lewrockwell.com — It's a bad idea. There's great danger in doing it. America is against it, & Congress should be. The whole world is against it. Our allies are against it. Our enemies are against it. Don't we ever learn? Have we already forgotten Iraq? If it's carried out, the Middle East, & possibly the world, will explode. And you have no moral authority to do it.
Feb 14, 2007 View in Crawl 4
cdmdxFeb 14, 2007
Dr. Paul,I believe that you understand more than most in Congress regarding the fundamentals required for freedom in this world. This is why I find it very difficult to understand how you cannot understand and distinguish between ownership of nukes by countries trying to advance and protect freedom and those trying to destroy freedom. Of course we have the moral basis to destroy the enemies of freedom. The moral basis is simply that we wish to live and live free, not as slaves. Iran has been attacking Americans for decades and we have essentially done nothing to stop them, all because our leaders can't seem to understand this. Who cares if the rest of the world "is against it?" Have we not always been the only significant defender of freedom? And how does it defy common sense, as you proclaim? It is always practical to stop evil and adversaries early on rather than to appease them, making them stronger. And where in the constitution does it forbid us to protect ourselves, even preemptively, from our attackers? You know your history and where appeasement has left us before. You are possibly correct in that Iran may find much to gain by their attempt to build nukes; but, it is true ONLY because of the world's, and your, appeasement of their actions.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2007
Here's Ron Paul from today's Iraq debate: <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/videos_people/Congressman_Ron_Paul_slams_Bush_s_demented_philosophy_of_conquest">http://digg.com/videos_people/Congressman_Ron_Paul_slams_Bush_s_demented_philosophy_of_conquest</a>
quadoFeb 15, 2007
this is hilarious. My friend is actually related to ron paul, and its not that distant a relation!
nestafettFeb 15, 2007
Ps. I think we can both agree on one thing, people need to expand their minds past this republican-democrat b.s. I would much rather see a libertarian against a democratic socialist in a debate then a dem vs. a repub maybe then some s**t would get solved.Even a Paul vs. Kucinich Best of both parties
yixiltesiphonFeb 15, 2007
Actually Paul is a Christian, and a better one than most every other Republican at that. I'm not religious at all, but Ron Paul is a religious man that I can respect.
jeffiekFeb 15, 2007
@nestafett"list a few, number them if you want you so know I'm answering them."I'll keep it to just one. Privatization.""A local government granting an exclusive contract for garbage collection (a common occurrence today) and paying for it with tax money is not privatization in substance." true but that is not what libertarians want to do. they want no tax dollars involved, no exclusive contracts. The garbage company would be ran the same as McDonald's or Target, competition and all."Here you agree that my statement is true. You even state that is not what libertarians want to do. You go on to explain correctly what a libertarian advocates. You AGREE to, and apparently understand, my use of "privatization in substance". But here:"that it is being handled by a heavily privatized military, which is what libertarians are for, they think the more things ran by private business and not the govt. the better."You state that is what libertarians want to do!!!! Can't you see that you've mistaken the word "privatize" (where government retains effective control ) for what libertarians want? Then here you write:"people that Halliburton has hired from the states or people from neighboring countries, there are not many locals getting hired. why? neighbors will work cheaper for one reason."This is NOT a consequence of private enterprise. Or any part of libertarian philosophy. Can't you see that a libertarian would hire the cheaper local? It's the government, the ANTI-libertarian position that is in bed with Haliburton.The word privatize means, literally "to make private". A business is NOT made private (in substance) when government retains control, this is a perversion of the phrase "to make private". This is NOT what libertarians are for. This is why I said "that's merely a shuffling of paper". True private enterprise is when the business and the customer make their transaction voluntarily. You said it yourself "they want no tax dollars involved, no exclusive contracts. The garbage company would be ran the same as McDonald's or Target, competition and all." All the excesses of Haliburton are the result of government. There are contracts, they are paid for with tax dollars and the citizen has no control. This is ANTI-libertarian. Try contrasting that with McDonald's. The customer has total control. If they don't want the junk food they don't buy it! If McDonald's doesn't give the customer what they want they go broke! That's why the profit motive is good for society, private business MUST give the customer what they want or go out of business. The customer is the person that pays for the good or the service. Contrast that to Haliburtons service. Who pays? The citizen through taxes. Can they refuse to pay? NO!!!! See the difference? What the government is doing with Haliburton is NOT what libertarians are for. I think I see the problem now. Your words again:"It means "to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership" This is statement of FORM not SUBSTANCE.(would you prefer theory/practice instead?) It is a misuse of privatize (to make private). And you go on about various topics concerning the FORM and all its bad points. Libertarians are in favor of free markets / private business and would like to make many functions currently done by government private. But that's private in SUBSTANCE (see the McDonald's comments). Then you conflate the two meanings and try to hang the rap for government's actions on the libertarians!!!!!Words are context sensitive, if you don't think so then try learning a new language (I'm learning German right now) - you'll find out real quick. Try keeping their different contexts separate.
markyannoneFeb 17, 2007
To those who wonder about the differences between Ron Paul and the candidates they are used to voting for, Ron abides by the Constitution's restrictions, including those of Article 1, Section 8:<a class="user" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8">http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8</a>Notice how many of today's government departments and functions are not in there. When Ron Paul talks about reducing the size and scope of government, he is not talking about privatizing anything. He's talking about obeying the Constitution. That's the kind of talk that causes his fellow congressmen--those who line their pockets as they busy themselves redistributing your income--to hyperventilate, sweat, and swoon.
corrosionxFeb 22, 2007
"Seriously? I listened to your little thing. I really don't know what to say to someone who doesn't think it was greed that brought Enron down"It was greed + government power. Greed alone rarely has these consequences. Or there would be Enrons everyday.
winnxApr 6, 2007
Ron Paul tells Benjamin Bernanke the truth about the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve to his face.<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Drills_Hearing_on_ILLEGAL_Federal_Reserve_Vote">http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Drills_Hearing_on_ILLEGAL_Federal_Reserve_Vote</a>
flohoff60Apr 13, 2007
He ( the candidate)also has to pay the $25,000.00 fee in order to be in the debates.? Now how are we going to promote Ron Paul in SC when the powers that be are not in the least interested in what the people want but what the people can pay? I guess it's not "government for the people, by the people" is it?They will do anything to shut Paul up because he is the only one honest about what the rest don't wantyou to know...