What If Ron Paul Wins Iowa? What Then?

[Dog Wonder]

Just more comedy from a presidential campaign that has been a riot so far.

 

[7days]

 

[700UW]

Romney Leads, Santorum Surges in Iowa Poll

 

[tech2101]

Ron Paul on sexual harassment:

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

On AIDS and treatment for it:

"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care," Paul wrote.

He kept digging the hole this morning on the Fox News Sunday show.

CNN article on his book

 

[Ms Tree]

Holy crap. He did not really say that stuff did he? There are quite a few of these types of quotes attributed to Paul. If these quotes turn out to be true which I am sure we will find out shortly (if his campaign pans out) his ignorance, bias and hatred are truly amazing. First off I am sure there are other politicians who feel the same way but they are not stupid enough to actually say them or put them in print. His comment on sexual harassment clearly shows his is sexist and woefully ignorant of the law. His comment on AIDS seems to imply that only men get it and they only get AIDS via sexual contact. The fact that he is a doctor of medicine and hold this view gives on pause for thought.

Here is another gem

“The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea it’s of the voluntary contract,” he opined. “By what right does the government assume low power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?”

I guess discrimination in the work place is A-OK for Paul.

Well, he said it. Here is a copy of his book in PDF form. If his campaign starts to take off he is going to get hammered into a bloody pulp that will need DNA for identification.

This quote from his book address the issue that 777 has been bringing up. I guess Paul decided that if you cannot fight them, join them. So much for consistency.

For virtually every Congressman, there is not even a pause before he plunges
into the trough. It is, after all, why he entered politics. But that was not why Ron
Paul went to Washington. He sought a great rostrum for freedom, and he never
sold out. He even opposed public works projects in his own district, a stand that
still boggles every politician in America.
As Ron Paul patiently explained, he could hardly criticize federal spending in
California while supporting it in Texas. But such consistency was outlandish. No
one could believe his ears.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Any Libertarian would say what he said. The concept or principle being that if YOU harassed ME, my reaction as a free INDIVIDUAL would be to take matters into my own hands short of violence. Those options could be quit, start my own business that would then compete. I little idealistic and perhaps unworkable but truth is that as a nation we survived from 1776 until around 2000 just fine without the laws. I'm pretty certain that his remarks were in the context of self reliance and not reliance upon government. While the particulars don't often sound good the basic concept is the fundamental notion that this nation was founded upon. That the role of the Federal Government is to preserve Individual Liberty for its citizens which means a whole lot of sacred cows end up as burgers at McDonalds.

When you read or listen to individual issues he does seem like "Crazy Uncle Ron" at times but he has been morally and intellectually honest on these topics for over 30 years which is something no current candidate can claim.

His biggest hurdle will be convincing those of us who are between 45 and 65 and have grown up during the era of ever increasing government that somehow the responsibility of living free is worth the risk. Because the fundamental truth is that 100 pure individual Liberty means that each person assumes a hell of a lot of risk, It means you have to work your way through college, get a job, keep it and a whole host of things all of us take for granted.

Yet their is often a moral contradiction in a way. Libertarians that I know are some of the most giving compassionate people I know. Morally, spiritually they are in favor of every good social welfare program there is. For us we just don't think it's appropriate for the government to tax us and run these programs. We favor no taxes, no programs! Instead we want the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world to to donate the billions required to build a PRIVATE social safety net because it will be done faster, better, cheaper. In a Paul or any Libertarian Presidency one of the roles of the POTUS that would expand IMO is the use of the power of the office as a Bully Pulpit for social & economic justice. One thing that would further the cause of social and economic justice would be the elimination of our fiat currency which is a huge part of our problems today. A debt free Federal Government with money in the "bank" is the single greatest engine for economic and social justice.

Want to get ride of Food Stamps? Simple, create the above economic engine that allows for an economy where people can afford to buy food. Most of us who post here grew up in the era of the Government hand out. It's hard to change people's thinking.

 

[Ms Tree]

Any Libertarian would say what he said. The concept or principle being that if YOU harassed ME, my reaction as a free INDIVIDUAL would be to take matters into my own hands short of violence. Those options could be quit, start my own business that would then compete. I little idealistic and perhaps unworkable but truth is that as a nation we survived from 1776 until around 2000 just fine without the laws. I'm pretty certain that his remarks were in the context of self reliance and not reliance upon government. While the particulars don't often sound good the basic concept is the fundamental notion that this nation was founded upon. That the role of the Federal Government is to preserve Individual Liberty for its citizens which means a whole lot of sacred cows end up as burgers at McDonalds.

Seriously? Why on earth would anyone advocate an idea or policy that is unworkable? Then there is the fact that this is not the wild world of animals. If I decide that I do not like a female that I work with I should not have the right to run her out via sexual harassment or any other manner. If I am a boss and I do not like blacks, women, Mexicans, Japanese, Christians, Jews or who ever else you want to insert that is my problem that I need to deal with, not the other persons.

This idea is not idealistic, it's ignorant in my opinion.

We certainly did not get along fine from 1776-? Anyone who was not a white land owner was disenfranchised for the longest time. Women did not have the right to vote till 1920. Blacks were property till 1864. Discrimination was not outlawed till 1964. People like you may have had a good time, but people like my dad (denied employment by Delta due to his religion) and hundreds of thousands of other people who were denied equal treatment because of religion, race, gender might have a different point of view.

Had these people been treated equally under the law one of them might have found the cure for cancer, avoided WWII or Viet Nam. Prevented a murder, made someones life better.

How you can talk about individual liberties on one hand and then support the idea that sexual harassment in the workd plae is OK in the other is beyond me. By agreeing with Paul that the person who is harassed should just leave his/her job (in this job market .....really?) is just plain ludicrous.

I posted a link to his book. Go look for the context.

When you read or listen to individual issues he does seem like "Crazy Uncle Ron" at times but he has been morally and intellectually honest on these topics for over 30 years which is something no current candidate can claim.

I would argue that his is steadfastly holding onto dogma while ignoring reality. His quote is the same as blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt. This is the same mentality the Muslims use when forcing women to cover head too toe. Wouldn't want to hold the man responsible for their own actions. He needs to step into the 21st century. Ideals have changed a bit since when he grew up. Women are considered (by some at least) to be equals deserving of equal treatment. They have the right to go to work and not be harassed and if they are, they have a right to expect that the law will deal with the harasser.

His biggest hurdle will be convincing those of us who are between 45 and 65 and have grown up during the era of ever increasing government that somehow the responsibility of living free is worth the risk. Because the fundamental truth is that 100 pure individual Liberty means that each person assumes a hell of a lot of risk, It means you have to work your way through college, get a job, keep it and a whole host of things all of us take for granted.

One hundred percent free means anarchy. It means no laws, no protection. Survival of the fittest. It means yelling fire in a crowded theater is OK.

Yet their is often a moral contradiction in a way. Libertarians that I know are some of the most giving compassionate people I know. Morally, spiritually they are in favor of every good social welfare program there is. For us we just don't think it's appropriate for the government to tax us and run these programs. We favor no taxes, no programs! Instead we want the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world to to donate the billions required to build a PRIVATE social safety net because it will be done faster, better, cheaper. In a Paul or any Libertarian Presidency one of the roles of the POTUS that would expand IMO is the use of the power of the office as a Bully Pulpit for social & economic justice. One thing that would further the cause of social and economic justice would be the elimination of our fiat currency which is a huge part of our problems today. A debt free Federal Government with money in the "bank" is the single greatest engine for economic and social justice.

Want to get ride of Food Stamps? Simple, create the above economic engine that allows for an economy where people can afford to buy food. Most of us who post here grew up in the era of the Government hand out. It's hard to change people's thinking.

Do you have an example of a single society where this theory has been applied and worked? How about in the US before 1913? Were their children starving? People who were injured and out of work and homeless? Were the rich contributing money to create shelters, food banks or work programs?

I want to be rich and pretty. Just because you want something does not mean it will happen. Idealism is all fine and dandy as long as you realize there is a reality that has to be dealt with. I am not convinced that Paul, you and the others realize this.

 

[7days]

 

[SparrowHawk]

Some say we didn't get along fine pre 1913 and the inception of the Federal Reserve. Well here's how we're doing now.

1. Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.
2. The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.
3. Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.
4. College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.
5. Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.
6. The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.
7. Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.

Got to love all that Hope & Change.

Here's an idea.

Let the people keep their money, spend it as they see fit and to Hell with the Nanny State. Well intentioned Nanny State Advocates ultimately create Police States. Think Patriot Act as an example.

 

[Ms Tree]

Way to doge every single issue you brought up and I addressed.

100% freedom is anarchy. That does not work so in any society there will be restrictions. You say no nanny state. Fine. Let the hungry, feeble, mentally ill, destitute and who ever else can't get by for what ever reason die. I am pretty sure that this country would not be comfortable with that idea. No one wants to pay for it, but they sure as hell are glad there are safety nets when they need one.

Again I will ask. Can you provide an example of a nation that has succeeded with a government (or lack there of) such as you propose? One will suffice.

Some economist say that not enough was spent and that it was not given to the right folks. Some have and do argue that had the economic measures (half ass as they were) not been taken by Bush and Obama that we would be in worse shape now than we are. Impossible to say which theory is correct as we cannot have a do over.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Way to doge every single issue you brought up and I addressed.

100% freedom is anarchy. That does not work so in any society there will be restrictions. You say no nanny state. Fine. Let the hungry, feeble, mentally ill, destitute and who ever else can't get by for what ever reason die. I am pretty sure that this country would not be comfortable with that idea. No one wants to pay for it, but they sure as hell are glad there are safety nets when they need one.

Again I will ask. Can you provide an example of a nation that has succeeded with a government (or lack there of) such as you propose? One will suffice.

Some economist say that not enough was spent and that it was not given to the right folks. Some have and do argue that had the economic measures (half ass as they were) not been taken by Bush and Obama that we would be in worse shape now than we are. Impossible to say which theory is correct as we cannot have a do over.

No Dodge, the greatest economy gave rise to the greatest nation. Problems? YES Perfect? NO, Given the choice of muddling on as we now are I'll take my chances moving back to a time of sound money, Increased individual liberty, lower taxes and a non empire building Foreign policy. To me it is no mere coincidence that that in the 100 years of central banking we've had nearly 100 years at war (declared or otherwise). When the desire for security and safety exceeds the desire for Individual Liberty we are doomed as a nation.

 

[Ms Tree]

So in your world how do those who need help get it whether it be food, shelter, medical attention?

 

[tech2101]

So in your world how do those who need help get it whether it be food, shelter, medical attention?

You obviously missed that. They dont get any help. They should have better genes, planned better, not got into an accident, trouble, Been born a different color, not been so pretty, not worn that short dress or make-up, or tempted fate (did I miss any?)' It is there own stupid fault. After all, we all make our own destiny. Survival of the fittest I say. :blink:

 

[Ms Tree]

That is what I am wondering about. I believe he made some mention elsewhere about charities but what if no one wants to help or is able to help? Does a neo-nazi not deserve the same treatment as mother Theresa? Moral quality aside, the COTUS says we are all equal till we violate the law? If no one wants to help the neo-nazi does that person die for an unpopular belief? What about atheist? Separatists? What about the minors of these groups or the elderly? Seems like a slippery slope.

 

[SparrowHawk]

That is what I am wondering about. I believe he made some mention elsewhere about charities but what if no one wants to help or is able to help? Does a neo-nazi not deserve the same treatment as mother Theresa? Moral quality aside, the COTUS says we are all equal till we violate the law? If no one wants to help the neo-nazi does that person die for an unpopular belief? What about atheist? Separatists? What about the minors of these groups or the elderly? Seems like a slippery slope.

"Help" is an interesting word and one could argue that the type of "Help" in the form provided by government is a hindrance to personal growth.

I can tell you first hand that fear is a powerful motivator, not a positive life affirming one but a powerful motivator none the less. Nearly equal as a motivator is pride. Government programs do a lousy job of tapping into these motivators. If you take a look at one particular race that has been harmed irreparably IMO by government hand outs look no further than the local Indian Reservation.

If you want to see a third world nation within the borders of the USA I'd strongly suggest a visit to the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation. The statistics will make you vomit. Point being if you want to see people as groups and how poorly they have done take a look at ANY group that has been a disproportionate recipient of government "Help". Blacks, Indians and Whites of Appalachian origin being three fine examples. Billions spent with little to show for it.

Drug laws and the war on drugs negatively impacts those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Blacks represent 15% of the overall population yet nearly 65% of those incarcerated for drug offenses. Almost everyone that owns or rents land in Appalachia is growing Pot so fast the DEA is lucky if it finds 10% of it.

Indians have only thrived under two circumstances, one being located close to enough people to run a successful casino operation and where they are allowed private property rights.

Given the above, I'd argue that the citizens of the US have had just about all of the "Help" they can stand.

Why create a tax system to redistribute wealth? Why not work to provide a country where there is as equal playing field as possible? One based upon sound money and savings instead of fiat currency and manipulated interest rates? Why not allow trade unionism to be the check for unbridled greed that sometimes fuels capitalism? With no personal income tax, a lean and efficient Federal Government it allows even the middle class to be somewhat generous and charitable. It's been proven time and again that private organizations deliver a larger percentage of dollars collected to those who need it most and are capable of delivering exactly what's required instead of a one size fits all expensive solution to problems that may not exist.

Case in point. The War on Poverty of the 1960's in Appalachia, The Feds in their infinate wisdom gave out 50 pounds of surplus rice to each family which is a hell of a lot of rice. Problem was none of those mountain grannies knew how to cook it and the hogs wouldn't eat it so it was thrown out. Think the Salvation Army would have made that mistake?