When the facts don’t suit your agenda, distort them. Worked for the neoconservatives (pseudoconservatives) in their pursuit for a conflict with Iraq and now with Iran. In the same tradition, a “progressive” website made the following claims in an attempt to slander Ron Paul:
“Rep. Paul is not a liberal, protesting against the War in Iraq. He is an isolationist, who seeks to keep America’s business at home.”
Wrong. Non-interventionist. This means he advocates trading with other nations and staying out of their internal conflicts. It doesn’t mean we ignore the world.
“Rep. Paul is not socially liberal, but economically conservative, as some have claimed. He is an old-style Conservative, through and through. “
Wrong, he is mostly socially liberal AND economically conservative. Otherwise known as a classical liberal.
I suspect spreading disinformation about Ron Paul is in response to his growing numbers of liberals, conservatives, and independents who find his message of liberty appealing.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama are betraying their own constituency by backing out of any promises to end the war. If anyone is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, it is these fake liberals who are looking more like pro-war neoconservatives everyday.
To clear up misconceptions about Ron Paul:
He may not like gay marriage, but he believes the contracts between two people should be enforced by the government. That means if a church wants to marry two gay people, Ron Paul believes the government should honor that agreement, and that heterosexual marriages should hold no special privilege.
He may detest abortion, but he believes such matters should be decided by the individual states and not the federal government. (Which means some states will allow abortion and some won’t. And perhaps it is better this way until we understand human consciousness better).
He opposes affirmative action, because he wants to treat people like individuals, not as arbitrary groups of people with special privileges, regardless of their skin color. He believes treating people like individuals and allowing them to exercise their liberties is a better way to achieve equality.
He strongly opposes the war on drugs, because prohibition causes more problems than it solves. There are only two democratic candidates who oppose the war on drugs: Gravel and questionably Kucinich. After all, should the government put you in jail for consuming Burger King food and putting yourself at risk? Why should it be any different with the personal use of drugs? Furthermore, the FDA prevents many useful medications from being sold in the market, forcing people to seek other alternatives abroad, increasing the cost of medicines, and sometimes leaving patients with no options.
He strongly opposes the Iraq war, on the grounds that we have no right to start wars of aggression. On the other hand, we have seen that Hillary and Obama are very likely to pursue an unnecessary conflict with Iran and start a new conflict in Sudan, as if we hadn’t learned from Vietnam and Iraq, already, and despite the fact that the majority of voters want out of Iraq.
Ron Paul doesn’t arbitrarily choose issues when it is convenient, like the majority of Republicans and Democrats. He goes by the principle of individual liberty, which means his stances on most issues are consistent and predictable, instead of progressively changing based on the whim of lobby groups.
I know it’s threatening to see Ron Paul earn more in donations in seven days than John Edwards earned in ten days. I know it’s threatening to see that liberals and conservatives are finding good reasons to support Ron Paul. But instead of misinforming voters, try to engage in honest discussion.
As Ron Paul’s campaign met and exceeded their goal of 500,000 dollars in seven days overreaching at over 1 million dollars, also outpacing John Edwards, Digg’s algorithm appears to be suppressing any news stories with the keywords ‘Ron’ and ‘Paul’. In the meantime the most popular story is about Paris Hilton on David Letterman with fewer diggs. Is Digg protecting itself from abuse, or is there a hidden agenda?
As the 3rd financial quarter draws to a close, Ron Paul and John Edwards have set campaign goals to raise a million in the last 7* and 10 days of Q3. Ron Paul started with a humble goal of raising $500,000, but when contribution money continued pouring in at a faster rate than expected, the campaign extended the goal to one million dollars. As of yesterday at 11pm John Edwards’ site indicates $878,000 raised so far; Ron Paul is not far behind at $800,000.
Current projections will place both candidates at 1.2 million by the end of the quarter. Although these numbers reflect only the last 10 days of the quarter, it raises very interesting questions about Ron Paul’s financial standing this third quarter. If John Edwards pulled in 9 million last quarter, will we see Ron Paul triple last quarter’s numbers?
With straw polls placing Ron Paul in first place among Republican contenders, and the GOP recognizing Ron Paul as a de facto 1st tier candidate, any financial reporting over 5 million is bound to cement his position. Let’s not forget Ron Paul surprised everyone by taking in more military contributions than ALL the Republican and Democratic candidates in Q2, and amassing more cash-on-hand than Sen. John McCain.
If you want to see Ron Paul out-raise John Edwards in the 10-day boost that ends this Sunday, donate now: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
Update*: It was brought to my attention that Ron Paul started his boost last Monday, meaning Ron Paul is out-pacing Edwards, who has a 3-day advantage.
Hillary, Obama, and Edwards do no intend to exit Iraq by 2013. And Hillary doesn’t seem concerned about attacking Iran and starting more wars, as she just voted for a bill that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization - in effect giving Bush justification to start a war with Iran.
Ron Paul intends to withdraw immediately and he supports most socially liberal ideas. Because of this, I urge you to reconsider the candidates that have betrayed you.
Hillary is a pro-war Republican. And not far behind, Obama. According to Gravel at yesterday’s MSNBC Democratic debate, Hillary voted yes on a bill put forth by Joe Lieberman, which among other things, will designate the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard a terrorist organization. The amendment, in effect, grants president Bush a justification for starting a war with Iran. Obama didn’t even show up to vote for said vote.
Also at the debate, none of the so-called top-tier candidates promised to end the war by the end of their first term. In essence, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are towing the neoconservative line.
The only senators running for president who voted against this bill were Biden and Dodd.
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
As usual, when confronted by a tough question, or in this case, a relevant accusation, Hillary resorted to pausing, laughing maniacally and then dancing around the question.
Then she refused to answer relevant hypothetical questions. If she doesn’t want to answer questions, they should revoke her time and give it to another candidate who will answer the questions asked.
Ron Paul has just reached the 400,000 dollar mark in the campaign’s goal to raise 500,000 dollars this week. At this rate, with four days left until the 3rd financial quarter ends, Ron Paul is bound to reach 1,000,000 dollars in just one week.
This extrapolation is not based only on the current rate, but also on the concept of self-fulfilling prophesies, and the strong grassroots support that will push donations beyond the 500,000 goal. Ron Paul’s campaign can help this happen by extending the goal to one million.
Although Ron Paul leads all republican candidates in military contributions, straw polls, meet-up groups, youtube videos and anything not controlled by the mainstream media, a strong 3rd financial quarter will help Ron Paul gain the positive exposure intentionally denied to him by the main stream media, by pundits such as Wolf Blitzer and Sean Hannity.
A conservative projection for Ron Paul is 5-6 million for Q3, while 7 or 8 million is not out of the question.
It may be easy to reject Ron Paul at first because you don’t understand him or his policies.
You can probably look at the other candidates’ names or faces and make a quick decision that way.
But if you spend any time making a thoughtful decision, and if you get past the learning curve, you’ll love Ron Paul.
—
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.
It is also one of the only political philosophies backed up by modern economics and psychology instead of pure dogma.
The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism; meaning you submit to authority simply because “you should”. Giuliani is a prime example of an authoritarian. Giuliani wants to tell you what to do even though he is no expert and even though he has no logical or rational explanation. Of course, Giuliani would never say that he doesn’t have a rational explanation. He’ll simply say something that sounds good like ‘9.11′.
An example of authoritarianism is Hillary Clinton’s assertion that we should ban mature video games. A libertarian would leave such decisions to the parents of a child. Another example of authoritarianism is the move to ban trans fats in NY. Sure, trans fats are unhealthy and undesirable. A libertarian would let people make the decision themselves.
In other words, libertarianism maximizes your ability to make your own choices. Authoritarianism maximizes Giuliani and Hillary’s ability to make choices for you, even when you disagree with them.
And what happens when Giuliani and Hillary make a bad decisions for you and you choose not to comply? Tough. If you disobey you get punished.
Next thing you know, you won’t be allowed to eat at your favorite restaurant.
—
A free market describes a theoretical, idealized market where the prices of goods and services is arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the supply and demand law with no government interference in the regulation of costs, supply and demand. In theory, a free market will affect the price of goods such that the price reflects the real value of the goods.
An example of a society with free market society is Hong Kong. Hong Kong is ranked #1 when it comes to economic freedom. Hong Kong enjoys an employment rate nearly identical to that of the United States and there are no minimum wage laws. This keeps inflation at bay, which means residents can afford more with their money. The lack of artificial manipulation of the market means an umbrella costs more when it’s raining than when it’s not. And why shouldn’t it? An umbrella is worth more when it’s raining.
It also means there is more competition, and thus prices stay competitive. People will buy your umbrella if it is better or cheaper. In turn people make and sell better, cheaper umbrellas.
An opposing concept is the idea of nationalized healthcare systems, such as Hillary and Edwards’ proposals. These programs are wasteful because they raise taxes to pay people that have no incentive to provide good healthcare. They also raise the price of healthcare because people go to the doctor even when they don’t need one. They order expensive tests when they don’t need any. The patient (consumer) has no idea what their medication or their doctor visit costs, so there is no feedback that pushes prices back or indicates which services are more efficient. The end result is worse healthcare, longer waiting lines, and higher taxes.
Studies involving psychology of ownership show that people place more value on goods they own than on public goods. This means private property gets taken care of better than public property. This is great news for the environment. In true free market conditions (that is, with no corporate welfare) an oil company has a real incentive to minimize its effect on the environment for two reasons: (1) It can resell the land it has bought at a better price and (2) If they pollute the surrounding private property they are liable for damages to private property.
Better news for the environment: If the oil companies do not get subsidies to drill for oil, and they must pay for the plot of land they will drill on, the price of the plot of land will increase. This means oil companies better do what they can to resell the plot of land once it has been drilled; and more importantly, it provides a real incentive for the oil companies to invest in other technologies - both to drill more carefully, and to avoid oil dependency.
This also explains why our government (and in particular the military branch) is the biggest polluter in the United States. What incentive does the military have to keep its easily-acquired land clean?
References
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Forest Jourden. “Remedies and the Psychology of Ownership”, 51 Vanderbilt Law Review 1541-82 (1998).
Military contribution numbers originally published in a social networking website were published on digg and the blogosphere. They were downplayed by FOX News initially and a recent study published by the Center for Responsive Politics has now catapulted the analysis to mainstream outlets such as USA Today.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the military support makes sense. The congressman “wants to get (troops) out of playing the world’s policemen and get them home,” he said.
Numbers were originally crunched by T. S., a Ron Paul supporter who frequents the facebook Election 08 Newsvine application, and published here. Anybody who still questions the relevance of the internet in today’s politics ought to reconsider.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul wasn’t more clear about what he wants to do with the CIA. He doesn’t want to entirely eliminate it. (Note: watch Rudy’s facial expressions.)
2. Turn up Rudy’s cackle.
3. Encourage the moderators to laugh at Ron Paul before he gets the opportunity to respond.
4. Slice, dice and omit relevant parts of the debate when you comment on it post-debate.
Loading …