaviour. Sell your anti-sanction meme to the South Africans; they’ll listen (/sarcasm)
Our inherited tradition is the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution - two of the most anarchical political documents ever put into practice.
One making a statement like that should really read both documents before looking so foolish; the Constitution is the archetypical document of laws; the antithesis of anarchy!
Conservatives do not believe that individuals owe humanity anything.
“ Contemporary conservatism’s greatest service to society has been to re-focus attention on an elemental fact that the Founders understood: Society is a crucible of character formation. Human beings are political, meaning social beings, fulfilled in associations. Government can damage associational life, and big government can do big damage.”George will
Commerce is what allows our suffering brothers and sisters to raise themselves up.
Freedom is what allows our suffering brothers and sisters to raise themselves up.! That previous post is rife with typical communist sentiments. Hardly the person conservatives should heed. Paul-Pots are decididly not conservative!
17. Joe | November 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
OT… some of that Bush Administration Conservative respect for human life right here…
http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html
How much do conservatives respect human life and soldiers?
18. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Good analysis DL.
Hard to believe someone with the regressive, ignorant mindset of someone like rhys can actually tie their shoes in the morning.
19. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Joe, OT
A Signing Bonus is a Contract that hasn’t changed as a contract since 1968.
Congress has the ability to change or amend the contract; the Administration does not. No one ever asked for a refund while the Republicans had control of Congress. Where’s Pelosi? Blame the Democrats.
noecon,
Birdies eat their breadcrumbs ad they’re stuck at the mall until someone goes to bring them home. ‘No wat I mean?
20. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
The fundamental problem I have with Ms. Charen’s article and rebuttal is her equating a few uncivil voices for the whole. I, like many of the more rational Ron Paul supporters, am of the small government mind-set in an age where rubber stamps abound and homosocial value doctrines dominate discussion (i.e. all 300,000,000 Americans should believe in “x”).
There is no all-ecompassing “cure” to the unfortunate state we find ourselves in, but I genuinely appreciate the change in dialogue. I do not appreciate the raging ad hominem attacks (kooks, crazies, etc.) that are hurled from all sides (no just over-enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters). But, this is politics, and emotional reasoning tends to dominate.
My question is simply this: How can a few hundred people EVER represent 300 million without alienating the majority? The decentralization of the federal government seems inevitable to me. I’m not so much for “revolution” per say as I am for devolution (i.e. Scotland ‘97).
The only candidate I can see that does not want to tell you what to do with your own life (free will anyone?) is Ron Paul. I find it interesting that Mr. Noonan equates Ron Paul’s brand of liberty with license. In part he is correct in that liberty IS dangerous. But that is exactly what makes liberty actually mean something.
The difficulty comes when we have to negotiate between being social beings and individuals with free will. Social contracts need to be established at the local level to really mean anything. An all-encompassing social contract binding 300 million people together will never hold and is always destined to alienate the majority.
Let states, local communities, and individuals determine their own social contracts. Would things get a bit “crazy”? Yes, there would be gay marriage in San Francisco and creationism taught in Kansas public schools. Would the sky fall? Probably not.
Would individauls have a more influential voice in the laws that govern their own bodies? Yes. It’s not perfect, but no social contract will ever be. Free will and liberty are dangerous ideas, but not nearly as dangerous as a two-party system debating nuances of the same platform.
A Ron Paul administration simply means this: You get more control over your own life. A dangerous idea indeed. But that’s liberty for ya’, like it or leave it. And for me, that’s what this election is all about.
21. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
It’s called The Constitution; and it’s held for 200+ years.
22. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Dasein,
The Constitution has not held, it’s been amended, challenged by lawyers, judges, and politicians who appropriate the language to mean whatever they would like it to mean. The Constitution as it was written 200 years ago was certainly not interpreted in the same way then as it is now. This is why critics often label Ron Paul a “paleoconservative” when he attempts to reconstruct it’s original “meaning” (a truly quixotic task all its own). Go ahead and ask what the Constitution “means” and you’ll get 300 million different answers. Which is my point.
23. Retired Spook | November 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Bane,
It appears that a liberal college philosophy professor has sent his class on a field trip to B4V. It’s truly frightening what kids are learning today.
24. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pm
The Constitution has not held, it’s been amended, challenged by lawyers, judges, and politicians who appropriate the language to mean whatever they would like it to mean. - Paddy
There have been 27 amendments to the US Constitution in 231 years. That’s one amendment in every 8.5 years.
I’d say that document has held up rather well, wouldn’t you Paddy? Of course you can go on living paranoid.
Your choice.
25. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
No, Paddy, your “point” is that a contract which puts limits and expectations on society cannot, by and of itself, “hold.” You, like Paul are historically inaccurate. The Constitution and its foundation in English common Law has “held” as the Magna Carta has “held” since 1215.
The Constitution is a contract that says what it means and states for all who abide by it what rules are acceptable and what is not. Contracts like this are always and forever “challenged” by lawyers, judges, politicians and populace each with their own interests. The fairness of such a system depends on who’s ox is being gored.
You espouse the philosophy of a Libertarian; Ron Paul is sort of Libertarian-Lite; opposed to abortion (can’t have people making decisions for themselves if it is opposed to his personal beliefs) and judgmental of others he consideres inferior: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
I have less problem with Libertarians than Paul; he’s what my daughter calls scary stupid.
Spook, My daughter is a 3rd year in University; not all students are the sheeple that buy into the liberal party line. there is hope for our future.
26. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
DL,
My daughter is a 17 year old physicians assistant, soon to start med school, and challenges her left-leaning instructors daily.
There is hope.
27. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Neocon,
Not accepting the mantra of majority rule when it alienates more people than it claims to represent is certainly not paranoid. Paranoid is “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” and spending like a drunken sailor so the “islamofascist” boogeyman won’t get us. Some people buy into that invented pscyho-narrative, but I would prefer that my tax dollars not go toward the perpetuation of overdramatized fear. To me, that’s what small conservative government means.
I’ll bet we disagree, which is fine. I’m all for a strong defense, but defense in the guise of offense is, frankly, offensive. But, again, I’m sure we disagree here, and I’m sure that both of us could cite the Constitution in one form or another to prove our respective points.
Your argument as to whether amending the Constitution every 8.5 years does not convey stability. I like the idea of living document, but amendments alienate as much as they attempt to represent (see Roe vs. Wade).
Again, a more localized government would do more for individual representation than the out-of-touch and bloated bureaucracy we have now. I like Scottish devolution as a model for making it happen peacefully.
28. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
neocon,
Good luck to her. I work at a university and I’ve advised my daughter to engage but don’t intimidate. She often relies on, “Hmmm, I see your point” or “I hear what you’re saying, I’ll need time to think on that” to respectfully allow the argument to die before it costs her a grade. Liberals are such simple creatures.
Hey, ‘spose that’ll work with Paul-Pots? Hmmmm, gold standard, eh? I’ll have to think on that. (then smile and nod politely) they’re only going to get 1% of the vote, Mickey Mouse usually gets more than that, and Mickey makes more sense than Paul-Pots.
29. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Isn’t majority by definition more people?
Seriously, Mickey makes more sense!
30. William Teach | November 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Dasein, I find that it is usually easier, and more fun, to ask Ronulans and liberals if they can write it or say it in their own words. The verbal potty mouth meltdown is always a hoot!
Oh, and BTW, I have seen several of the Paul supporters who left hit and run comments doing the same at other sites with anti-paul posts today, such as at Q and O. As a matter of fact, Francine left the exact same comment at Q and O (just went and checked.) But, not, Ronulans do not use talking points.
31. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Dasein,
Citing the Magna Carta simply means the name itself has held, not the content therein. If the Magna Carta was such a noble document, why didn’t it succeed with England’s colonial subjects (Ireland, India, etc.)? Didn’t they realize that England was trying to liberate them? The Magna Carta certainly did not hold with England’s colonies.
I don’t consider myself a libertarian or any other label that attempts to pigeon-hole me into a platform I have to accept wholesale. It’s reductive and I resent that. Categories and name-calling does little to encourage discussion, it simply limits it. I’ve re-read my posts and I don’t honestly know where my interpretation of history was incorrect. I certainly did not pretend to tell anyone what the Constitution meant, only that it’s been much maligned and abused for individual gain.
My point is that 600 or so individuals interpreting the Constitution for their own gains does little to voice the varied opinions of 300 million people. I’m not a sheep and neither are you.
32. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Paddy,
Ignoring the “Islamo-boogeyman” is how 9/11 happened. Remember?
Crafting another “defensive” foreign policy is tantamount to accepting and condoning the loss of innocent life to the Islamists and/or dictator du jour, of whom you have chosen to “ignore”
And paddy, if you think devolving into a more decentralized governing system in this day and age of the “global community” is realistic, then I want what you’re smoking.
33. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Paddy,
People interpret any document for their own personal gain, that’s human nature and that’s why we need strict constructionists on the bench.
You sound awfully idealistic.
34. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Dasein,
Any given individual has their own individual platform of beliefs. When given only two platforms to choose from (two-party system), how can that possibly represent 300 million different platforms.
Example: Does George Bush represent your platform? Some components of it maybe, but all? The result is that you will agree with some points and certainly not others. Therefore your individual platform is alienated.
Majority rule does not (and cannot) represent you.
35. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Paddy,
The Magna Carta was the basis of English Common Law, and therefore our Constitution and Laws. Ireland was not a colony of England; it was one of the three kingdoms of James I (England and Scotland the other two). What were we talking about? Oh, right you read your posts and didn’t make any historically inaccurate statements.
And how, exactly does reconstructing the Constitution’s original meaning placate the majority?
The history, and truth that you and Saint Ron seem to ignore is that the Constitution is a Contract and not a “living document” in a very real and legal sense. Disputes over contracts happen, that’s why we have Courts. The application of the terms of the contract doesn’t dissolve the contract or render it less relevant or obsolete. It is the basis of our system, predicated on English common Law, as relevant today as it was in 1776, and predicated on the Magna Carta as relevant as it was in 1215.
” All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” T. Jefferson 1801.
36. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Neocon,
I know by your handle that you and I fundamentally disagree on foreign policy. I see 9/11 as a small group of thugs, connected thugs, but thugs just the same. We don’t attack Italy when the Mafia murders people any more than we attacked New York because that is where Timothy McVeigh was born and raised. Individuals are responsible for their own individual acts. 9/11 was not an attack by a nation-state so conventional warfare does not apply. But again, respectfully, I know you and I disagree.
Decentralization has and can work. Again, take a look at Scottish devolution in 1997 when they formed their own autonomous parliament. It’s not just simple idealism, it is an example of how it can work.
37. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Paddy is an idealistic college student in their first course of poli-sci.
Let’s have 300 million people run for President! And then we’ll govern by polls, yahoo!
38. Leslie Bates | November 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I am expecting hateful replies for what I am about to say.
I was once a state officer of the Libertarian Party. In my personal experience Libertarianism is not as much a doctrine as it is an excuse to posture as a morally superior person without actually having to do something to earn that emotional state. Its like being a Liberal without having to robotically regurgitate the mouth droppings of Karl Marx, et al.
Apart from totalitarians there is nothing more useless than a Libertarian.
39. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Yea, Scotland is similar to the US. What?
And a ‘SMALL GROUP OF THUGS”!
There’s really no point in debating you. You’re obviously very young, idealistic, conspiracy-minded, impressionable and not well read.
40. Ron Paul On Head T&hellip | November 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pm
[…] two interesting discussions at Blogs For Victory and Questions and Observations. Take note of the drive by comments left by Francine (#6 at BfV, and […]
41. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Copy that, neocon.
Mouth droppings? I like that …
Happy Thanksgiving all, see you next week.
42. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Dasein,
Ireland not considered a colony? Where did you get that? I understand how you frame it under the kingdoms of King James I, but I challenge you to type post-colonial and Ireland into any search engine or library and not find a plethora of established research. Geez, your tone is a bit snarky for someone who’s completely wrong on the subject.
You skipped over my point when I posted that reconstructing the original meaning of the Constitution is quixotic, as in a bit ridiculous. That said, I still think it’s a useful exercise to go back and see how the document has been adapted and changed and to suit what purpose.
Judges mediating contracts simply means that the judge’s point of view and interpretation of legal language is his own. Pure objectivity does not exist. The judicial system is determined by wealth unfortunately, it certainly does not equally represent all those who come before it.
I appreciate the Jefferson quote, but how in how in our current system does the minority have equal rights? Well, the majority defines what equality means doesn’t it? Isn’t that problematic when you reach the scale of 600 to 300 million?
43. Leslie Bates | November 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I got that from the fate of marketing people in Niven and Pournelle’s rewrite of The Inferno
44. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Neocon,
So much for civil discourse. When in doubt, hurl insults I guess. Conspiracy minded? Really? Because I don’t think so few people should have so much authority over so many? What happened to small government? What happened to States rights? These used to be the core principles of the small government conservative didn’t they?
Young and idealistic huh? When you witness decades of abuse of power you get cynical and suspicious of authority, not idealistic. Idealistic is thinking so few people know what’s best for all of us. Not well read apparently means I haven’t read what you’ve read apparently.
But whatever, apparently you prefer a myth of a homosocial USA where we all just get along and just accept the divine rules handed down to us from above. Why have a voice or free will at all? Apparently, for you it doesn’t matter.
45. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Civil discourse? Those weren’t insults, I just call them like I see them Paddy. But it is a glimpse into your distorted thinking that you considered those insults.
Your perceptions have very little basis in reality and are based more in idealism and paranoia.
You seem to think that the US is governed by a few who rule all, and you just couldn’t be further from the truth. American leadership, at any level is challenged daily, and considering the recent 180 done by Congress in terms of illegal immigrants, your assertions are blatantly ignorant.
Just because you hear something that fits your distorted paradigm, does mean that it is true.
Just FYI. You might want to stop the abosorb:regurgitate mode you’re in.
46. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Okay, I was going on vacation, but I’ll stick around to answer this,;
Ireland is not a colony. Where’s weefee?
See: Marbury v. Madison. In American jurisprudence, the letter of the law (to “Code” or codify) is the first order, precedent, rulings follow, The Constitution, intent of the legislature, finally English Common Law. There is nothing Quixotic about the application of Law; it is a full time occupation of lawyers, judges and legislatures the world over. The Court (as the Judge is referred to) renders decisions based on Law and the application thereof. Your sophomoric and cynical view of the judiciary is typical of Paul-Pots and other neo-communists; only the rich receive justice, right? Your court appointed attorney must be in on the conspiracy.
English Common Law (predicated on the Magna Carta) is the basis for the system of Government in every former British Colony from the United States, Canada, Australia, and even many of those colonized for the Empire, as in Africa.
Jefferson was referring to the minority of opinion as was the custom of the day. As a nation and a society we have a commonality of interests. It is in our national interest to nurture and maintain those interests. It is also in our interests that our representatives decide for us in cases where the citizenry is naturally reluctant to engage; as in war. If you don’t trust the representatives decisions; get new representatives.
Scottish Home rule is not the same as decentralizing our federal Government. WHERE are you weefee?
47. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 7:04 pm
But I guess if Paddy feels that Ireland was a colony then that IS reality. Mainly because Paddy believes it despite the following:
[One of the more debated topics of late in Irish studies is whether Ireland is properly to be described as a colony of England (or an English “colony”). It has become academically respectable and even fashionable in postcolonial studies to assume that such is the case, but Paul Gough has written in to provide two reasons why such assertions are false.] [GPL]
You have Ireland down as a colony on your list in the British Empire section. This is incorrect. Ireland was one of the three kingdoms of James I of England, VI of Scotland (the others being England and Scotland — England including Wales at the time). He was king of Ireland, it was part of his realm, not a foreign colony. Ireland has never been a British colony.
It has been invaded from the island of Great Britain (nearly as many times as people from the island of Ireland have invaded Great Britain. Just ask St. Patrick, a Welshman taken in slavery by the Irish) but it became part of the kingdom. This occured way before the 1800 Act of Union.
[It is always incorrect to speak of England as the name of the country, since] it is the United Kingdom, or Britain, for short. That’s the name of the country and has been since, at the latest, 1707. To say England is to accept this view that England colonised Ireland and Scotland (with Wales you may have a point). In fact a Scots king came to rule England, James the first of England and Sixth of Scotland. So please don’t say England did this and England did that. As a scholar of the colonial period, I am sure you are well aware of the disproportionately large amount of the Empire founded by Scots and Irish, especially in India.
So it was Britain that did things. All of it. Yes people were treated badly in Ireland, but no worse than in any other part of the country. Luddite rioters were shot in mill country in the north of England. Parts of Cheshire had a famine at the same time as the Great Famine. Only difference was the government didn’t even bother to send a Trevelyan to withold corn, they just let it run its course.
48. CallMeTeach | November 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I find it preposterous that you people continue to invent these idiotic monikers for people you dislike/disagree with. Paulite, Paul-Pot, Goracle, etc, etc, etc. It’s like being subjected to the tirades a bunch of third graders. Grow up! For all of the moral and political superiority that is supposedly espoused here, you people never fail to make blubbering asses out of your selves. There is no room in intelligent conversation for ignorant and pointless name calling. As far as Paul is concerned, people gravitate to him because his ideas are different (for better or worse). You can say what you want about the people and the generation they represent but at least acknowledge they aren’t robots. They refuse to be pigeon holed into some liberal/conservative mold that does not allow them to think and act independently of their respective ring leaders. Those unsavory individuals that support him do so because they feel they would have more freedom to spread their views with him in the White House. At the very least, Ron Paul makes it easy for conservatives to decide who they will not vote for. The hard part is finding out who they will vote for since every other candidate stands for the exact same thing; actually maybe that makes it easier because they can close their eyes when they pick and still get the same candidate.
49. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I find it preposterous that I have to read another pontification on internet protocol from a public school teacher. Save it for your classroom hostages.
K?
50. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I find it preposterous to be lectured on civility from a side of the aisle that subscribes to everything but.
51. Dasein Libsbane | November 21st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Paul-Pot meet Kettle;
Is this how you address your charges? tsk tsk
52. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Daisne,
Wow, it doesn’t take much to get you riled up. Quixotic in the context of my earlier post referred to the absurdity of attempting to reconstruct what the writers of the Constitution originally meant. For the record, Ron Paul does not know either, but at least his perspective questions what’s been done with the document.
Now you sound like a pre-law student idealistically defending your future profession. “Sophmoric” is classic LSAT vocabulary. I come from a family of life-long lawyers who are not nearly as idealistic as you are about the level of equality in the court room.
Conspiracy that not everyone gets a fair shake in the court room? Do you pay attention to what happens to celebrities when arrested? Don’t get me wrong, it’s not entirely corrupt, but to say that there is blanket equality in the judiciary for all citizens is a bit naive don’t you think and… (while we’re hurling LSAT vocab at each other) dilettantish.
Neocon/Dasein:
Ireland not a colony. Wow. I appreciate the Encyclopedia Brittanica “history as viewed by the victors” Anglocentric interpretation Paul Gough espouses, but I can guarantee you that in Irish Studies he has very small following. So if Paul Gough says it, it must be true right? Never mind mountains of research that condradict his version of history.
I’m sorry, comparing the Luddite rioters shot in Northern England to even a small portion of what Cromwell did in Ireland?!!! Comparing a famine in PARTS of Cheshire to the famine that took place in Ireland?!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS?!! This is not even worth engaging with. Please tell me you have better critical thinking skills than this. Of course Britain is not to blame for all things evil, but the above comparisons are beyond ridiculous.
Quite a strange batch of trendy neocon bloggers living here.
53. neocon | November 21st, 2007 at 9:17 pm
History is always viewed by the victors moron.
Losers, like you, are just that. Losers.
BTW paddy, your idealism, “version” of history, questionable use of “big” words, and loser mentality is laughable.
Happy Thanksgiving
54. PaddyFatHands | November 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I’ve been called many things, but never an idealist. I’m about as cynical as they come. Ahhh, but what the hell, tomato/tomato right?
Necon, you are a winner, dammit you are. Now if we could just find more space for all those neocon trophies… ;)
Happy Thanksgiving yourself buddy
55. LewWaters | November 21st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Beyond Paul’s obvious incredible naivete, what disturbs me most about his supporters are all of them that falsely portray him as a Viet Nam Veteran, when he never set foot in the country.
At best, he could be considered a Viet Nam Era Veteran as he was a Flight Surgeon (not a “Combat Flight Surgeon,” as one supporter portrays him) 1963 to 1965 and in the Air National Guard also as Flight Surgeon until 1967.
There is no dishonor in his service, so why the need to falsely portray him for what he isn’t?
56. Mark Noonan | November 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Paddy,
No, the meaning of the Constitution remains the same - what excuses people use for ignoring. that is what changes rapidly.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Very simple, very straightforward - anyone with a grammar-school familiarity with the English language can understand what it means UNTIL someone comes along and confuses the issue by bringing in things which are not in it, and never meant to be in it. Only a lawyer can find nuance in the Constitution - or, of course, a liberal.
Just for the record - it means that the government may not compel me to a religion, nor may the government interfere in my practice of religion…it doesn’t mean there is separation of Church and State; it doesn’t mean that praying at school is an establishment of religion…it means what it says. Period.
57. Michael | November 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 am
Item: over 500 homicides a year in Philadelphia for the past decade.
OMG!! your joking me right. Where is our exit strategy. We must get our people out now.
I love the way people use things like this to prove a point and only make themselves look less than intelligent. Your telling me with this that although they isn’t a “Civil War,” going on there that there is almost as many people dying in Philly as in Iraq.
Dr. Ron Paul is a disgrace to the name of conservative and is far from being one. I dont see much of a parallel between him and some of the Democrats running at the moment.
As far as being tagged with a name here Lib, pinko, et al. have you even seen some of the names they use on the lib sites like Media Matters, Moveon, Democrat Underground? My god they use stuff over there on those sites that makes this site look much like a pre-school play ground.
OT have a good Thanksgiving and may God bless you and yours this holiday season.
58. Weefee | November 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 am
OK. I see where Paddy is coming from with the Scotland reference. However Scotland was once a proper country of its own, we are a nation with many different institutions from England i.e different law, church, education system etc thus I would argue perhaps that Scotland was not the best example to pick. We are not just a part of England (lol say that to a Scotsman and see what happens) so it would be wrong to say that devolution in Scotland would be the same as having regional assemblies in the US.
The Irish question, well I don’t really know, being Scottish I would blame the English ;). I would say that Ireland wasn’t seen so much as a colony by England/Britain but as part of England/Britain although it was conquered and repressed like a colony. There is a lot of political history with it, its not simple, viewpoints are probably still coloured by religious leanings and most of the history was probably written by English/British. Protestant Scots were sent to live there to control the place and ‘civilise it’. However Scotland and England were not united at this point, a Scottish king was on the throne but politically they were still very seperate and there was mutual hate. Ireland still remains very controversial I suppose it depends on your viewpoint, possibly religion.
It is true that Scots especially, along with the Irish, were involved in the creation of the empire, mainly because everyone knows we make the best soldiers :P
I don’t think the US could be devolved like Scotland. I thought that states had some amont of power to control their own policies?
Dasein, you probably know this better than most people, is Germany federalised like the US or do the Bundeslander have more power than US States? One day I will learn German again and actually remember what I am taught; I just wonder because that may be a better example than Scotland for Paddy.
59. weefee | November 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 am
Sorry I should have also said that devolution in Scotland hasn’t actually removed the democratic deficit and I believe that’s why paddy wants some sort of system like this in the US. Don’t get me wrong, i’m all for devolution and independence, however devolution has just changed where the democratic deficit lies.
The deficit is now in England where Scottish MPs can vote on English issues but English MPs can’t vote on Scottish issues (West Lothian Question). Also Scottish and Welsh votes may keep Labour in power in the UK despite England voting for the tories which is clearly unfair. Therefore whilst devolution has clearly allowed minorities i.e Scots, Welsh and when the parliaments working the N Irish to have democratically elected gov, which they chose and not the English, it now leaves England with the possibility of having an government they did not elect foisted on them.
There could be a problem when different ideological govs come to power as the case is just now between Scotland and Westminster. We have a nationalist Government who wants independence and fairer oil revenues not to mention oposing trident which is based in Scotland, they clash quite a lot with Labour who want to renew trident etc. This may not be such a problem between Scot and Eng as we could technically go it alone but if the same thing happend in the US it could lead to constitutional problems etc.
Scotland and the US are completely different, in that we have the institutions and desire for devolution along with our national identity being different from England/ Britain, the US and its institutions are designed for keeping it the way it is and I don’t think the public have the desire for such a thing. Also I believe most Americans say they are American before Texan or whatever whereas Scots have always generally been Scottish not British (apart from during WW1 and 2 etc) and certainly not North English/British as we are sometimes called.
60. S C Tan | November 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 am
Great blog!
61. blog&hellip | November 29th, 2007 at 6:58 am
greatings
nice
62. Power Of Law Forms&hellip | November 29th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Power Of Law Forms
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting
63. World Religion Resources&hellip | November 30th, 2007 at 4:29 am
World Religion Resources
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting
64. High School Online&hellip | December 2nd, 2007 at 5:28 am
High School Online
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting
65. Christian Symbols and Chr&hellip | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Christian Symbols and Christian Resources
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)
66. payday loan illinois&hellip | December 7th, 2007 at 2:35 am
payday loan illinois
The best source for quick cash advance and payday loans online.
67. WWE Wallpaper&hellip | December 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
WWE Wallpaper
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..