Can't Deny Ron Paul raised over 3.5 million today

[Len Budney]

Len, the Libertarian Party are for open borders according to their website. What you are describing is something very different.

I believe you. I don't know first hand, because I have nothing to do with the Libertarian party. It isn't recognizably libertarian, and very few libertarians belong to the Libertarian party. That's why most of us resort to the annoying phrase, "small-l libertarian." If a small-l libertarian talks about "open borders," he usually means something to the effect that immigration policy should be permissive; he doesn't mean that we shouldn't defend against invasions or keep out criminals or plague-carriers.

Being a bit of a hard-liner, I believe that border security should be privatized--in which case it would differ from today's border security, but would still involve defense against invading armies, criminals, etc. Some of the functions of border security would be decentralized in a fully-privatized market. For example, criminal background checks could be performed by cautious landlords and employers; they needn't only or necessarily be done at the border. That's related to my remark that "every property line is a border."

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Being a bit of a hard-liner, I believe that border security should be privatized--in which case it would differ from today's border security, but would still involve defense against invading armies, criminals, etc.

[Len Budney]

Maned... 

Unlike the federal government's version of border security:

[Paddy]

I believe that border security should be privatized-

Because, after all, it's worked so well in Iraq.   

[Len Budney]

I believe that border security should be privatized-

Because, after all, it's worked so well in Iraq.   

We've covered that ground. Blackwater isn't "privatized security," because they still have government powers and protections. Real private security staff can be imprisoned for assault if they taze an old lady or a toddler, can be sued if said tazing victim dies, and in all ways is bound by the same laws as anyone else. If police services are privatized, then among other things you can shoot "cops" in self-defense.

--Len.

[Waitone]

Back to the OP.  Paul's cash infusion came from the moonbat fringe of both wings.  Perhaps the left leaning moonbats were encouraged by various internet communities. 

Can't rule out sponsorship by Hillary's campaign either.  It is clear to me she is in general campaign mode having concluded she has the nomination.  She is kissing up to the illegal alien contingent with her kinda sorta qualified almost answer in favor of DL's for Noo Yark.  It was a position in opposition to something like  60% of her base.  The best predictor of the future Clinton is the playbook from past Clinton.  A key play is the third party candidate who will shave just enough votes from the opposition so as to ensure a victory.  Perot comes to mind.  "Cynic" is a label I proudly wear when it comes to political events.

[CAnnoneer]

Waitone, I arrive to the same conclusion but from a different direction. The biggest threat to Hitlery is not who the Reps are going to run against her but if she will win the Dem nomination. The aura of certainty that she projects is just part of the sales pitch, because people tend to flock to the ostensible winner.

The more conservative and united the right appear to be, the more the Dems see Hitlery as the kiss of death to their ambitions, because they know she is divisive and would mobilize the right even more than Kerry did. Thus a spectacle like Paul is useful to her in the primaries, because then the Dems see Reps as divided and already beaten, so the Dems would be more willing to gamble and nominate her. Therefore, a pitch to help Paul is in Hitlery's best interests.

[Tecumseh]

And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.   

Are you in the military by chance?  I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates.  If your not in the military, why not? 

What do you mean, "why not?"  Is there some reason I should be in the military? 

If your not you should be.  Simply so you can show your support by joining the war effort and fighting terrorists personally instead of letting others defend freedom while your at home posting on this website. 

I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.

[Len Budney]

Back to the OP.  Paul's cash infusion came from the moonbat fringe of both wings.

Since we're just making things up without a shred of proof, I think Paul's cash infusion came entirely from lesbian midgets.

--Len.

[Finch]

Back to the OP.  Paul's cash infusion came from the moonbat fringe of both wings.

Please provide your sources....

I'll hold my breath in anticipation.

[Perd Hapley]

And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.   

Are you in the military by chance?  I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates.  If your not in the military, why not? 

What do you mean, "why not?"  Is there some reason I should be in the military? 

If your not you should be.  Simply so you can show your support by joining the war effort and fighting terrorists personally instead of letting others defend freedom while your at home posting on this website. 

I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.

Thanks for the tip.     Must I bother to refute such silliness? 

[roo_ster]

Nah, it is just the usual chickens--t chicken hawk argument.  Worthy of a guffaw and maybe a snort.

There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter.  Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete.  And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either.  There is a silver lining in every cloud...

[Finch]

Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. 

I'm sure we can consult our friend in "THE WAR ON TERRORRRR!!1!" Pakistan. They seemed to have done pretty well with destroying their own constitution in the name of freedom.

[LAK]

Manedwolf,

The whole "[not] free trade" corporate-government economic train is riding - directly supporting - a global socialist system with an agenda of a de facto elimination of nation states. The corporate-gov train riding this is so intimately intertwined with this political system one can not possibly say there is any difference between the two.

You can pretend to be indifferent to it, but that is what it is.

[LAK]

Len,

Skimming posts here I think some have addressed it already; but the LP supports open borders. That is part of their platform. It is noteworthy that few "libertarians" seem to know this.

Mr Irwin,

And that should be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's responsibility to come in and fix what government screwed up by putting MORE of their money (over what they already paid in taxes of their own) into it... WHY?

Don't know how you extrapolated that from what I wrote above. I simply responded to CAnnoneer concerning eliminating the welfare state here. That would mean the elimination of that portion of taxation of persons by gov for all socialist programs. ALL of them. Cutting gov OUT of the business of charity - leaving charity to private persons. And going back to the founding of this country it has been the wealthier private persons and private institutions that have supported the genuine poor and unables when it comes to feeding and treating them for illness etc.

I see nothing immoral or anything else by appealing to people with enourmous amounts of spare money to helping the poor in their own nation - if they call it their country - as opposed to sending it all to foreign nations.

Exactly. They're American success stories. They should be applauded as shining examples to what levels industriousness, intelligence, and skill can take you in America.

Right; sucess stories in America. They were not able to do it in India, Botswana or any other foreign country.

If Gates and Buffet want to send their money overseas, it's no one's business but their own. Certainly not mine, and certainly not yours.

If they have made billions in government contracts paid for by my and every other tax paying American it is my business as it is every other tax paying American. Especially when they are sending their apparent enormous surpluses overseas and are actively involved in a global geo-political agenda that is hostile to our constitution and national independence as a nation.

Ultimately Bill and Warren can do what they like with their money - as long as when I insist I keep all of mine as opposed to having it stolen at source to give away - they keep their mouths shut.

[LAK]

CAnnoneer,

Perhaps only 50% vote because at least 30-40% of the rest realized long ago what a show it really is. You either believe that it is or you don't. If they have a chance to actually vote for someone who is going to actually lead the country instead of the role acting we have seen for decades they will likely vote.

The key is what is now being waged as a psychological war to prevent him from being heard when possible, and then to discredit what he intends to do and undo that affects their global agenda and the United States, and then sow despair on any chance of him gaining the WH. It is a matter of confidence.

Personally believe that support for Ron Paul is much higher than his most vocal supporters believe.

[LAK]

Manedwolf,

I'd ask the same question. And why is it anyone's call what these people want to do with their money? If Warren Buffet wants to build an ice sculpture for the people of Kenya, it's HIS MONEY!

Well, they already do; unless Warren does not pay income tax. What is the difference between taking money from people at source to give away to others - as opposed to letting everyone keep all their money (in the context of all socialistic programs) and encourage them to give to charity?

Who have I seen on those tv ads encouraging me to give more of my money away to others - is it not those two arch idelogical enemies George Herbert Walker thousand-points-of-light Bush and William Jefferson Rhodes Scholar Clinton?

Now just why is it we have to be stuck with a socialist welfare state imposed on us by the ideological upline of this oligarchy run by these people, and have our money stolen at source - and given the opportunity to shrug that yoke off our own backs can not encourage people to take up the slack for those who really need it as it was before the ideologiocal and forceful overthrow of this country over the last several decades??

[Len Budney]

Skimming posts here I think some have addressed it already; but the LP supports open borders. That is part of their platform. It is noteworthy that few "libertarians" seem to know this.

The reason few libertarians know this is that the Libertarian party has nothing to do with us. They hijacked the name. You seem to be defining libertarianism (small l) in terms of party membership. That's not so; it's a philosophy. One that the party left behind a long time ago.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm glad that we have ascended masters such as Len and LAK to guide us into all wisdom.   

[LAK]

Len,

If an LP candidate runs for the WH - and gets installed I.. I uh .. I mean elected - he or she will be a Libertarian Party candidate - not "a libertarian". The LP is a trojan horse - just more syndicated WWF contenders.

[Len Budney]

If an LP candidate runs for the WH - and gets installed I.. I uh .. I mean elected - he or she will be a Libertarian Party candidate - not "a libertarian". The LP is a trojan horse - just more syndicated WWF contenders.

I just don't know what you're on about. The LP has nothing to do with me, or most other libertarians. Nothing you say about them means anything to me. Why do you even bring them up?

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Manedwolf,

The whole "[not] free trade" corporate-government economic train is riding - directly supporting - a global socialist system with an agenda of a de facto elimination of nation states. The corporate-gov train riding this is so intimately intertwined with this political system one can not possibly say there is any difference between the two.

You can pretend to be indifferent to it, but that is what it is.

O_o

Were you told this by the eye atop the pyramid on the back of a piece of currency, perhaps?

[Euclidean]

Well and FWIW, in all fairness, you have to look at the Libertarian Party's entire platform before you bash the open border idea.  The logic behind their thinking is that if there's no free health services, they can't become citizens by being born here, etc. they will stop coming.

I don't particularly agree with that and think there's plenty of other good reasons to establish meaningful physical security on the border, but one should criticize their stance with that in mind.

I've had others tell me I'm a libertarian and I guess if the shoe fits, wear it.  Personally I abhor all political parties, as candidates should run on platforms not party tickets.  Most people have this moronically simplistic belief that Party A are the good guys, Party B are the bad guys, and anyone who chooses neither of those is a wacko.

[CAnnoneer]

Perhaps only 50% vote because at least 30-40% of the rest realized long ago what a show it really is. You either believe that it is or you don't. If they have a chance to actually vote for someone who is going to actually lead the country instead of the role acting we have seen for decades they will likely vote... Personally believe that support for Ron Paul is much higher than his most vocal supporters believe.

I don't know why they don't vote. Saying there are no alternatives is somewhat of a cop-out. There always are. For the conservatives, there was Ross Perot; for the leftists, there was Ralph Nader. Yet, at the times those ran, there was no marked increase in the general voter percentage. So, even when given alternatives, a significant portion simply don't vote.

Furthermore, refusing to vote does not accomplish anything but help maintain the status quo. If a disgruntled voter votes for a third party, the percentages tell politicians to readjust course and try to absorb those votes. But, if those votes are not cast in the first place, then you get "business as usual".

[Len Budney]

Furthermore, refusing to vote does not accomplish anything but help maintain the status quo.

The status-quo is a given. I just don't want to legitimize it by participating. After all, I'd hate for them to think I was stockpiling cannon balls at Concord just because my candidate lost and I'm a sore loser.

--Len.