We've heard 'em all. It really amazes me how much people dig to try and discredit the guy. I remember when I saw him interviewed, he sure seemed like a pretty decent guy to me. Maybe there's something I'm not getting but just for fun, let's share all the bogus arguments we've heard made against him and take pot shots.
I sent a couple to Shane a while back but this was probably the best one.
Quote> * Over 20 bills to reestablish the gold standard and close the
> Federal Reserve bank. Some of his bills would even have us paying
> our income taxes by mailing gold, not checks!
The guy's opposed to income tax so I don't really understand where they're getting that from.
Had a convo with a friend and he brought this one up too. sadly, it was late and night and I can't remember what the bill was called or I'd cite it (it had the word family in it IIRC). But all in all, he quoted a passage talking about "no government funding for councelling that promotes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle" or something to that nature. (does this sound familiar to anyone who'd care to clarify because my memory is REALLY sketchy of this.)
Curious, I looked at the bill and for the most part, it all looked perfectly reasonable and the sort of thing I'd expect from Paul so this particular bit sounded out of place. Anyone know more?
Ron Paul's against government funding of most stuff. Of course they're going to cherry-pick to make him look bad.
How about the dumb Ron Paul newsletter argument?
People calling him racist and stuff
Yeah, or trying to lump him in with the creationists, saying things like, "Guarantee that he won't ever try to force creationism into schools!" And this is from SKEPTICS!!!
Quote from: 11mc22 on August 18, 2009, 06:29:22 AM
How about the dumb Ron Paul newsletter argument?
People calling him racist and stuff
Oh, I've heard of that.
I was told he (supposedily) funded, or allowed someone to fund a racist newletter.
It sounds like that's not true?
What's the whole story behind that one?
There's a newsletter that bears his name: The Ron Paul Political Report. Awhile back, some racist articles appeared in an issue or two. Ron Paul wasn't even in the state at the time. He had no editorial oversight, and had not even seen the newsletter by the time it went out.
Details of who did it are sketchy, but the most likely culprit was a staffer named Eric Dondero Rittberg. Google him: he's infamous in libertarian circles. The man is a total nutcase who resorts to all sorts of despicable tactics against his enemies. He's one of the right-wing Republican infiltrators to the libertarian movement. He bleats on and on about having to destroy the "Islamofascists" and thinks that Rudy Giuliani is just the bee's knees.
Now, this newsletter stuff happened several years before Paul's presidential campaign. So during his campaign, a "Ron Paul insider" leaks this information to the media (it had already been discussed to death online years before, so it's not like it was any big secret). At first, this "insider" claims it was Paul himself who wrote it. When it came out that Paul wasn't even in the state, the "insider" then blamed Lew Rockwell (someone else Dondero has a beef with).
The interesting thing is, the racist articles stopped after Dondero was fired.
The other interesting thing is, the "insider" reporting this information to the press ended up being...Eric Dondero Rittberg.
So, you tell me.
Thanks for the information. :)
Not to mention how RP wanting to end the war on drugs, inflation, etc, as far as I can tell is about as anti-racist as you can get. Perhaps these folks need to be basing these ideas on what the politicians do and vote for, as opposed to the guilt by association crap.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 18, 2009, 02:08:11 PM"Islamofascists"
Wait x5.
So what Pat Condell, CapnOAwesome, and them have been going on about has been either exaggerated, one sided or something?
I actually got into a debate with a guy named Liberty Student on the Mises forum about this.
I was going to make a separate thread, or put this into that thread where I saw that really wierd video talking about how Islamic people are reproducing like mad and "taking over the world" or something (I still can if you think it would be appropriate), but I figure since it was brought up here, I'll go into it.
Granted, I don't know how much of Islam's aggression to the West is caused (either directly or indirectly) by Western Interventionism.
That includes the riots to the Danish cartoons, etc.
If you go poking at a hornet's nest, you're going to get stung. The solution is to LEAVE THE DAMN THING ALONE.
So this stuff (including the protests, etc) were, at the root, caused by interventionism?
I knew it...
Oh, but back on subject.
Another weird argument against him is that he's an Anarchist (or something like that.)
Another one: his position of small government is not practical.
It not only IS practical, it's been done before and worked. Once upon a time, the US government just did a few basic things. Kept a militia, maintained the courts and stuff like that and otherwise, left everyone alone. Then came stuff like New Deal and all that and suddenly government gets seen as some kind of bottomless grab bag and now we're all footing the bill as will our children and grandchildren.
This is why I laugh at people who see libertarianism as some new, radical idea. It's not new at all. It's been around for decades.
And yes, the old "libertarianism = anarchist" argument. I hear that one that all the time. If someone gives you that one, demand that he look up both of them or you refuse to discuss the matter any further.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on August 18, 2009, 10:01:49 PMAnd yes, the old "libertarianism = anarchist" argument. I hear that one that all the time. If someone gives you that one, demand that he look up both of them or you refuse to discuss the matter any further.
Yeah, I've had it thrown at me.
The guy just said that both terms were used synonymous until recently and that I didn't know my history.
Which is funny because Anarchy until the 1800s (Lyansander Spooner) was mainly socialist/collectivistic (Anarcho Socialism/Communism/Syndaclists etc). While Libertarianism is more about Free Markets and Small government. In fact, in its current form it was made to replace liberal and conservative because both of those terms no longer apply to our founding fathers.
What's more, the only time I've ever heard it used otherwise is to describe socialism/communism style anarchy ("Left Libertarianism").
What's really ironic is that while he hate Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul, he admires Noam Chomsky who, guess what: Is an Anarcho Syndicalist.
I've just been informed that on BlogTV, both Thunderf00t AND DPRJones equated libertarianism with anarchism.
Sometimes I wonder what's the point...
QuoteI've just been informed that on BlogTV, both Thunderf00t AND DPRJones equated libertarianism with anarchism.
Sometimes I wonder what's the point...
Smug satisfaction when their realities finally come crashing down.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 19, 2009, 06:48:06 AM
I've just been informed that on BlogTV, both Thunderf00t AND DPRJones equated libertarianism with anarchism.
Sometimes I wonder what's the point...
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR....
Darn it!
Shane, you should challenge thunderf00t to a debate. Did he respond to any of the videos you've addressed to him on the subject?
Quote from: FSBlueApocalypse on August 19, 2009, 06:58:59 PM
Shane, you should challenge thunderf00t to a debate. Did he respond to any of the videos you've addressed to him on the subject?
Not that I saw.
Back on topic.
Search engines are our best friend. Take a look at some of the arguments against him here in the comment section: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/943684/
The first two arguments were the only ones I looked at in the comments.
The first being esentially: "If we don't continue the war, Islam will take over the world!"
and the second being, "The gold standard is a horrible idea for the economy."
Yeah, and RP just wants to get rich off all the gold he hoarded. The thing is, if you want to get rich from hoarding gold, it's the CURRENT system you'd want to support!
"If we don't continue the war, Islam will take over the world!"
How would they even do that? Fly another plane into the white house, kill the pres and then crown themselves king? :p
My friend brought up the gold standard as an example against RP. Didn't say a reason, just stated that he supports the gold standard as though it were an automatic deal breaker.
Yes, he also believes the New Deal totally saved America from the depression.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 18, 2009, 03:32:00 PM
If you go poking at a hornet's nest, you're going to get stung. The solution is to LEAVE THE DAMN THING ALONE.
The poking being the interventionism, or the plays/cartoons?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on August 23, 2009, 03:25:33 PM
The poking being the interventionism, or the plays/cartoons?
The former.
That the people supporting RP are a bunch of isolationist, redneck, as-long-as-I've-got-mine, nuts and conspiracy theorists.
Is another annoying one.
Nevermind the fact that this in no way has anything to do with RP and is just a weak Guilt by Association argument with a side helping of confirmation bias.
Yes, try explaining the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism to some people. And people wonder why I use the term "dogmatist"!
Yeah, when you do, they seem to think that it's either rape them (Interventionism), or ignore them and ban trade with them (isolationism).
As if those are the ONLY two options *coughFALSEDICHOTOMYcough*.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 19, 2009, 06:48:06 AM
I've just been informed that on BlogTV, both Thunderf00t AND DPRJones equated libertarianism with anarchism.
Sometimes I wonder what's the point...
God...
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K3uGKBERJhQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K3uGKBERJhQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
I don't know about the context of what Dr. Paul means, but I thought I should include this.
"YELLING MAKES ME RIGHT!!!"
His interpretation of the separation of church and state sounds pretty accurate to me. It simply says you cannot mandate religion. Fair enough.
I'm not even religious and I'm getting annoyed with all the "Augh! You can't do that! It's got religious overtones!" nonsense. It's so hypocritical.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on August 29, 2009, 05:48:09 PMI don't know about the context of what Dr. Paul means, but I thought I should include this.
The context would be that Dr. Paul is responding to a case where a fire department was forced to remove a Christmas Tree from their firehouse on First Amendment grounds.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 29, 2009, 08:24:53 PM
The context would be that Dr. Paul is responding to a case where a fire department was forced to remove a Christmas Tree from their firehouse on First Amendment grounds.
That explains quite a bit.
Honestly, who celibates Christmas for religious reasons these days, anyways?
Like the tree-decorating is even Christian to begin with!
No kidding.
I thought that was stolen from the Pagans.
Heck, I thought most of Christmas was stolen from them. It was their celebration of the Solstice, or "rebirth of the sun", if memory serves.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on August 29, 2009, 08:31:22 PM
No kidding.
I thought that was stolen from the Pagans.
Heck, I thought most of Christmas was stolen from them. It was their celebration of the Solstice, or "rebirth of the sun", if memory serves.
The harvest is all done, you're stuck inside with little else to do. What else can you do but party?
There's archaeological evidence of tree decorating in prehistoric Germany.