Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[bishop]

Quote by: rob Before implementation can be discussed, people need to grasp the idea involved. I think the LP et al. have been focusing their efforts on the ideas because most people don't quite grasp them yet. A lot of people disagree with this or that part of government, but they don't see how it all fits together.

the LP's been trying to do this for quite some time now.. i think people do understand the party's ideas - what they don't understand are the specifics behind those ideas. you don't just jump from point A to Z without going through all the other letters first. granted, the two major parties don't exactly do this either, but the third parties (and essentially third party candidates like paul) need to work harder since they're at a competitive disadvantage. if they can offer clear plans, good things are bound to happen imo.

[JJB]

Hello everybody, this is my first post.

I don't mean to offend anybody, but frankly, the LP is way too extreme.

That's why they never even come close to winning.

Yeah, I know our two-party system is difficult to offset, but the LP never got close to Ross Perot or George Wallace.

Take a look at some of the LP's best numbers:

1980: 1.06% (Edward Clark)

1988: 0.47% (Ron Paul)

1992: 0.28% (Andre Marrou)

1996: 0.50% (Harry Browne)

2000: 0.36% (Harry Browne)

2004: 0.32% (Michael Badnarik)

[Osborn F Enready]

JJB said: I don't mean to offend anybody, but frankly, the LP is way too extreme.

I'm not offended, but I hope you aren't either when I tell you that the only reason Libertarians sound extreme is because the Republicans and Democrats have been trashing "libertarian" ideals since they have overtaken power, and held it for the last 156 years.

The ideas were EXTREME in 1776, but there is no valid reason for them to be extreme now, when we STILL claim the same "Law of the Land" that marks those ideals as our foundation, and our core as a nation of law.

The only people who fear libertarian ideals, are people who fear self responsibility.

To them, I have but one sentiment to express in these two quotes....

“It is my right to be uncommon...if I can; I seek opportunity...not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stole calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, This I have done, and this is what it means to be an American.”
-Dean Alfrange

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: RickSp Why did you interpret it that way? I thought I was answering your question.

I stand corrected. :)

So although there have been no other treaties explicitly banning letters of marque, there is no point in attempting them since they are disregarded by the so-called "international community".

Historically privateering has had its place but it has never been more effective than traditional militaries. They serve entirely different functions. Privateers have zero incentive to fight. Stealing is more profitable and less risky.

Actually, that was my point. Why fight when you can steal?

Stealing enemy goods is superior to destroying them outright. In a normal battle, no one gains, but in a raid, one party can gain (the party that steals from the other party). There is a trade-off, however -- namely that the enemy can reacquire what was stolen.

- Rob

[brien]

I don't mean to offend anybody, but frankly, the LP is way too extreme

Would you agree that we are in extreme times? I think it calls for extreme measures and the LP fits the bill quite nicely. The Republicrats are merely fiddling while Rome burns around all of us.

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: Would you agree that we are in extreme times? I think it calls for extreme measures and the LP fits the bill quite nicely.

Well said brien, and I must admit that in my taste, NO existing political party is extreme enough, but the libs stay true to the founding documents, and the letter of the documents ideals.

A revolt is what is needed in my opinion, but until then, Libs get my vote as long as they stay true to stated current platform.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop the LP's been trying to do this for quite some time now.. i think people do understand the party's ideas - what they don't understand are the specifics behind those ideas. you don't just jump from point A to Z without going through all the other letters first. granted, the two major parties don't exactly do this either, but the third parties (and essentially third party candidates like paul) need to work harder since they're at a competitive disadvantage. if they can offer clear plans, good things are bound to happen imo.

I think you have touched on the real problem. The LP's ideas are useless if they do not have a clear idea on how they should be applied. What is the point of gesturing to a shining city on the hill if you don't know the road to get you there?

In some respects the LP has actively worked against developing short term strategies in the name of ideological purity. It is one of the reasons that the party peaked in 1980 with the Clark campaign and has floundered for these twenty six intervening years.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: RickSp I think you have touched on the real problem. The LP's ideas are useless if they do not have a clear idea on how they should be applied. What is the point of gesturing to a shining city on the hill if you don't know the road to get you there? In some respects the LP has actively worked against developing short term strategies in the name of ideological purity. It is one of the reasons that the party peaked in 1980 with the Clark campaign and has floundered for these twenty six intervening years.

I started a thread on just that topic, but it seems to have died out. Oh well.

Keith

[RickSp]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger I started a thread on just that topic, but it seems to have died out. Oh well. Keith

Perhaps because there are no easy or obvious answers.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: notworthabean he has low name recognation

Maybe it's not a bonus, unless he becomes more visible. I mean seriously, I kinda thought I was clicking on a thread that said that singer Sean Paul is running for U.S. president. :)

[Osborn F Enready]

Anyone heard for sure about Pauls status?

[Osborn F Enready]

If you want to REALLY grasp Ron Pauls views, read this speech he delivered on the floor of the House:


A Republic, If You Can Keep It

Dr. Ron Paul
U.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representatives
delivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

Dr. Ron Paul

He addresses probably any issue you might entertain... please, be open minded and check it out.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Anyone heard for sure about Pauls status?

Check out here, here, and here.

All of the above are from the LewRockwell.com Blog.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

I will be pleased as punch if Paul gets to debate......

I am sure it is only because of the (R) after his name, but we know what issues he will be addressing.

I look forward to this.....

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno, meet Ron Paul, in this thread.

[Osborn F Enready]

Libertarian Badnarik endorses Ron Paul - Homeland Stupidity

Ron Paul, who is known as “Dr. No” on Capitol Hill because he is willing to break with the Republican Party and vote no on any bill he believes is unconstitutional, has not officially announced his candidacy, though he is expected to do so later in the weekend at the Liberty Forum in Concord, N.H. In his Friday night keynote address, Badnarik, who is also a member of the Free State Project and plans to move to New Hampshire by the end of 2008, urged over 200 attendees to support Ron Paul for president by making campaign contributions and activating grassroots support. “You cannot do it yourself,” he said. “You have to have wide, wide grassroots support.” Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. “I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, ‘Oh ho, somebody we can trust!’ and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee,” he said. “We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person.” Badnarik said that a large campaign war chest would be required to “scare everything out of the Republicans” vying for the Presidential nomination, especially with the media trying to close Paul out of the race and deny him coverage. “He may be a Republican, but there’s already a news blackout on Ron Paul,” he said. “We are going to have to get that information out to our friends and neighbors without the media.” Badnarik spoke about how our founding fathers knew, when they signed the Declaration of Independence, “that they were signing their own death warrants.” He asked the audience how many people would be willing to do the same, and nearly everyone raised their hands.

[bishop]

"republicans" don't think the same way that paul thinks.. today's "republicans" don't give a good god damn about the constitution, fiscal responsibility, limited government, abstention from foreign entanglements, etc...

those are the ideological reasons why i see paul's candidacy as a republican as being hopeless... the other, more practical reason, is because there's no way in hell that he'll have enough campaign money to be competitive. these other people are getting millions from all sorts of monied special interests - not the kind who'd support someone like paul.

[Osborn F Enready]

It all plays a role in exposing the head of the beast though bishop.

People have to see it, to believe it, and even that doesn't always do it.

I want to hear the excuses that come out of the bi-partisan mouths as their parties "nominees" are asked why a major party member like Paul can't debate in the televised debates, if he gets the public support by signature.

Libs are regularly "discriminated against" as are all third parties, but its rare to see a major party canidate isolated from the debates due to the same reasons.

Maybe this will help flick the switch on the light to expose the corruption?

[bishop]

well, it'll be interesting to see paul in the debates - but i don't think he'll make a dent in "republican" thinking.. his criticisms will likely be completely ignored by his party's other candidates, by the media, and by registered republicans.

sorry to be so cynnical about this, but i don't see any alternative outcomes in paul's candidacy.

[Osborn F Enready]

If my theory holds true, he won't be allowed into a televised debate with major party members.

Instead, he will be stopped at the door, like Badnarik, Cobb, and all the others before them who really have something to contribute to the debate, focused on Constitutional Law, and the value of liberty.