Fred may be a social conservative, but he wants to handle it in a Federalist manner - let the states decide. Huckaboob is in love with ammending the Constitution for all kinds of social engineering.
Fred want to allow states to differ on social policy. I think that this the best "compromise" between the social conservatives, the libertarians and the left. If you don't like the state, pick one you do and move there. Can this be a hardship? Yes. So was coming across the Atlantic to the new world. If the local policies are onerous, leave. This allows different populations to align the community standards with local mores.
Fred is the only one (other than a no chance nut job) who wants to get the feds out of our lives.
I would vote for Gumby before I'd vote for Hillary. Thankfully, that won't be a choice I have to make.
But let me relate this little tidbit:
On the way in to work this morning I was listening to the local talk-radio station morning show. A caller said (I paraphrase) that if John McCain won, he'd pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate in order to "split the middle." When asked if that was the ticket the caller wanted to see, he answered "No, I'm far left of Lieberman." When asked who he wanted Hillary to pick as her running mate, he answered "Kucinich or Ron Paul."
I truly believe he was dead serious.
Ron Paul is right about a lot of things.
That does not mean he isn't also nutty as a fruitcake. Remember the fine line between brilliance and insanity? I'm fairly sure he tap-dances on it.
Ron Paul is the most libertarian candidate, but he's just too far "out there" sometimes for me. That and his foreign policy is completely unworkable.
Fred IS the only true conservative in this race, and he'll be getting my vote. I want to throw up everytime I hear so called "conservatives" espousing their support for Guliani, Romney, or Huckabee.
Ron Paul is not nutty at all- be makes his points with logical arguments and backs it up with history. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him nutty. I disagree with you and Fred on foreign policy, but that doesn't mean I think your nutty or crazy. I understand your points, I just disagree with them.
If Paul wasn't running, I'd PROBABLY vote for Fred, but after being fooled by Bush, I don't have much confidence that Fred wouldn't be any different. At least with Paul I know what I'm getting.
I've said before that when someone says something better than I can, I let them. So let me quote Ragin' Dave:
I've been watching Ron Paul as one might watch a possibly dangerous animal. As long as he stays off in the distance, you just keep an eye on him but don't pull out any weapons. The moment he starts to get close, you whip out the biggest gun you have and get him in your sights.
I admit that I agree with much of his philosophy. But when he starts talking about foreign relations I want to beat him about the head and shoulders with several different books, starting with Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong" and continuing with any number of tomes. He's the kind of guy you love to have for domestic representation, but you can't allow him to be within fifty feet of the Oval Office, or any other office that allows him to meddle with other countries.
I'm pretty sure I know what I'd be getting with Ron Paul as well.
Read his newsletters. "New Money" (This was the 90s, his "New Money" is the usual contents of your wallet) is thought by Ron Paul to be an insidious plot to allow the government to track every cash transaction in the US. You want to defend the logic of that?
Ron Paul has a Democrat-like grasp of history, which is to say he reimagines it to support his viewpoint. He loves to quote Jefferson in support of his isolationism, but Jefferson is the first President to deploy the US military overseas without Congressional approval. He is also the first to attempt an overthrow of a foreign government. Ron Paul likes to pretend he is returning to the Golden Age of America First. There never was and never will be such a thing. We were in China for a century (1840-1940), we occupied Haiti for ten years, and have landed in Latin America over a hundred times. Actually, not a year has gone by without American boots tramping through foreign mud. The idea that history supports Ron Paul is moronic.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/blogburst-for-fred.html (9 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Fred may be a social conservative, but he wants to handle it in a Federalist manner - let the states decide. Huckaboob is in love with ammending the Constitution for all kinds of social engineering.
Fred want to allow states to differ on social policy. I think that this the best "compromise" between the social conservatives, the libertarians and the left. If you don't like the state, pick one you do and move there. Can this be a hardship? Yes. So was coming across the Atlantic to the new world. If the local policies are onerous, leave. This allows different populations to align the community standards with local mores.
Fred is the only one (other than a no chance nut job) who wants to get the feds out of our lives.
You don't trust that Ron Paul would not create a bigger, more intrusive government? You think he might give us another Souter?
Out of curiosity, would you vote for Ron Paul if it was a choice between him and a Democrat?
You just know that if Hillary gets elected that her very first Supreme Court appointment would be Bill.
Lifetime appointment. shudder.
Will:
I would vote for Gumby before I'd vote for Hillary. Thankfully, that won't be a choice I have to make.
But let me relate this little tidbit:
On the way in to work this morning I was listening to the local talk-radio station morning show. A caller said (I paraphrase) that if John McCain won, he'd pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate in order to "split the middle." When asked if that was the ticket the caller wanted to see, he answered "No, I'm far left of Lieberman." When asked who he wanted Hillary to pick as her running mate, he answered "Kucinich or Ron Paul."
I truly believe he was dead serious.
Ron Paul is right about a lot of things.
That does not mean he isn't also nutty as a fruitcake. Remember the fine line between brilliance and insanity? I'm fairly sure he tap-dances on it.
Ron Paul is the most libertarian candidate, but he's just too far "out there" sometimes for me. That and his foreign policy is completely unworkable.
Fred IS the only true conservative in this race, and he'll be getting my vote. I want to throw up everytime I hear so called "conservatives" espousing their support for Guliani, Romney, or Huckabee.
Huckabee is a do-gooder and a Republican version of Carter - he'd be a disaster.
Ron Paul is not nutty at all- be makes his points with logical arguments and backs it up with history. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him nutty. I disagree with you and Fred on foreign policy, but that doesn't mean I think your nutty or crazy. I understand your points, I just disagree with them.
If Paul wasn't running, I'd PROBABLY vote for Fred, but after being fooled by Bush, I don't have much confidence that Fred wouldn't be any different. At least with Paul I know what I'm getting.
I've said before that when someone says something better than I can, I let them. So let me quote Ragin' Dave:
I've been watching Ron Paul as one might watch a possibly dangerous animal. As long as he stays off in the distance, you just keep an eye on him but don't pull out any weapons. The moment he starts to get close, you whip out the biggest gun you have and get him in your sights.
I admit that I agree with much of his philosophy. But when he starts talking about foreign relations I want to beat him about the head and shoulders with several different books, starting with Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong" and continuing with any number of tomes. He's the kind of guy you love to have for domestic representation, but you can't allow him to be within fifty feet of the Oval Office, or any other office that allows him to meddle with other countries.
I'm pretty sure I know what I'd be getting with Ron Paul as well.
Logical? Backed up with history?
Read his newsletters. "New Money" (This was the 90s, his "New Money" is the usual contents of your wallet) is thought by Ron Paul to be an insidious plot to allow the government to track every cash transaction in the US. You want to defend the logic of that?
Ron Paul has a Democrat-like grasp of history, which is to say he reimagines it to support his viewpoint. He loves to quote Jefferson in support of his isolationism, but Jefferson is the first President to deploy the US military overseas without Congressional approval. He is also the first to attempt an overthrow of a foreign government. Ron Paul likes to pretend he is returning to the Golden Age of America First. There never was and never will be such a thing. We were in China for a century (1840-1940), we occupied Haiti for ten years, and have landed in Latin America over a hundred times. Actually, not a year has gone by without American boots tramping through foreign mud. The idea that history supports Ron Paul is moronic.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>