Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on January 10, 2009, 10:50:44 AM
-
This trend sure has been accelerating.
I think GWB will act like Hoover: usher in and legitimize practices that his Dem successor will use and will keep the USA prostrate for a decade.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html#printMode
'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
By STEPHEN MOORE
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.
Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.
For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.
In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?
These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."
When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."
Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.
One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:
Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"
Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"
"And you'll obey any order I give?"
"Implicitly!"
"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."
"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"
"Fire your government employees."
"Oh, no!"
Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.
David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."
-
"We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."
Welcome to the new East Germany.
-
Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.
“When I say cut taxes,I don’t mean. fiddle with the code. I mean abolish. the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing."
-
“When I say cut taxes,I don’t mean. fiddle with the code. I mean abolish. the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing."
I wish one of the presidential candidates had said that.. =D
-
One of the candidates did say exactly that....
but others think he's a bit of a loon.
Granted some of his supporters were loons, but he does have ideas that would put America back to what it's supposed to be.
And that candidate? Ron Paul.
Now we can only hope that the supreme court is actually going to force Obama to reveal his actual birth certificate, and show that his "election" to be the fraud that it was.
That is our last chance for any peacful solution to making America solvent again.
-
Now we can only hope that the supreme court is actually going to force Obama to reveal his actual birth certificate, and show that his "election" to be the fraud that it was.
Yeah. Right.
The only thing government does well is look after the interests of government.
-
One of the candidates did say exactly that....
but others think he's a bit of a loon.
Granted some of his supporters were loons, but he does have ideas that would put America back to what it's supposed to be.
And that candidate? Ron Paul.
Now we can only hope that the supreme court is actually going to force Obama to reveal his actual birth certificate, and show that his "election" to be the fraud that it was.
That is our last chance for any peacful solution to making America solvent again.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi97.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl240%2Frobo848%2Fnot_this_shit_again.jpg&hash=1632ad8f7fae24793f8e5e43a3dcca382540050f)
-
One of the candidates did say exactly that....
but others think he's a bit of a loon.
Granted some of his supporters were loons, but he does have ideas that would put America back to what it's supposed to be.
And that candidate? Ron Paul.
Now we can only hope that the supreme court is actually going to force Obama to reveal his actual birth certificate, and show that his "election" to be the fraud that it was.
That is our last chance for any peacful solution to making America solvent again.
If adding Hitler to a thread is a "Godwin", what should we call it when folks interject Ron Paul as the Demi-god fix all of American politics?
-
If adding Hitler to a thread is a "Godwin", what should we call it when folks interject Ron Paul as the Demi-god fix all of American politics?
Ron-ing? Pauling? Paul-inated? ???
=D
-
If adding Hitler to a thread is a "Godwin", what should we call it when folks interject Ron Paul as the Demi-god fix all of American politics?
Truth? :D
-
In your world, perhaps. :rolleyes:
-
In your world, perhaps. :rolleyes:
Apparently your browser doesn't display smilies.
Seriously, I am amused to see Republicans talk about 'radical' solutions like abolishing the income tax after they utterly rejected any candidate or political notion that offered to implement something even remotely like that (not just Ron Paul, but also Huckabee, Steve Forbes, etc. etc.) and ran moderate candidates election after election.
-
Beating a dead horse, I'm afraid.
-
Seriously, I am amused to see Republicans talk about 'radical' solutions like abolishing the income tax after they utterly rejected any candidate or political notion that offered to implement something even remotely like that (not just Ron Paul, but also Huckabee, Steve Forbes, etc. etc.) and ran moderate candidates election after election.
Yep. Both Democrats and Republicans want change only from within their little circle. Both parties seem willing to dool out $$ in huge amounts and have no idea whether or not it will have any beneficial effect what so ever.
I think the Fair Tax would probably put a big fix on the country but it would take about 5 years. But the benefits would be nearly instantaneous. There would be no welfare checks to "tax payers" who pay no taxes. But they would be taken care of at a minimal level. This would give an incentive to try harder.
-
It is sad that the policies Ron Paul espouses are probably the only true chance to save the Republic as we know it, yet he is not electable because he won't blow the sunshine of Hope, Change, and Unity up the skirts of the masses.
-
Ron Paul himself, it has to be said, is nothing but an honest, and fairly intelligent man. His recipe is not original and not unique to him - it is the same of the Founding Fathers in the 18th century or of the classical liberals of the 19th.
I am sure Ron Paul - or a man like him - could well be elected if he were to somehow get past the political gatekeepers and get a major party's nomination. There's nothing too insane about a guy like that succeeding. Maybe next time.
-
Be interesting to take a few of the middle-managers who are out of work right now, and see how they could restructure some government organizations... I'm thinking that would cause a LOT of folks to hustle to justify their jobs...
-
Be interesting to take a few of the middle-managers who are out of work right now, and see how they could restructure some government organizations... I'm thinking that would cause a LOT of folks to hustle to justify their jobs...
The leftists already tried that once. It didn't work.
-
It's sad that Ron Paul's lack of support is the results of lousy advertising.
By and large, he should identify with the average American. But he doesn't.
-
Well, that, and the fact that it seems like at least 30% of Paul's supporters seem to turn on their Raving Loon gene whenever they have the chance to talk to someone about politics...
-
Well, that, and the fact that it seems like at least 30% of Paul's supporters seem to turn on their Raving Loon gene whenever they have the chance to talk to someone about politics...
It worked for Obama.
-
Well, that, and the fact that it seems like at least 30% of Paul's supporters seem to turn on their Raving Loon gene whenever they have the chance to talk to someone about politics...
"Sure, we'd be much, much freer than we are now, but hey, he has some really weird nerd supporters and they SCARE ME, so I'll vote for some guy who's not even a conservative, instead. At least his guys wear ties."
-
It is sad that the policies Ron Paul espouses are probably the only true chance to save the Republic as we know it, yet he is not electable because he won't blow the sunshine of Hope, Change, and Unity up the skirts of the masses.
There's a great sadness in all this, to be sure; unfortunately, it has virtually nothing to do with Ron Paul and nearly everything to do with the "masses."
We, the people, have become a nation of moral and intellectual cowards. We've become government dependents. We trust government to make our decisions. We accept deliberately vacuous campaign slogans from patently obvious liars because we don't care to be bothered.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
-
or who is this guy the ding bats are putting on their funny money. and why have he and his disciples not taken steps to stop it or at least disavow a connection
-
"Sure, we'd be much, much freer than we are now, but hey, he has some really weird nerd supporters and they SCARE ME, so I'll vote for some guy who's not even a conservative, instead. At least his guys wear ties."
You could mention his weird nerd supporters in Chewy suits or Star Trec conventions, but that wouldn't be entirely accurate.
Ron Paul had as many good ideas as he did bad. " And I'll do away with the FBI!!"
Added, and I paraphrase
"And I'll put a big fence around the US, pull all of our forces home, and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist!"
-
"And I'll put a big fence around the US, pull all of our forces home, and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist!"
If we forget the fact America NEEDS a fence on its borders (a physical and metaphorical fence), and if we forget the fact there are quite a few countries (starting with the one I live in) that need to have their aid cut off, Ron Paul was still right more often than he was wrong. I'm not sure whether doing away with the FBI entirely is something Ron Paul preached, I'd think America would be a better place without a BATFDEALPHASOUP.
I believe I explained my attitude towards this previously. Ron Paul was better than the guy who actually got nominated on taxes, spending, civil rights, the Constitution (the one, all-important issue), guns, etc. etc. and wrong only on currency (if I am to accept your economic views) and foreign policy (though not entirely).
I do not claim - nor did I ever - that Ron Paul was somehow special. The Constitution is special. Any candidate, no matter what fursuits his supporters wear, what they mint his face on, or whether he believes in conspiracy theories, could work marvels if he just had the fortitude to stick to the Constitution, veto everything that is not authorized by it, and use the power of executive orders and pardons to get the various agencies of the Federal Government to toe the line.
-
It is sad that the policies Ron Paul espouses are probably the only true chance to save the Republic as we know it, yet he is not electable because he won't blow the sunshine of Hope, Change, and Unity up the skirts of the masses.
It's not that he won't do the the HopeChangeUnity thing. It's that he's utterly clueless about how the political process works. All he's ever managed to do is register a few protest votes in the House and attract a few fanatical followers on the internet. He is antagonistic to everyone else in the congress, to the point that he'll never be able to convince any other congressmen to go along with him on any proposal at all.
-
If adding Hitler to a thread is a "Godwin", what should we call it when folks interject Ron Paul as the Demi-god fix all of American politics?
We really do need a term for that, don't we?
Howsabout we call it "Paulwinning", as opposed to "Godwinning"?
-
It's not that he won't do the the HopeChangeUnity thing. It's that he's utterly clueless about how the political process works. All he's ever managed to do is register a few protest votes in the House and attract a few fanatical followers on the internet. He is antagonistic to everyone else in the congress, to the point that he'll never be able to convince any other congressmen to go along with him on any proposal at all.
Do you have anything to back up that statement? Like, memories of guys who've worked with him in Congress (and who are not Dondero)?
This is not an argument per se, I'm just genuinely curious.
A President can be an engine of change even while not working with Congress.
-
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
Closer to reality day by day. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckypaper) It'll be worth it to watch and see what happens with this miracle material.
---
Been lurking for a long time & couldn't pass this one up.
-
And yet Ron Paul seems to get re-elected.
And perhaps the fact that he manages to annoy all the other senators is a good thing, as the whole lot of them haven't seemed to do the country much good for the past 80+ years.
His ideas are a tad radical, and his followers are loons (not all of them mind you, as he's got enough clout to get re-elected), but there's enough good in his policies that we NEED in this country right now.
Granted it's all a moot point at the moment, as we have to put up with Obama, unless there's enough backlash from all the scandals to get him out of office (Hopefully before he can even take it), but this country needs to stop spending all the aid to other countries, and focus on getting our own house in order.
It's not a popular position with some here, but we need to stop sticking our noses into other countries affairs, get our economy in order (perhaps by getting the dollor worth something again with a gold standard), and get the government out of our lives.
THAT is why I like the man.
Are you calling me a loon because I like that about his plan?
Atlas Shugged is something I haven't finished reading yet, but what I have read of it so far, it's EXTREMELY scary how true things seem to have become reality at this point, and the only way we are going to prevent it from happening further is to get government out of our lives and start following the constitution again.
Ron Paul seems to be the only polititian who seems to understand that the founders wanted government to be kept in check. That is why I brought his name up.
-
Do you have anything to back up that statement? Like, memories of guys who've worked with him in Congress (and who are not Dondero)?
This is not an argument per se, I'm just genuinely curious.
A President can be an engine of change even while not working with Congress.
Several local Congressmen were on local (Houston) talk radio during the election. None would speak ill of him "on the record". However I have spoken to and have had friends that have spoken to our local respective congressmen in the past and they have essentially said what HTG stated. He is also known by his fellow congressmen for adding pork to bills and voting against them when he knows they will pass just so he can say he voted against unconstitutional spending.
-
He is also known by his fellow congressmen for adding pork to bills and voting against them when he knows they will pass just so he can say he voted against unconstitutional spending.
That I know of.
That, however, doesn't seem like the mark of a man who doesn't know how the process works.
-
If you want a one sentence explanation, it'd go something like this: Ron Paul seems pathologically unable to work well with others, so he never ever gets anything accomplished.
For more thorough explanation, you need to watch politics play out here for a while. There's no simple explanation, but let's just say that how you vote in congress is the least of what you do as a congressman. A single vote doesn't pass a law. Unless a particular bill comes down to a tie, your own personal vote doesn't mean squat. The real meat of the job lies in influencing the political process, getting lots of other people to join your side so that everyone else in congress votes the way you want them to.
There's a huge difference between voting on a bill and making a bill pass (or fail). Ron Paul does the former, serious heavyweight politicians (Bush, Obama, McCain, Reid, Feinstein, etc) do the latter.
Edit: When I speak of the "political process", I don't mean the parliamentary process, the rules and procedures by which the congress operates on a day-to-day basis. I mean politics, how the various political forces move and change and interact, and how politicians maneuver within that dynamic and attempt to influence it.
-
...wait, you really thought I didn't know these things?
I know - I think everybody knows - that the process isn't just about voting.
You tell me Ron Paul doesn't know that, despite being a Congressman for 20 years.
Can you show me some eyewitness account, some article, something to actually back that up?
P.S. That is now academic, but, again, even without knowing any of these things, a theoretical President Paul (or any person with vaguely the same views, I'm not too hung up on RP as a person) could work as an agent of change even without the cooperation of Congress.
As I said before:
If someone like that ever becomes the Presidential candidate of a major party (speak not of being ELECTED), it's going to be like hitting 88 miles per hour.
You're gonna see some serious *expletive deleted*it.
-
I dunno. I don't look to articles or other people's accounts to form my own opinions. I look to my own observations and opinions. I think there's some publication that ranks politicians according to their effectiveness. I'll have to try to remember what it is.
My own observation is that Ron Paul can't get any of his policy viewpoints made into law. He can't even get other people's views to start leaning towards his own. I can't recall ever seeing an instance when he was able to make a difference, however slight, in how any particular bill turned out.
My impression of him is that he sits in the corner and let's it all pass him by, content to issue his impotent little protest votes and get lauded on the internet.
Can you show me some eyewitness account, some article, something to actually back that up?
P.S. That is now academic, but, again, even without knowing any of these things, a theoretical President Paul (or any person with vaguely the same views, I'm not too hung up on RP as a person) could work as an agent of change even without the cooperation of Congress.
As I said before:
If someone like that ever becomes the Presidential candidate of a major party (speak not of being ELECTED), it's going to be like hitting 88 miles per hour.
You're gonna see some serious *expletive deleted*it.
We'll never know. Policy views aside, people who can't play the game of politics don't get elected President.
-
In my view, RP can't get any of his viewpoints made into law simply because the other few hundred guys simply aren't as much into freedom and individual rights as he is. But, again, you're making what I think is a very outlandish claim - that a man who's been hanging out with Presidents and Senators for decades has no clue about the political process.
Regardless, as I've pointed out three times already, it's not very relevant to my main claim.
-
In my view, RP can't get any of his viewpoints made into law simply because the other few hundred guys simply aren't as much into freedom and individual rights as he is. But, again, you're making what I think is a very outlandish claim - that a man who's been hanging out with Presidents and Senators for decades has no clue about the political process.
Ok, then let me adjust my earlier statement. Perhaps Ron Paul knows how the political process works. But for whatever reason, he doesn't act on that knowledge.
Regardless, as I've pointed out three times already, it's not very relevant to my main claim.
I've no idea what you main claim was. You asked me why I thought Ron Paul was bad at politics. I've explained why.
-
Ok, then let me adjust my earlier statement. Perhaps Ron Paul knows how the political process works. But for whatever reason, he doesn't act on that knowledge.
What specifically do you mean by this statement? His views are not popular with other lawmakers because they LIMIT said lawmakers power.
I'm no huge paul fan, but I probably agreed with him on more issues than any other candidate. I'm not sure what you mean by "how the political process works".
-
The problem isn't with any particular politician, or party, or the media. Honestly, the problem is with the average voter.
Think of politicians (and the media, for that matter) as a typical teenager. They're gonna push their limits, testing the boundries of what they can get away with. So long as the voting public (their "parents") don't put their foot down and say "ENOUGH!", they (the politicians) will keep pushing.
In the case of the US, the "parents" have pretty much stopped coming home at night, preferring instead to sit at the bar with their friends. And when someone DOES point out what the "kids" are up to, our general response is to shrug and order another beer (nevermind the house is burning down).
Election cycle before last, there were two referendums on the ballot here in WI: a vote to bring back the death penalty, and a resolution against gay marriage. Both went overwhelmingly conservative ("yes" to the death penalty, "no" to gay marriage). However, the majority of the elections (including the governor's) went liberal. Basically, the voters said they want conservative policies, but want liberals to enact them. Pointing this out, to MANY people, was a waste of breath.
And it's only going to get worse...
-
Strings, you're talking about the 2006 elections, and I think your analysis is a little bit off.
The Republicans put the the death penalty and gay marriage referendums on the ballot thinking that it would bring out more conservatives in an off-year election. I guess these guys didn't pay attention in their Poli Sci classes, because the goal in any election for conservatives is to suppress turnout.
The referendums had the effect of getting people to the polls who opposed gay marriage and supported the death penalty. The problem is that a lot of these voters were conservative Democrats who otherwise would have stayed home.
That's why Proposition 8 in California benefited from high Obama turnout, especially amongst blacks. Contrary to popular perception, blacks tend to be socially conservative, and the high black turnout helped Proposition 8 pass.
-
The problem isn't with any particular politician, or party, or the media. Honestly, the problem is with the average voter.
Think of politicians (and the media, for that matter) as a typical teenager. They're gonna push their limits, testing the boundries of what they can get away with. So long as the voting public (their "parents") don't put their foot down and say "ENOUGH!", they (the politicians) will keep pushing.
In the case of the US, the "parents" have pretty much stopped coming home at night, preferring instead to sit at the bar with their friends. And when someone DOES point out what the "kids" are up to, our general response is to shrug and order another beer (nevermind the house is burning down).
That is an amazing analogy. I've never heard it quite like that, but I think it's a damn near perfect description.
-
I've no idea what you main claim was. You asked me why I thought Ron Paul was bad at politics. I've explained why.
My general claim is threefold:
1.Ron Paul isn't magical. He's not The Man Who Can Save Us, because anybody like that who became President could 'save us'.
2.Ron Paul is a bit weird. Which is completely immaterial, because anybody who's willing to try and go into mainstream politics to promote ideas as radical (and RP is a radical) has to have a tinge of wacky going.
3.It's completely irrelevant to the discussion how good he is at the political process – both because he is just an example of the kind of guy that would be a good President, and because that if he (or someone like him) were to run, they could become agents of change just by becoming a major party's candidate, and because if he or someone like him were to be elected, they would have a giant toolbox at their disposal that they could use even without the cooperation of Congress. As I said – like hitting 88 miles per hour.
-
We're about to hit 88 mph all right - right off the end of the tracks and into a deep canyon :O
-
Ron Paul, right ideas, wrong package..... This is America, it's all about marketing and product presentation.
His supporters are more of a liability then an asset.
-
My general claim is threefold:
1.Ron Paul isn't magical. He's not The Man Who Can Save Us, because anybody like that who became President could 'save us'.
2.Ron Paul is a bit weird. Which is completely immaterial, because anybody who's willing to try and go into mainstream politics to promote ideas as radical (and RP is a radical) has to have a tinge of wacky going.
3.It's completely irrelevant to the discussion how good he is at the political process – both because he is just an example of the kind of guy that would be a good President, and because that if he (or someone like him) were to run, they could become agents of change just by becoming a major party's candidate, and because if he or someone like him were to be elected, they would have a giant toolbox at their disposal that they could use even without the cooperation of Congress. As I said – like hitting 88 miles per hour.
Yeah, and if I had 10 million dollars I could just stick it in a money market and live off the interest!
-
It's a matter of effort.
-
It's a matter of effort.
Which no one on the fringe seems to want to make.
I wish I could see the Libertarians or a similar party field viable candidates. But they refuse to start at the bottom and work their way up. People on the fringe are often their because they refuse to acknowledge the reality of the process and try to use it to their advantage.
-
This is very simple.
The point I'm trying to make to conservatives is that a candidate like Ron is what benefits THEM, too.
Even if he's only nominated and doesn't win. The benefits would be worth losing one election.
-
RP knows the political process. He chooses to not take part in it. That would take effort on his part. He cannot and will not work with anyone in Congress even members that are very conservative. He's happy to collect his check and not do a damn thing that matters to try to save this country unless it fits his very narrow view of libertarianism. This never seems to happen.
-
My general claim is threefold:
3.It's completely irrelevant to the discussion how good he is at the political process – both because he is just an example of the kind of guy that would be a good President, and because that if he (or someone like him) were to run, they could become agents of change just by becoming a major party's candidate, and because if he or someone like him were to be elected, they would have a giant toolbox at their disposal that they could use even without the cooperation of Congress. As I said – like hitting 88 miles per hour.
No, that's not the case.
Ron Paul could have every friggin tool in the box at his disposal and and still make George W Bush look like the most effective Pres since Ronaldus Magnus.
My money would be on Paul being the FASTED impeached president ever.
It might suck, and He might have had lots of tools and ideals at his fingertips, but the guy has all of the charisma of Dennis the Menace.
As Headless said, He doesn't know how to wield said tools.
-
There's no 'how-to' to wielding the veto pen, the Presidential pardon power, or the bully pulpit of the Presidency and the executive order. Though these are not magical and all-encompassing, they are very useful, especially with the shape modern government had taken
-
Being a policritter is about communicating and advertising. RP does neither of those things well enough to be competitive.
-
Being a policritter is about communicating and advertising. RP does neither of those things well enough to be competitive.
Again. And again. RP is not going to be running again. I hope you understand. Someone like him is bound to run, though.
To execute the kind of changes that are needed, the policritter in question needs to be a bit wacky to be that radical.
The question is only, what do you care about more, the wackiness or the issues?
In my view, the issues are more important.
-
Again. And again. RP is not going to be running again. I hope you understand. Someone like him is bound to run, though.
To execute the kind of changes that are needed, the policritter in question needs to be a bit wacky to be that radical.
The question is only, what do you care about more, the wackiness or the issues?
In my view, the issues are more important.
And if the next guy is that inept, freedom's better points will suffer crushing defeat yet again.
-
And if the next guy is that inept, freedom's better points will suffer crushing defeat yet again.
See, I'd buy your point if the guy who ended up being nominated was a lesser conservative than Ron Paul - a Fred Thompson or a Huckabee. A third-rate fireman, so to speak. Except what people end up doing - and this is not the first time - is nominating another arsonist.
Does it not strike you as bizarre that the party that had once wanted to abolish the DoE and repeal the graduated income tax had summarily rejected - time after time - every politician who wanted to do that? Does it not strike you as bizarre that people keep nominating the worst candidates?
People will not get their freedom back until they're ready to value freedom OVER things like conventionality or electability.
-
People will not get their freedom back until they're ready to value freedom OVER things like conventionality or electability.
That I could agree with.
Which means folks are likely just going to have to suffer a bit, before they wake up.
-
My prediction: We're going to have some internal scandals, they're going to try to push a "tax the rich and powerful" thing to make up for it, and then we're going to see Obama get tested from abroad. At which point, we'll get mediabombed about how Hillary has things under control. That will remain the general situation until the next election, at which point she'll run against him, and win.
-
By STEPHEN MOORE
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.
Oh give me a break. Twenty of the last 28 years we've has Republicans in office (with the one Dem being fairly fiscally conservative and a welfare reformer)...yet, Atlas shrugged is 'reborn' now when a liberal Democrat APPROACHES the office. Paul might have been good...but only considering that all the other absolutely sucked.
-
Those Republicans were'nt necessarily very Republican Republicans, if you know what I mean (excluding RR of course).
-
I agree 100%. But BOTH parties landed us in this fine mess, and created the conditions for just about anything to happen now. There is almost enough rope for both....would be enough if the Republicans weren't so afraid of hemp and so unaware of everything else.
-
Even if he's only nominated and doesn't win. The benefits would be worth losing one election.
We're about to get schooled in what happens when we lose elections. Pay attention, then come back and tell me how the benefits are worth it.
-
We're about to get schooled in what happens when we lose elections. Pay attention, then come back and tell me how the benefits are worth it.
My scenario had already occured once in the past. There would be no Reagan without Goldwater. Goldwater's run was worth it.
Of course what happened this election is that people were so afraid of the Left they sabotaged themselves and nominated a mewling moderate to be their candidates, in hopes he'd be more electable. It turned out John McCain was quite as electable as Ron Paul - not at all, that is.
-
Of course what happened this election is that people were so afraid of the Left they sabotaged themselves and nominated a mewling moderate to be their candidates, in hopes he'd be more electable. It turned out John McCain was quite as electable as Ron Paul - not at all, that is.
The media picked McCain. Not the people. If you watched the Republican debates and the media coverage during this time you would have seen who of the conservative pool got more airtime. It wasn't the more conservative candidates. It was the moderates. The media praised McCain during this time.
-
we'll get mediabombed
Good phrase.
-
Remember too that we're going to see a bunch of judges, not just in the supreme court, who are going to be leaning toward the side of awarding megabucks for spilled coffee...
-
My scenario had already occured once in the past. There would be no Reagan without Goldwater. Goldwater's run was worth it.
Maybeso.
But don't forget that after LBJ gave AuH2O a shellacking was the criminally corrupt Richard Nixon. Then Gerald Ford, the bumbler. Followed by Jimmy Carter the fool.
So, given your analogy, we would (if we had run a kamikazi Paul Rep nomination) have had to wade through Obama, a criminally corrupt Republican, a dumb-as-a-box-of-hammers Republican, and then a monumentally foolish and mendacious Democrat to get to our next Reagan.
Pardon me if I am NOT encouraged by all that.
-
You draw the Goldwater---->Reagen comparison a lot Micro, but I don't see it. Carter----->Reagen, yeah.
-
You draw the Goldwater---->Reagen comparison a lot Micro, but I don't see it. Carter----->Reagen, yeah.
It's not an invention of my insane mind. I recommend two books, one by a liberal - “Before the Storm:Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus” and the other by a conservative - “A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative Movement.”
It wasn't just that Goldwater reanimated the conservatives by giving them a new ideology and new leadership – it's that his staff created a network of volunteer activists that was later built upon to promote Conservatism. In essence they've taken the short-term organization of the campaign and its supporting groups and turned them into a long-term relationship.
So, given your analogy, we would (if we had run a kamikazi Paul Rep nomination) have had to wade through Obama, a criminally corrupt Republican, a dumb-as-a-box-of-hammers Republican, and then a monumentally foolish and mendacious Democrat to get to our next Reagan.
For one, I never said it was a 100% Kamikaze process. Some guy with the charisma and face of, say, B. J. Lawson, if somehow propelled to this level of contest, could win.
But the problem is, what IS your alternative? The view many people seem to be taking is that big government is not going away, we must just find guys that will manage it 'conservatively'. This has given America four years of Bush, followed by eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush, and now followed by Obama. Quite possibly it'll be followed by some McCain clone.
What precisely is your alternative?
Do you have a strategy that doesn't take six decades at best?
-
Two books? Well, it MUST be true! ;/
The leftists have achieved all they have incrementally. We need to do it the same way. It took a lot of years to screw us over this bad, it's not realistic to expect to dramatically reverse like 130 years of stupidity. Sorry if that's not fast enough for you, but that's reality. I wish I could get rich in a couple weeks, and it is theoretically possible. But planning on a life time of saving and investing is far more realistic.
-
Two books? Well, it MUST be true! rolleyes
Never claimed the two books make it true. However, as I pointed out, it's not just some dumbass idea of mine, it's a rather widely accepted interpretation.
It took a lot of years to screw us over this bad, it's not realistic to expect to dramatically reverse like 130 years of stupidity.
So your argument is that we're supposed to 'adjust' to living under a Welfare State for the rest of our natural lives?
-
Never claimed the two books make it true. However, as I pointed out, it's not just some dumbass idea of mine, it's a rather widely accepted interpretation.
I never said you were making it up, I said I didn't agree with it. Not entirely anyway.
So your argument is that we're supposed to 'adjust' to living under a Welfare State for the rest of our natural lives?
Adjust? We already live in one. I'm saying that the only realistic way to change is gradually.
Look, can we admit that things are going to be moving in either a pro- or anti- freedom direction no matter what? I'd prefer that things drift towards more freedom. Insisting on "all or nothing" fails. And when it fails, you lose freedom. Your methods are counterproductive. I'm approaching this from a pragmatic viewpoint. I wish we could just reverese every bad law ever passed all at once. But we can't, and bitching about it will do no good. We can play the game, or we can refuse to play and lose by default. Your choice.
-
Insisting on "all or nothing" fails.
I never insisted on all or nothing. But I do have a problem with gradualism because all too often it ends up enabling guys like McCain who have no intent altogether of working as a fireman, whose difference from guys like Obama is that they're a third-rate, rather than a first-rate, arsonist.
We need to say out loud that what we have right now is immoral and oppressive, because that's what it is. We need to get from point A to point B as soon as we can, it's a moral imperative, if not for our own sake, but for the sake of the people who are suffering from it from a more direct fashion than we are.
-
Oh give me a break. Twenty of the last 28 years we've has Republicans in office (with the one Dem being fairly fiscally conservative and a welfare reformer)...yet, Atlas shrugged is 'reborn' now when a liberal Democrat APPROACHES the office.
if you read closely, you'll notice that the piece is talking about what is happening now and in the recent past, under Republicans.
Look, can we admit that things are going to be moving in either a pro- or anti- freedom direction no matter what?
Sure, if you can admit that things under the current crop of politicians are only going to drift in an anti-freedom direction, at a fast or slow pace.
-
I never insisted on all or nothing. But I do have a problem with gradualism because all too often it ends up enabling guys like McCain who have no intent altogether of working as a fireman, whose difference from guys like Obama is that they're a third-rate, rather than a first-rate, arsonist.
We need to say out loud that what we have right now is immoral and oppressive, because that's what it is. We need to get from point A to point B as soon as we can, it's a moral imperative, if not for our own sake, but for the sake of the people who are suffering from it from a more direct fashion than we are.
Absolutely untrue. MacDaddy illustrates that the R's are idiots who are incapable of understanding gradualism. He is it's anti-thesis, not it's apogee.
Sure, if you can admit that things under the current crop of politicians are only going to drift in an anti-freedom direction, at a fast or slow pace.
And what we are discussing is how to stop that.
-
Absolutely untrue. MacDaddy illustrates that the R's are idiots who are incapable of understanding gradualism. He is it's anti-thesis, not it's apogee.
I did not say he's the 'apogee' of gradualism. I said that too many people are using it as an excuse to NOT be gradualist.
Saying 'we need to walk before we can run' and using that as an excuse to stand still, if you will.
-
All of this Ron Paul back-and-forth got me to thumb through my copy of "Atlas Shrugged."
Nope. No mention of Ron Paul.
-
(with the one Dem being fairly fiscally conservative and a welfare reformer).
Ummm, nope Clinton had Welfare reform rammed down his throat. Same with Fiscal repsonsibilty from the R congress at first....then they got drunk with power.
-
Ron-ing? Pauling? Paul-inated? ???
=D
RonRolling?