Any Ron Paul supporters here in J2???

[EagerBeaver]

I'd like to know if I'm the only one here that is part of the growing Ron Paul Revolution.

I think the guy's a breath of fresh air to a Republican Party that has lost the confidence of the American people as of late. The two big things to me are his support of the FairTax (basically taxing people based on income) and his criticism of the Iraq war, while still holding to conservative moral values.

Anyone else in here thinking about voting Ron Paul in the primary?

[MacUser]

Nope, nadda here.

Best wishes though on that.

[forestwalker]

I appreciate very much his breaking with the herd and pointing out the elephants in the room. You're right that his honesty is a breath of fresh air. If he were to become a serious contender, though, I couldn't support him or any other Libertarian.

[EagerBeaver]

Why are conservatives so apprehensive about supporting Libertarian ideals? Is it because they want to shake up the government as we know it while still remaining true to conservative values? Is it because they don't support half the wastes of taxpayer money the government would like to deem as essential services? Or is it because their views can align to both conservatives and liberals alike?

Look at the shenanigans going on in Congress and the presidency now. Congress and the President are at or near all time lows when it comes to public confidence, and there is just too much bureaucracy in Washington instead of real hands-on leadership. Whether it be Paul or someone else, I would like to see someone closer to a third party bring America back a little closer to what it should be, because we all know too well Reps and Dems as we know it have become too big for their britches and can't hack it.

I think Paul has a great shot at being a contender because people are so fed up with the "leadership" we currently have in DC right now.

[paul]

Can't speak for Dr. Ron, but I ( Paul ) will take all the spuuort I can get.

[Brenda]

When I first seen the topic I thought it was about you two also.

I thought...hummm
Neat way, linking you two together for a discussion.

[MacUser]

Ron is running as a Republican as far as I know, not third party. He's battling for his different ideas to win.. as a Republican.

He's currently the third largest fundraiser I think.. but I would guess it's more single issue donations from across the isle - I could be wrong. Essentially Democrats that just can't bring themselves to vote Democrat any longer.

I just don't think he has a chance to win the Republican nomination. Again. I could be wrong. Let's see.

[DaJudge]

I agree with him on the fair tax, but that's about it. His views on defending our country against radical Islam are misguided, in my humble opinion.

[dolfan]

I think he said 9/11 was partly our fault in a debate, didn't he? That, in my view, if he said it, is inexcusable and dismisses the guy.

But, having said that, I am all for a libertarian presidency. I'm for America first. The international, interdependent economy has lifted us all, but it has sucked us all right into a giant spinning blade, too. Jobs gone to China and Mexico to produce things made to ship back to American consumers. Without American consumers, I don't know that China's ascendancy in the world economy would be what it is. Now, they're our largest creditor to boot. So, here we are, intractably attached to the Chi-coms.

Will libertarianism change that? Nope. What it would do, though, domestically is to shrink the scope of government. That's what I want to happen. Not just reduce spending, but reduce the very nature of the federal government to a bare minimum. We cannot do that without something akin to the fair tax, IMO. And, that would be only one step of many decades-long steps. The US Supreme Court's interstate commerce cases would have to be abandoned to a more pre-1937, pre-New Deal way of viewing individual liberty and government power. Now, I think that's impossible because most Americans, and almost no American jurists, even seriously examine the question whether government should actually do less than it does; almost all examination is devoted to how it does what it does, not whether it should -- or, even more elementary, whether it may --- do what it does. I do think only a libertarian president can bring that way of thinking back to the American mind, but I don't believe Ron Paul will be the guy to do it, and I don't think the American people have the love of freedom and the skeptical mistrust of government and power as being inherently corrupt sufficient to ever make the libertarian way the American way. Once upon a time, we were the land of the free AND the home of the brave, but no more. We may still be brave, but we're not free, and we don't know that we need bravery over our own government's strong hand.

[Gerald Creasy]

I ddint even know Ru Paul WAS a Republican!

[EagerBeaver]

I think he said 9/11 was partly our fault in a debate, didn't he? That, in my view, if he said it, is inexcusable and dismisses the guy.

But, having said that, I am all for a libertarian presidency. I'm for America first. The international, interdependent economy has lifted us all, but it has sucked us all right into a giant spinning blade, too. Jobs gone to China and Mexico to produce things made to ship back to American consumers. Without American consumers, I don't know that China's ascendancy in the world economy would be what it is. Now, they're our largest creditor to boot. So, here we are, intractably attached to the Chi-coms.

Will libertarianism change that? Nope. What it would do, though, domestically is to shrink the scope of government. That's what I want to happen. Not just reduce spending, but reduce the very nature of the federal government to a bare minimum. We cannot do that without something akin to the fair tax, IMO. And, that would be only one step of many decades-long steps. The US Supreme Court's interstate commerce cases would have to be abandoned to a more pre-1937, pre-New Deal way of viewing individual liberty and government power. Now, I think that's impossible because most Americans, and almost no American jurists, even seriously examine the question whether government should actually do less than it does; almost all examination is devoted to how it does what it does, not whether it should -- or, even more elementary, whether it may --- do what it does. I do think only a libertarian president can bring that way of thinking back to the American mind, but I don't believe Ron Paul will be the guy to do it, and I don't think the American people have the love of freedom and the skeptical mistrust of government and power as being inherently corrupt sufficient to ever make the libertarian way the American way. Once upon a time, we were the land of the free AND the home of the brave, but no more. We may still be brave, but we're not free, and we don't know that we need bravery over our own government's strong hand.

Good thoughts Dolfan.

I do know Ron Paul is running as a 'publican, but it is mainly to bring his libertarian viewpoint into a platform where he stands more of a chance to win.

[Pastor Gary]

Is "Libertarian Christian" an oxymoron?

Can we reconcile the conflicts between the views of libertarian politics and the teachings of Christ? Which has the highest value to us?

Libertarians believe: "There is no justification for throwing peaceful Americans in jail because of their sexual choices. Let's respect people's right to control their own bodies. Decriminalize sex, and let it be a private affair." That means no societal constraints against prostitution or sodomy laws.

Libertarians believe: "Decriminalize drugs, help those who need it, and let the police spend their time protecting us from real crime."

Libertarians believe: "People have the right to travel anywhere, and to take any job offered them, so long as they do it at their own expense and without violating the rights of others. A way to help the poor is to let them go where the work is, regardless of borders."

Libertarians believe: "People should be able to freely choose what they will watch or listen to, without Big Brother making those decisions for them." (Do you really want broadcast TV and radio with no legal constraints? Really?)

Those are just a few Libertarian beliefs that seem at odds with my own views on political and social issues that are informed and shaped by by faith.

Ron Paul says a few things that make sense, and then there are these other things...

[forestwalker]

Let me step back from this first:

If he were to become a serious contender, though, I couldn't support him or any other Libertarian.

I actually would support him over either Giuliani or Clinton (God save us from such as these) if he were to become a serious candidate. And I do very much appreciate his courage in pointing to the naked emperor. He actually is pretty inspiring: campaign video that makes me want to support him

The two big things to me are his support of the FairTax (basically taxing people based on income) and his criticism of the Iraq war...

The former I have doubts about, but he's the top of the heap from either party's candidates on the latter.

...while still holding to conservative moral values.

Moral ones only, though. On social and economic values he's fundamentally Liberal.

Why are conservatives so apprehensive about supporting Libertarian ideals? Is it because they want to shake up the government as we know it while still remaining true to conservative values? Is it because they don't support half the wastes of taxpayer money the government would like to deem as essential services? Or is it because their views can align to both conservatives and liberals alike?

Big-picture, I'd say there are two factors at play: (1) in the context of the GOP, "libertarian" really means corporate business interests (rather than actual libertarian ideals) which is recognized as a competitor with social conservatism (and a competitor with opposing aims) for the reins of power with which to direct the party's action; (2) in terms of actual ideology, conservatives who dig down to that level recognize that there is nothing at all conservative about Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is attractive, though. Especially to people who have become disillusioned of the goodness of either of our partisan factions. Both of our political factions are fundamentally Liberal in their philosophies but try to cover the disastrous consequences of their agendas with self-righteous window dressing: curtains of economic compassion in the case of the D's and curtains of personal morality for the R's. Unfortunately, the fundamental philosophical assumptions of Libertarianism are essentially the same, only more so and without apology (see Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman).

But their marketing is good. As a result we have a statement made that condemns and contradicts the political assumptions/program of both parties...

I am all for a libertarian presidency. I'm for America first. The international, interdependent economy has lifted us all, but it has sucked us all right into a giant spinning blade, too. Jobs gone to China and Mexico to produce things made to ship back to American consumers. Without American consumers, I don't know that China's ascendancy in the world economy would be what it is. Now, they're our largest creditor to boot. So, here we are, intractably attached to the Chi-coms.

...but calls on us to combat these bad results by turning to the philosophy that spawned them. Libertarianism markets itself as The Alternative and has been very successful in convincing people who should rightly be called Subsidiarists, Populists, Conservatives, and/or Traditionalists into thinking they're Libertarians. But they ain't.

Is "Libertarian Christian" an oxymoron?

Can we reconcile the conflicts between the views of libertarian politics and the teachings of Christ? Which has the highest value to us?

If the question is about the policy positions of libertarians that you listed, then no, "Libertarian Christian" is not necessarily an oxymoron. The fundamental undergirdings of the philosophy, though, are deeply un-Christian.

[Full Quiver]

I've just got a second and I am not on the Ron Paul bandwagon but in light of what I have heard here and on the radio I must ask a few things.
Aren't Mayor Rudy's thoughts on marriage pretty Libertarian? How about abortion; kinda democratic looking. How about Huckaby's position on illegal immigration? How conservative is that or he? Romney was pro-abortion now pro-life but we can let him slide but God forbid a democrat waffle on the issues. McCain, plz?

At what point do you say I'll choose this guy for all his good and let him slide on his bad but all the while disregard all the good that Ron Paul offers just because we feel like he will not fight terror or might legalize prostitution?
There are 3 branches of government you know. Let the Prez be the CEO and let the Congress pass the laws. We don't want judges legislating from the bench yet we think the Prez has the power to legislate from the OVAL.

[DeWayneTN]

FQ, if you want to point out the faults of the major Repub. candidates, you'll get no argument from me. I have not found a perfect candidate. I admit I do have an agenda and will vote for the one who will advance it the best.