What If Ron Paul Wins Iowa? What Then?

[SparrowHawk]

How can anyone support Statism over Freedom? Why are people afraid of freedom?

If I find out, You'll be the second to know, I promise. Been looking for 57 years now and haven't come up with an answer so don't wait up OK?

 

[jimntx]

How can anyone support Statism over Freedom? Why are people afraid of freedom?

Because then everyone over the age of 18 would have to take full responsibility for their own lives and their own actions. It would mean the end of blaming someone else for what's wrong with your (generic you, not you specifically) life.

By the way, every man for himself and every man capable of making his own decisions is classic liberalism.

 

[xUT]

How can anyone support Statism over Freedom? Why are people afraid of freedom?

A point of view Blog: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-08-17.asp

Why not simply treat Paul like any other candidate?

Because most MSM reporters and television commentators are statists, meaning that they love socialism, interventionism, and imperialism.

As statists, they love the welfare-state programs, the regulatory programs, and the warfare-state programs.

They adore the federal government and look upon it as their savior, their provider, and their protector.

They cannot imagine life without the welfare state and they’re convinced that without the warfare state, America would be conquered by the terrorists, Muslims, illegal aliens, drug dealers, communists, and other boogeymen.

They love the drug war and firmly believe that the federal government should incarcerate people who ingest drugs without permission.

They love the big spending, big debt, and big inflation.

They love the invasions, occupations, bombings, torture, drone attacks, war on terrorism, Patriot Act, airport fondling, kidnappings, torture, and assassinations.

Thus, not surprisingly, the statists within the MSM feel perfectly comfortable with statist mainstream political candidates, whom they always treat with great admiration and respect. After all, since they’re statists, such candidates do not challenge at a fundamental level the welfare-warfare state paradigm. They’ll call for reforming the welfare-warfare system, but that’s okay with the mainstream media because they’re not challenging the principles of the system.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Why are people afraid of freedom?

Because he's the second biggest idiot out here besides Dapose.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Because then everyone over the age of 18 would have to take full responsibility for their own lives and their own actions. It would mean the end of blaming someone else for what's wrong with your (generic you, not you specifically) life.

By the way, every man for himself and every man capable of making his own decisions is classic liberalism.

You raise several interesting points. If you take a look at Mr Paul he gets a fair amount of support from the left for the non interventionist foreign policy he advocates and the reform of our monetary system.

If you look at the root word of Libertarian it is of course Liberty, However wouldn't Liberal also be from the same root word?

What we have now is a one party parasite political system propped up by Crony Capitalism at it's best. The primary difference between Demorats and Repugnants is who/where the money that they confiscate from the working class goes.

There are but two choices. Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry, Santorum OR Dr Ron Paul. Anyone not named Ron Paul> Use a dart board with all the names as it will be business as usual.

There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it.
Ron Paul

 

[Ms Tree]

I watched a few minutes of the GOP debate last night. I tuned in when Paul and Bachmann were going at it.

I realize that Paul felt the need to defend him self but having to do it with Bachmann seemed demeaning. The woman would not know a fact if it bit her in the butt. The one thing that I noticed about Paul during his exchange was the fact that he seemed angry and frustrated. I understand those emotions but as a political leader you cannot let them show through in the manner that he did. He started to loose his train of thought, he stopped and stammered and just seem to start loosing his cool. Someone not knowing the facts would have seen that argument and determined that Paul was clueless and that Bachmann had all the facts.

If Paul wants to win over the people who do not know him he will have to do much better in controlling his emotions and delivering his message.

 

[Ms Tree]

The more I read about the rest of the field the more I am starting to agree with Sparrow, at least as far has Paul's chances of winning a few primaries are concerned.

I was reading about the current front runner (Gingrich) and his stance on the courts. This guy ballooned the idea of issuing subpoena to federal judges to have them justify their rulings that Congress does not like for what ever reason. Two attorney generals from the Bush administration even came out and said this is beyond irresponsible. Gingrich went on to say that he feels he is better suited to speak on this issue due to the fact that he is historian.

Aside from the fact that it is not the judiciaries job to hand down rulings that are popular, there is a separation of powers as defined in the COTUS. I am pretty sure that any subpoena would be quashed or just ignored unless Congress could prove cause. I am pretty sure 'popularity' would not cut it. I cannot help but wonder if Gingrich would have hauled the SCOTUS in front of Congress for their rulings on civil rights or Miranda to mention two.

While this kind of BS may speak to the extreme fringe (as the applause indicated) I seriously think it will go over like a lead balloon with the general electorate. I wonder when Romney is going to start hammering Gingrich for ideas like this and Perry for wanting to put term limits on Federal judges?

Perry is starting to look like he will be able to make a bit of a showing before he gets closed down for his crazy ideas. This is going to be a fun primary season to watch.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Gingrich has had his day. His run is over.

 

[delldude]

The more I read about the rest of the field the more I am starting to agree with Sparrow, at least as far has Paul's chances of winning a few primaries are concerned.

I was reading about the current front runner (Gingrich) and his stance on the courts. This guy ballooned the idea of issuing subpoena to federal judges to have them justify their rulings that Congress does not like for what ever reason. Two attorney generals from the Bush administration even came out and said this is beyond irresponsible. Gingrich went on to say that he feels he is better suited to speak on this issue due to the fact that he is historian.

Aside from the fact that it is not the judiciaries job to hand down rulings that are popular, there is a separation of powers as defined in the COTUS. I am pretty sure that any subpoena would be quashed or just ignored unless Congress could prove cause. I am pretty sure 'popularity' would not cut it. I cannot help but wonder if Gingrich would have hauled the SCOTUS in front of Congress for their rulings on civil rights or Miranda to mention two.

While this kind of BS may speak to the extreme fringe (as the applause indicated) I seriously think it will go over like a lead balloon with the general electorate. I wonder when Romney is going to start hammering Gingrich for ideas like this and Perry for wanting to put term limits on Federal judges?

Perry is starting to look like he will be able to make a bit of a showing before he gets closed down for his crazy ideas. This is going to be a fun primary season to watch.

Newt was referring to activist judging.....it is not their job to legislate from the bench.....that is usurping the separation of powers.

Where does it say in COTUS that we need all these judicial branches other than SCOTUS?

 

[777 fixer]

Dr Paul has been pretty consistent is his views that Medicare and SS should be phased out over time as it in his words "it Just isn't fair to throw people off a program that they paid into for 60 years expecting it would be there". That;s an honest and fair assessment in my book.

Here's a news flash, there will be no phasing out of SS or Medicare. No president has that sort of power.

As I have said before all you Paul supporters had better prepare yourself for disapointment either way. Disapoitment if he does not get the nomination. Disapointment if he does become president and does not do all the things you thought he would becasue he does not have the ability to do so.

 

[777 fixer]

My purpose in starting this thread was not so much to rehash the merits of Ron Paul's positions, but to speculate on how a victory in Iowa could or would change the game.

With all due respect you bring up Ron Paul on threads that have little or nothing to do with him.

 

[777 fixer]

Newt was referring to activist judging.....it is not their job to legislate from the bench.....that is usurping the separation of powers.

Where does it say in COTUS that we need all these judicial branches other than SCOTUS?

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

 

[delldude]

Here's a news flash, there will be no phasing out of SS or Medicare. No president has that sort of power.

As I have said before all you Paul supporters had better prepare yourself for disapointment either way. Disapoitment if he does not get the nomination. Disapointment if he does become president and does not do all the things you thought he would becasue he does not have the ability to do so.

He can take a lesson from Pannetta/Obama and rule by decree...er I mean executive order.

 

[tech2101]

He can take a lesson from Pannetta/Obama and rule by decree...er I mean executive order.

George W. Bush issued 291 EO's.

Obama has issued 104 so far.

Reagan = 381 - the reigning king of executive order

Clinton = 364

H. W. Bush = (4 year term) 166

Source

 

[SparrowHawk]

George W. Bush issued 291 EO's.

Obama has issued 104 so far.

Reagan = 381 - the reigning king of executive order

Clinton = 364

H. W. Bush = (4 year term) 166

Source

Executive Orders are ruling by decree and they are wrong no mater which wing on the Bird of Prey called the Political Parasite Class uses them. Equally wrong is the use of subpoena power because a judge rules in a manner to which someone objects for political reasons.