If the Republicans actually scripted a loss next November, they could not have done it much better than the drama that continues to play out on the campaign trail.
Now, it is not 100% sure that they will lose to Obama later this year, but the battle royal we’ve seen is still not quite over yet, as even Yogi Berra would say, ‘till it’s over. I suppose Newt is hoping the South will rise again and Rick is still counting on the fact that Evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon even against a President they hate.
It is clear that Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee of the Republican Party, even if Newt and Rick refuse to accept it. Ron Paul has always been in it for a different reason, so I don’t think he ever thought he could win, even during the “anyone but Romney” pageant.
But here are a few observations I made along the way which I found rather amusing and amazing.
- Most people don’t realize that Newt Gingrich’s first wife, Jackie Battley was his high school geometry teacher. And that they first met while he was in high school. But, according to him, nothing happened until he was 19 years old, when they got married. She was 26. Yeah, right.
- Rick Santorium likes to complain about a Government-run health care program, which, of course, does not exist outside of Medicare and Medicaid, but he doesn’t mind using the generous federal healthcare benefits he receives as a former member of the US Senate. While his youngest daughter has a rare genetic disease, which is more than often fatal, he does not have to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes to help prolong her life. Yet, for parents in the same situation with a child with Trisomy 18, they would not be so lucky to have their child around after 3 years if they cannot afford healthcare.
- It’s hard to understand just how much evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon as to embrace a serial adulterer and liar as Newt Gingrich. They say they believe in forgiveness and God’s grace, and Newt has said he has gone to God to seek forgiveness and has received it. But, there seems to be an important component missing that the scriptures tell us is a key part of the repentance process, reconciliation and restitution. It’s not clear to me that either of those were done. And let’s not forget “forsake the sin.”
- I realize that Mitt and the rest are talking to Republicans, playing to their basic dislike of President Obama, but the truth squad they are not. If Republicans actually have a better idea than give money to the rich, they might want to focus on their plan rather than constantly distorting Obama’s record. I think the American people are very open to considering an alternative to what is happening today with the economy, but they need a real plan which they believe will work and benefit them. It is very possible for Republicans to win, but not the way they are currently going about it.
- Ronald Reagan is dead. Move on. There is no mantle.
- Rick Santorium is actually running for President in 2016, not this year.
- Many people like some of Ron Paul’s ideas about the economy and personal liberty, but cannot handle his view on foreign policy. The Government wastes much more money than we give in Foreign Aid, which is mostly credits to buy American goods, not cash.
- It takes a lot of ego to run for political office. But, we cannot even contain Newt Gingrich’s ego within the shores of the United States.
- Romney says that Obama has alienated our allies over his “failed foreign policies.” Doesn’t Mitt remember The George W. Bush era? Oh, and saying that Obama is trying to make the US like Europe is not exactly endearing Europeans to him….. BTW, message to Mitt, most Americans WANT our troops out of the Middle East, especially their families.
Wheat & Tares 
republicans are in a tough spot because george W sucked so much. they don’t want to rip on him or his awful policies, but they are so unpopular, they have no choice. i wish we could have got rid of bush sooner
I’m not a Democrat, but I can’t help but be amazed that more people don’t notice the inconsistency of the Republican position (as this blog points out):
They believe in the government paying for a military, but not for hospitals.
(For those who cry “socialism” – why is it any more socialist to provide doctors than it is soldiers? And what did politicians do to deserve their healthcare that others didn’t?)
They say they believe in family values, but are mired by moral scandals.
It could also be added that they believe in welfare for corporations, but not individuals.
Trying to be fair, all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on the audience. they tell those people what they think they want to hear.
How can you be for the average person when you turn around and take contributions from people and groups clearly trying to buy you?
the overall problem is that we have a fundimentally corrupt politial system that we do nothing about because by and large, even in a bad economy most of us are sitting fat,dumb and happy.
The tea party had the right idea, they were just focused on the wrong group…..
Keep saying this stuff to yourself, but the political math says differently. In poll after poll Romney either ties or leads in swing states with Obama. This is going to be at worst for Republicans another 2000, and we all know how that ended for Democrats.
Jettboy,
The only poll that really matters is the poll on the first Tuesday in November.
Jeff,
If Bush taught us anything, that poll doesn’t really matter either.
NewlyHousewife — !Like!
Yeah, the irony is more than just a bit thick.
My oldest daughter can vote in the upcoming election. Our house was split last election (four voters who cancelled out each others’ votes), and she is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. She has told me recently that she’s having a hard time understanding why anyone in their right mind would vote strictly on a Republican card – especially when she sees the stupidity that comes out of the curent candidates’ mouths.
Laughed out loud at the point about Newt Gingrich’s ego. Otherwise I just wanted to say that I really like this post.
Err, a government control of the military would be socialist only if the military were a production center.
Favoring a large military does not make one a socialist — there have been pacifist socialists.
Jettboy. In 2000 the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. Are you insinuating that the Supreme Court will once again throw the election for the Republicans?
It is going to come down to the economy. If it is good, or if Obama and juggle the numbers enough to make it look good he will win. If Romney can effectively communicate the real state of the economy, he will win. It is the economy stupid. Period. Evangelicals will plug their nose and vote for a Mormon.
Yay blue team! No, wait, Yay red team! No wait, you both want to be my masters and tell me if I can have a business, if I can freely trade with my world partners, etc.
What a joke. They are all the same. One master or another, he’s still my master. Isn’t there a choice for having none of the above? Oh wait, people don’t like the idea of actually being responsible for solving ones own problems and helping each other with out violence and coercion.
Thanks a lot guys. I wish you would stop lording over me.
jon, is it’s so bad heren why don’t you move out of the country?
Jon:
Shut up and get back to work. I don’t pay you to complain about the way I rule.
mh,
Since you are one of the ones making it bad, why don’t you leave. The scriptures do say, after all, that this land is consecrated to those who uphold liberty.
Cowboy,
🙂
Amen Cowboy and MH
Sorry Will,
I’ll try to refrain in the future from pointing out the false dichotomy that you guys keep bickering about.
I still understand how people can look at Bush II and not see how Obama is pretty much the same in every way that truly matters. Romney will be the same as Obama in every way that truly matters, bigger government, more war, big health care, less liberty, less freedom, assassinations of Americans, writing into law the destruction the 4th amendment (among all the others).
It’s Mitt’s nomination to lose at this point, which he still can. Just as Dad committed a serious gaffe in ’68 (Vietnam and “brain-washing”), so has Mitt already (doesn’t “care” about the poor and “likes” to fire “people”, both fodder for a disingenuous media and intellectually vacuous liberals). The Obama team is already spinning the so-called “recovery” as vindication of his policies. To win, Mitt has to sell himself as a far superior problem-solver and not worry about far right angst about his moderate ways or his being LDS. Even if he stinks, the stench will still be more tolerable than a second Obama term.
From Cato’s blog by Christopher Preble:
From the scriptures:
OK, I’ll try and leave you guys alone now. Love man (as in mankind), it is the answer.
jon, you are absolutely right. your latest comment still makes me ask why you would live in such an evil country. just what would it take to get you to leave this country that is so wicked, war-mongering, and a threat to your liberty that you constantly complain?
remember, you always talk about the jews that voted with their feet and left hitler’s germany. when will you vote with your feet and leave this terrible country that can’t put any better candidates than mitt and obama, who are so obviously against freedom that you feel the obvious need to rant about this terrible country every chance you get?
if I felt it’s so terrible as you complain, I would leave. what keeps you here?
Typo in a couple places: Santorum, not Santorium, although my fingers have the same instinct.
I don’t think Medicare and Medicaid can be described as government-run health care, as an un-careful reading of the statement in the post might suggest. The insurance programs are government-run, but the health care itself is provided by private entities.
I mention the distinction because there is a very large government-run health care program in the Veterans Administration, which deserves more attention than it gets. Although the system has had a significant recent scandal, it has also achieveda spectacular turnaround since a low point in the 1990s (a more technical primary source is this NEJM article). There is a widely held view that it has gone from a worst-case to best-case example of how government-run health care (i.e., full “socialized medicine”, not just a single-payer system like Medicare) can turn out.
Today the VHA outperforms Medicare and private insurers in most statistical measures of quality of care, but also imposes greater restrictions on patients’ choices than those programs. In my limited personal experience, the VHA patients I’ve talked with have been very happy with it. I’m not well informed about how easy it is to resolve problems with the system, like a misdiagnosis or being sent to the 2007 Walter Reed, but it strikes me as a potential concern. The quality evidence suggests that today such cases are atypical, but the system is so enormous that their absolute number must be fairly large.
mh,
So why don’t you want to go to some other country? You fight against liberty and freedom which is clearly contrary to what the scriptures teach. Should you not leave?
I, like most, enjoy living close to family, I enjoy familiar environments. But, if, as was done with Lehi and his family, the Lord commands that I leave, then I will leave. Maybe, eventually, all those countries that we oppress around the globe, will one day decide enough is enough and come to our land to destroy the wicked. I hope in that day that the Lord will let me know so I can take my family to a safer place. I don’t think the people of this nation are ripened in iniquity yet, and, until then, I will preach of their iniquities so they might wake up to the awful state they find themselves.
Republicans, pfft!!! They’re all fat and stupid too!
Jon, you are obviously superior to me spiritually and intellectually. After all, you compare yourself to Lehi, and everybody who doesn’t agree with you is deaf, blind, and dumb. I just wonder why you choose to stay in such a messed up country.
We live in the most free country that has ever existed, yet you say that I fight against liberty. You’re a joke Jon. If this country was so against liberty, I doubt you would be able to write these comments. I love this country, despite the problems. I don’t bitch and moan about my lack of liberty in every comment like you do, nor do I accuse you of “fighting against liberty”, “you’re a war monger”, or compare myself to Lehi and call everybody else that disagrees spiritually deaf and dumb like you do Jon. Please come down from your high horse, and realize how good you have it Jon. Quit bitching constantly. Yes our country is not perfect, yes we have some improving to do, but you’re just an idiot to claim you don’t have liberty. Really you are an idiot. I’m sorry, my patience has run thin with your nonsense Jon. You have absolutely nothing good to say–you complain constantly, and it’s frankly tiring.
Please develop a positive reason to love the country Jon. It’s really quite good. You should listen to Hugh B. Brown. He said the 2-party system is sound, and that we should be wary of those who seek its destruction. I’m wary of you Jon, and I’m tired of your bitching. Say something good for once, instead of the incessant drum beat of “I’m smarter and spiritually superior to everyone else.” You’re a delusional dumbass, but I still love you man.
I’ve been reading Wheat & Tares for a while. I’m not much of a writer, so I just read. I am just not good with that sort of thing, but I like to read what all of you write. I’ve wanted to tell Jon what I think about him for a long time, but I haven’t had the words. What Mh just said. Word-for-word. Thank you for saying what I couldn’t say.
I watched Ron Paul on Piers Morgan show last night and I figured out that his biggest problem is that he has an ideology, but no answers. When he is asked about how to solve a problem with healthcare, his only answer is to stress personal liberty and to say that when he was younger, it wasn’t a problem.
When asked if his anti-abortion stance went directly contrary to his personal liberty position, he said no. When asked why, he is worried about women aborting full term babies.
So he has no real answers to real problems, only theory. He is not really for personal liberty if it conflicts with his own personal beliefs.
Not a surprise, really.
Jeff G:
I’ll plead guilty to the fat part, but I actually have solved a third-order differential equation or two in my life. 😀
FireTag,
I think you already figured it out for yourself, but it wasn’t republicans that I was making fun of. 😉
Jeff S, That is an excellent summary of Ron Paul.
mh,
I believe you were the first one to compare me to Lehi, I just expounded on your comment.
Yes, we are doing pretty good. But, it is changing quickly and drastically for the worse. Favoritism is given to large politically connected companies; you cannot fly without be molested – and that has been extended to buses (in certain “spot checks”), police raid poor ethnic people in the middle of the night when it could have easily been done during daylight and without much violence; the drug war; violence committed against other nations – overthrowing democracies and replacing them with dictators; overthrowing dictators and replacing them with false democracies; responsibility for millions of deaths around the globe through economic sanctions and bloodthirsty wars; inability for poor to make a living – or at least difficult – due to burdensome regulations; ever sky rocketing cost in education, medical care, houses at one point, and any other thing the government subsidizes; a press that is noticeably less free every year because of blacklisting by the government if you write something bad about the military (that is offset by the news that can be gleaned from sources over the internet); asset forfeiture; police that many times are not held accountable by courts, juries, and internal investigations; police that are given immunity and placed above the law; politicians that don’t live by the same laws we do; people that are prosecuted and have all their money seized so they can’t defend themselves in court; taxes; presidents that aren’t charged for war crimes; presidents that can assassinate Americans (and foreigners for that matter) without due process; presidents that can write their own laws; bureaucrats that can write their own laws.
You may call that freedom and liberty. I do not. We may be doing OK, but if we don’t recognize the rising tyranny then we are free only in word. People reject Christ’s teaching “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” People booed Dr. Paul for even mentioning it, is this not blood lust?
Yes, we do have many freedoms but for the most part all ten amendments to the constitution except for the one about having soldiers in your home are radically curtailed by the justice system.
I want the best for this country and my fellow country men/women. Why do you think I take the time to write about it? I write because I love humanity and can see them rise to a higher plain. But all I get from you guys is that it is “impractical to follow Christ’s teachings”. I have tried to show that not only is it practical but it is the ideal.
My message is a message of peace and hope for the future but we cannot advance if we refuse to see the reality around us. If we are blinded by false patriotism and ethnocentrism. True patriotism is recognition of the work of previous generations of bringing about a better world, a critical look at ourselves and what we can do to continue to create a better world. This is my message, that there have been a lot of good things that have happened, like MLK, Mises, etc.
Is not voting for people that wish to burden the populace with wars, taxes, debt, a plethora of laws, etc. fighting against liberty and freedom? Is not letting people pay for their own sins contradictory to liberty (hint see Mosiah 29)?
Does it have to be an all or nothing proposition?
Have I ever said that I don’t love this country and its people? I don’t recall ever saying such a thing. In fact, I would say that I love all the people in this country and around the world. It may not be a perfect love, but I try my best.
Sorry, I cannot stand idly while you guys prop up people that are clearly against liberty and freedom. Yes, there are good things about this country, then write about them instead of politics. I enjoy good stories, but I will not stand by while people prop up those who love war and would put themselves on a pedestal and say they know what is better for other countries more than themselves.
I know lot’s of things that are good about this country already. It is beautiful, there are many kind people, we live quite well compared to third world nations (and even first world nations for that matter), we have know unmet needs, for the most part. Do you think I don’t recognize that?
The 2-party system has already been destroyed by the two parties themselves, they are nothing but a single party now fighting for the same things. Obama has shown that he is like Bush and has exceeded Bush on trampling civil rights and the military and the police state and expansion of government health care, etc. How is that two parties?
A wise man once said, that once the other party starts using name calling in their arguments you have won the debate because they cannot think of anything rational to dismantle your arguments. MH, you have shown this trait multiple times. I challenge you to use logic and reason. When you do, you will find that my logic stands and that Christ truly will triumph. We may have to wait until your generation and mine pass away for a more loving and peaceful people to arise but it will happen, I have hope for the future. There is a steady march towards more freedom, it goes back and forth but each successive generation pushes the envelope even further to the point that the last great enslavement of society will be left behind as the archaic relic that it is, the state.
Jeff,
You missed his answer. He did have a solution. It is personal liberty. When we have liberty and freedom we can come up with the solution, each one, for his own problems and we can work together freely without someone putting a gun to our heads and come up with solutions that truly work. That was the answer and that is what you missed.
I’ve noticed that the mind of a progressive or any statist for that matter. Misses the point that the greatest solution to the problems we encounter is not created by a few men hidden away where no one can see but it is solved by many 100s of thousands of people working together in their own unique ways.
“That was the answer and that is what you missed.”
Jon,
That is not an answer. Complete personal liberty would mean abolishing all laws that impinge on a person’s right to do anything they wish. Just how far are you willing to go.
As I said, Paul does not answer that question, nor does answer a question about how to handle poor people. The bible does that, Ron Paul does not.
Sorry, Jeff, Ron Paul is not advocating that there be no laws. Complete personal liberty does not mean that a person can do whatever they want without consequences. Personal liberty and freedom means that a person is held responsible for their actions (Mosiah 29) and freedom means do control ones own life as long as you do not directly harm someone else (non-aggression principle (NAP) AKA, the second great commandment). What does that mean in practicality? That means that the law states that you cannot commit fraud (lie), thou shalt not steal, etc. It doesn’t mean there are laws that state people can elect someone and then say they can steal from others and commit fraud, etc. For all men are held to the same laws equally (AKA equality before the law and rule of law).
How to handle the poor, once again personal liberty. The bible advocates for the same thing, personal liberty. It doesn’t say elect someone in your stead tell that person to steal from others at the point of a gun and then redistribute that money with lot’s of bureaucracy so the poor get 10% of the money that was originally stolen at the point of a gun.
Christ focused on the individual and so should we.
Jon, once again, you do not address an answer, you skirt around it. OK, so you and Ron Paul do not advocate complete personal liberty, so exactly where do you draw the line?
As for the poor, Christ made it very clear that WE should help the poor. Not just allow them to fend for themselves.
Please show me the verses in the bible where it tells the poor to exercise personal liberty and fend for themselves.
Did you not read my answer? Once again, I’ll say it again and see if I can make it clear.
Complete personal liberty doesn’t mean you can do absolutely anything you want, that would be complete chaotic anarchy. Complete personal liberty means you are held responsible for your own actions (per Mosiah 29) and your rights end where my rights begin, i.e., the non-aggression principle or the golden rule or the 2nd great commandment, which ever you want to call it, it is all the same.
So, here’s an example for you. Your rights as a person for your fist ends right before my nose begins. That is, you cannot initiate force against another person because that would take the other person’s rights away and there wouldn’t be liberty anymore. The only time you can initiate force is when someone else initiates it before you do and you are trying to recover what ever was taken. Read up on the non-aggression principle.
As for the poor what I said when I said personal liberty, what I was saying is that individuals need to partake of their own time and money and help the poor of their own accord, not at the point of a gun like progressives like. That is what the scriptures tell us, to go and help the poor of our own accord. The scriptures say nothing of using a gun to force your neighbor to help the poor so you can feel good about yourself.
Jeff, arguing with a man full of delusions is not productive. He thinks his arguments make sense and challenges you to refute them, but of course it is impossible to reason with a delusional person. A 2 year old thinks his argument makes sense too, but we know better than to reason with a 2 year old. Jon’s problem is that he has a vocabulary better than a 2 year old, but he reasoning ability is about the same.
But yes Jon, we should help the poor, and we should love one another. A 2 year old knows that too. After that, you run off the rails of sanity.
Jon:
As always, the devil is in the details. The old saying that you use may get a few laughs, but is completely meaningless:
“Your rights as a person for your fist ends right before my nose begins. That is, you cannot initiate force against another person because that would take the other person’s rights away and there wouldn’t be liberty anymore. The only time you can initiate force is when someone else initiates it before you do and you are trying to recover what ever was taken.”
So, do I have to wait to be punched before I can react? This was Jeff’s point, that drawing the lines in your big picture (and Ron Pauls) is much more difficult than you realize. Secondly, who will I appeal to in your world as a police force and court, to effect recourse after the fist has encroached onto the space belonging to my nose? Where do their powers begin, where do they end? Lying? What is a lie and what is stupidity, and how do assign liability to either? Etc, etc, etc. Your worldview is kumbaya, which I think everybody would agree is nice. However it depends on a system where everybody wants to hold hands at the campfire. It falls apart at the realization that not everybody does, and there really isn’t a good system for managing it.
Mormon Heretic:
In light of your recent comment, I’m beginning to feel guilty for mine. It’s that old saying of “how do you rationalize someone out of an opinion they didn’t rationalize themselves into thing”. And yes, the compelling part is that John at least has the vocabulary and has selectively read enough to come across as though he has engaged in some kind of reasoning, that at the outset the conversation appears as though it could be interesting. It just never gets there.
Cowboy,
I know I’m not the best at explaining reality but that wasn’t what I meant by the nose example, i.e., that you cannot defend yourself from being punched, you can.
Your world is the false world where you think you can use first strike force to get people to bend to your desires. That is what is not right and that is rejecting Christ and his teachings. The gun in the room is on your side and you have to explain why it makes sense that giving people a monopoly of force won’t attract those very people that you wished to stop to begin with. The evidence shows that the criminals are attracting to the monopoly of force and we are all raped because of it.
You and the rest of you are the people that haven’t used rational thought in coming to your conclusions. The thing is I’m arguing with people that base there ideas on a belief system rather than logic and reason. And yes, it appears that there is no way to “rationalize” you guys out of the false and dangerous beliefs. None of you use logic and reason to refute any of my arguments.
Once again MH, I have used logic and reason, you have used sophistry (intentional misuse of logic and reason). You are the 2 year old in the argument since I have given very good arguments but since you don’t have the capacity to think “outside the box” cannot refute any of my claims but need to revert to name calling.
You, MH, are holding the gun in the room and you need to explain why you think it is OK to use that against others who have done nothing wrong. My message is that we don’t need to use any gun unless it is required per the non-aggression principle, but this world would be much more peaceful if we took to heart Christ’s message, as quite clearly defined in the second great commandment but also expressed in D&C 98. Another scripture that I’m sure you will find is “unreasonable” and “impractical.” As for me, I believe Christ’s teachings.
Like I said before, you operate on a system of beliefs rather than logic and reason, if you operated with logic and reason you would drop your weapons of war and would embrace peace through gentle persuasion.
Well Jon:
Where can we go from here now that we’ve decided declared each other idiots? I think the real force of attraction will come from how many people you can convince to follow you on your exodus from Babylon as you lead them to the promised land. That followed by your ability to establish the blessed society under this philosophy.
Good luck!
“Like I said before, you operate on a system of beliefs rather than logic and reason, if you operated with logic and reason you would drop your weapons of war and would embrace peace through gentle persuasion.”
PS:
Is MH toting weapons of war? If so, I’m sure glad these conversations are online and not in person!
Cowboy,
🙂
Thanks for bringing some humor to this conversation, I’m afraid MH has gone off the deep end. I guess people don’t like knowing that they are using violence against innocent others through their politics. It’s much easier to do when you hire it out.
Cowboy,
I don’t think I’m going anywhere soon. There are a ton of people that believe the way I do. Just as the great emancipators of before were small in number to begin with, the movement will grow and the last enslaver of humanity will be thrown off.
Yes, there’s not much else we could do in conversation since MH et. al. use a belief system rather than logic and reason to base their ideas off of. Can’t argue with it. All you can do is say, there are some people that really don’t appreciate the gun being pointed at them. Unfortunately most people want to close their eyes to the fact.
Really, I think the conversation would be much more civil in person, but from my experience progressives tend to get irate in person too, since, like I said, they don’t like the idea that they are the ones using violence and weapons as a means to an end. I talked to one that the refutation was, “well, there is no such thing as force because you always have a choice.” Yeah, like you can choose to submit or be shot, great choice if you ask me.
#27,#35 – El Jefe, though I disagree vehemently with your positions and analysis of RP, yet I’m glad you made your points, because you, being somewhat smarter than the “average bear”, succinctly demonstrated how the Libertarian standard-bearer is doing a piss-poor job of getting his message across. Both in style (the whiny version of the Texas “twang”, much akin to H.Ross Perot) and in being at times too simplistic and too theoretical. Those of us in his “chior” understand RP well, and, he does have well-articulated and well-reasoned positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul_political_views#Sexual_Harassment
Jeff, since you ARE smarter than the average bear (or donkey, or elephant, or whatever political animal you consider yourself to be), I find your depiction of Mr. Paul’s views to be at best inexcusably ignorant, if not downright intellectually dishonest. For shame, my brother. Many are ignorant, you are (usually) not. Still, it’s not up to you or anyone else that opposes Mr. Paul to make his case. Sure, no matter how well the Libertarian position is articulated, it won’t sell enough to capture the Republican nomination, but RP could do even better than he’s doing now.
My biggest beef with Mr. Paul is ironically what makes his so ideologically appealing. He IS consistent in his Libertarian beliefs. There’s a wee problem…this country isn’t ready! Until enough folks wake up and realize that they’re voting for which task master to whip them, beat the drum, and bellow out, “ramming speed!”, the Libertarian message isn’t going to sell enough to elect a President and certainly not the Congress! Even Ronald Reagan, whom Conservatives lionize as the next thing to “He-Sus” Himself, NEVER got even close to a balanced budget in eight years, and passed THREE tax increases (including the largest Social Security/Medicare tax hikes!). Sure, I agree (along with the late Harry Browne, Libertarian candidate of 1996 and 2000) that the Federal Income tax should be made “flat” at ZERO and replaced with nothing. Good luck getting THAT sponsored in the House Finance Committee unless the LP has a majority and can appoint members! The only thing that I can agree with you is that Mr. Paul doesn’t have a coherent plan, that if somehow, even with a solidly Republican majority in both houses of Congress, to implement the drastic fiscal cuts and foreign policy about-faces that he proposes. His own party would politely ignore him if somehow he got elected (and wasn’t conveniently “retired” before even assuming the oath of office).
So WHY, pray tell, even though he’s doing better than expected, is RP even bothering to run, knowing full well that he’s not going to finish in the money in Tampa in August? The man’s not a fool. Considering his age, and that he’s retiring from Congress anyway, methinks this is a long-term project that will span generations…ergo, the torch will be passed to his son, Rand.
The only thing that should be Chicago-style in Washington is Uno Pizzeria. At this point, even a plastic pretty boy that raises the hackles of my “inner Klingon” (Mitt smiles too damn much) looks far better. Perhaps that’s the saddest commentary of all on the 2012 Presidential election.
Jon, I’m sorry to read how you’re attacked from all sides here. I just want to say that you’re right.
Perhaps a little ruff around the edges 😉
… but you have understood the message of the Book of Mormon. It was written for us in this day, reminding us over and over again not commit the same mistakes and they did, yet we do, over and over again … not only do we commit the same mistakes, we use the Book of Mormon to justify our them, our crimes, our wars and our descision to let poverty be a natural part of our society.
The Book of Mormon prophecies, clearly, what will happen if we do this: This nation, and all gentile nations will fall, and the fall will be great.
Douglas,
With one stoke of the pen, I am somewhat complemented, but but then alas, it is taken away.
“Jeff, since you ARE smarter than the average bear (or donkey, or elephant, or whatever political animal you consider yourself to be), I find your depiction of Mr. Paul’s views to be at best inexcusably ignorant, if not downright intellectually dishonest.”
I readily admit that I have not studied Dr. Paul’s views to any great length, I was only giving you my reaction to the interview with Piers Morgan that reflected a number of interviews that I have seen.
If he has real solutions instead of answering every question with “peronal liberty,” I have not heard them.
But I am right that his views on peronal libery ends where anti-choice begins.
#48 – Both you and I have been slack on the spell-checking! Talk about things we of supposedly great intellect have been remiss about…I call ye to “repent” and likewise flagellate myself.
The failure to research is the intellectual deficiency that I was referring to. But giving your gut reaction is quite useful, and hopefully RP and his boy Rand are taking note at how they are NOT closing the deal. The Libertarian “solutions” can be be summed up as “personal liberty” being the driving PRINCIPLE, but RP has cited some specifics. For example, he would reduce the expenditures of the Federal Government to 1997 levels as soon as practical. He maintains that if that were achieved it would be possible to do away with the personal income tax and still balance the budget (I’d like to verify that claim with OMB data). This, however, is an example of WHY his Libertarian utopia is a tough sell. Assume that SOMEHOW he got elected (and pigs are airborne)…do we somehow magically have a like-minded Congress? No…well, how, pray tell, would our tight-fisted President get any of his financial agenda (never MIND the audit of the Federal Reserve Bank) even through the House Finance Committee? Wouldn’t happen…absent a veritable political, if not virtually literal revolution, RP being elected Prez would be a fluke not unlike Robin William’s character in “Man of the Year” (“I did NOT have sex with that woman…I wanted to, though…”). If a way were not found to dispense with him before the Inaugural, he’d be a lame duck from the moment he said “So help me Gawd…”.
El Jefe, since I take you for your word that you’re an active member and worthy MP holder, I’m baffled as to HOW you can be “pro-choice”, at least as it’s commonly used in American politics. I’m also wondering how you equate ‘liberty’ with the right to murder a helpless unborn child in its mother’s womb simply because its existence and impending arrival is unwelcome. RP’s position seems to be similar to mine own, and both of us wouldn’t satisfy the more radical of the pro-lifers (or the nutballs at ‘Operation Rescue’). We both feel that the real problem is the unwarranted usurpation by the Burger Court in 1973 of the powers of the several states in regulating abortion. It would be difficult to find a more egregious case of judicial activism that Roe v. Wade. Still, we both oppose a “Pro-Life” Amendment to the US Constitution (not that it’s politically realistic anyway) for the same reason. Abortion is a matter that under the 10th Amendment is reserved for the states to decide. Were Roe v. Wade somehow overturned; I suspect that fairly much the status quo would remain, since most of the populous states would of themselves retain abortion on demand. Women living in states with restrictions on abortions would simply vote with their feet (or airline ticket). RP’s opposition to abortion is based on his personal religious views and experience as an obstetrician. He believes that Government does have a legitimate purpose to prevent aggression (re: crime and/or torts), and since he believes that the unborn child is a person no less deserving of equal protection under the law, there is no inconsistency with libertarian beliefs in being pro-life. One solution that I’ve identified that RP probably never discussed is that were I politically influential in California, once Roe v. Wade was history, I’d propose a state law prohibiting doctors and other medical practitioners from performing elective abortions. However, I’d leave the issue of enforcement to within the medical community itself, and likely make it a matter of grounds of revocation of medical licenses rather than a criminal matter. Nor would I authorize law enforcement or the court systems to micro-manage the process by which a woman and her doctor manage her pregnancy, including its termination when the doctor recommends it on medical grounds. Does this seem ‘weak’ on pro-life? To some it would, but women who want abortions are going to get them clandestinely and the enforcement mechanisms that would be necessary to preclude same would be far more onerous. Just like Trajan instructed his provincial governors regarding the early Christians (their religious views were nearly equated to treason but they were not to be sought out), abortion may simply be a thing that at best the state must officially disapprove of but may not necessarily move heaven and earth to prevent.
Matt Groening, creator of the ‘Simpsons’ provided a sensible if not refreshing humorous approach to the abortion question:
Douglas,
I will try to give you my view on abortion as simply as possible devoid of emotional histrionics and radicalized speech.
I base by pro-choice position on the following:
– Being pro-choice is not equal to being pro-abortion. How could anyone be pro-abortion?
– Abortion as a method of contraception is abhorrent to me. I wish there were no abortions with the possible exception of those outlined by the Church
– To me, choice ends where viability begins. I am not in favor of nd or 3rd trimester terminations.
– I follow the scripture definition of when life begins:
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7)
– I also look to the medical and legal practice in this regard. In other words, we do not afford any legal status to miscarried fetuses and never have. Therefore, in the eyes of society, there is not a legal human being if it cannot survive outside of the womb.
– I would never personally allow or encourage anyone to have an abortion.
– However, I value the agency that God granted us very highly and allow for women to make this choice for themselves and do not see a role for the government to play in this area. Just as I would rather not see smoking or drinking or personal ownership of certain firearms, I do not wish to legally ban it even though it has huge negative societal ramifications.
– I do not believe the States have a right to make this determination for a woman and would rather see it uniformly addressed at the federal level as it has. i do not see a negative societal consequence to allowing a woman her choice about her pregnancy.
I guess that makes me libertarian in that regard.
#51 – Up to the last two paragraphs, your views were not at all inconsistent with Libertarianism. In effect, you’ve said what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have on the subject…you’re personally opposed to it and won’t practice it yourself (being a man, meaning that you won’t support a decision of the women in your family to do it nor participate thereof), but feel that you don’t have the right to proscribe it for others.
This is where I differ with you and other “pro-choicers”, whom nevertheless hold personal abhorrence for this sordid practice. I do feel that Government has not only the AUTHORITY (Governments don’t have rights, individuals do) to regulate abortion but has an obligation to do so. The viability issue that you brought up (probably the issue of viability of a fetus is cogent, especially, if, say, a pregnant women like Laci Peterson is murdered, do we call it a double homicide? In that case, darned right we do!). I wish to restrict it but have to walk the tightrope of not intruding on the patient-doctor relationship. That’s why I’d leave alone entirely the issue of self-abortion (which historically was rare, the histrionics of the pro-baby-killing “feminazis” notwithstanding) and wouldn’t consider ANY legal sanction against the mother. Of course, Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned by either a Constitutional Amendment, OR, a legal challenge that made its way to the Supreme Court would have to result in the same body reversing itself after 39 years. Else it’s entirely moot. If that happens, then in my state (CA), I’d push for that law prohibiting medical practitioners from performing elective abortions. Being how ‘blue’ CA is, though, don’t think it’d sell, so I have to contend with the marketplace of ideas. Fair enough.
The last paragraph would demonstrate that you reject Libertarianism entirely. Override the agency of the several states in the interests of ‘uniformity’? Well, then let’s just dissolve the State governments and re-divide America into regions with a federally-appointed Governor. Since the states are nullified, may as well shutter the Congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEqg3bQJ2C0
Jeff, please read the ninth and tenth Amendments to the Constitution, but especially the tenth, and consider what our Federal Government has done under both Democrat and Republican administrations and with both houses of Congress changing party majorities back and forth. One thing has been consistent…the ever increase of Federal usurpation of authority and powers that were once reserved for the states and/or the people.
The last sentence has nothing to do with a political discussion but is worth a post. Since I don’t have the ability to start one myself on this forum (I welcome instruction on how to do it), feel free to do so if it interests you. I can only speak from the viewpoint of a 52-yr. old mechanical engineer who is a father and grandfather and a member of the Church for 33 years. Allow a women her “choice” regarding her pregnancy? If there’s a medical issue involved, then certainly it’s a private matter and I don’t want ANY Government interference or micromanagement! Otherwise, methinks “she” has the same choice that we fellas have…it was made when the pants were dropped! There’s nothing that infuriates me more than some “male” who whines about having to be responsible morally and/or financially for a child he sired. Ala the scene in ‘Pinnochio’ to Lampwich and the other bad boys..”You HAD your fun! Now PAY for it!” Likewise I’m infuriated at some gal that can’t be bothered to at least carry the child she foolishly conceived and give it its life, even if she doesn’t want the responsibility of motherhood. All too many childless couples that would gladly step up! NO negative consequences for society? Other than an even more cavalier attitude towards sex and a greater disregard for life, especially of the helpless unborn infants? And what of the loss of millions of our brothers and sisters before they even had a chance, just because they weren’t ‘convenient’? Oh no, my good brother. The situation seems analogous to a group of German villages upwind from a little locale called Dachau. I’m sure the locals KNEW that something wasn’t right, but no one wanted to check it out…after all, they were “good” Germans, and, besides, it’s not as if those that were supposedly in that place were really ‘human’…just Jews, Gypsies, Communists, JWs, trade unionists, and other enemies of the Fatherland. I wonder if the Savior and/or HIS Angels will arrange a ‘viewing’ of abortion clincs and Planned Parenthood offices (one and the same) much like the “Rainbow” Division did for the local townsfolks on 4/29/1945.
If nothing else, I’ll risk unpopularity by speaking out against abortion,even amongst fellow Libertarians. Some things trump politics.
To sum it up, it’s a child (or children for twins, triplets, etc.), NOT a choice…the choice was ALREADY made.
Douglas,
It is pointless to have a discussion where you think you need to “school” me.
I understand you have strong views. You are entitled to them. I am entitled to mine however I arrived at them. And yes, I do agree with some of yours.
Do I think you are hypocritical in those views? Definitely YES. But, then again, we all are to some extent.
#54 – And likewise, there are quite a few things that I agree with you on (the Gospel of Jesus Christ being foremost).
“Hypocrisy” or seeming inconsistency? The latter is undeserved, since it con-notates deliberate deviation from one’s core beliefs. The latter, I’ll grant. Look, many Libertarians would disagree vehemently with some of my views…as the movement gets bigger, so does the “tent”. Where I liked your posts, even if I don’t agree with your views, is that you’re giving a reasonable feedback as to the impression that prominent LPers (like Ron Paul) are making…and it ain’t all good. We’re not also helped by all too many of the goatee-and-ponytail crowd joining the fray. Not that I don’t welcome them, but they scare off conservatives and with good reason.
Also, I apologize if it seems that I’m talking down to you. I see you, like many other of the regular posters in this forum, as worthy opponents (at least politically) and peers. In a one-on-one I could dispense with a lot of the dissertation because likely you’ve already heard and digested those views. It’s for the benefit of others.
Apparently there was a slave that thought that taking another man’s money that he earned to be theft and that those that were in slavery were blinded to the fact. Let’s look at Frederick Douglass’s words:
See http://www.archive.org/stream/douglasfred00dougrich#page/102/mode/2up
Let us continue on this voyage:
@Carl,
Thanks, I used to not be quite so explicit in denouncing it as evil and saying people are blind but that was over 6 or 12 months ago, don’t ask me why I keep coming back, maybe just to talk politics with progressives? But, as you can see from the Douglass quote above, even he said the slaves were made to be blind of their condition, so I guess it comes from all sides.