Slight diversion into politics…why is Ron Paul getting blog hype?
A friend of mine who is famous on the Internet, er, Chris Pirillo, just asked me to support Ron Paul. He’s not the only one. I’ve been hearing a lot of hype about Ron Paul. So, I went to Ron Paul’s Web site and looked at his issues stances to see if I could get why Ron is getting so much hype from some bloggers and see if Ron is really someone who deserves my support (so far I’ve been a bit partial to John Edwards cause I’ve heard him speak several times and think he’s the best of the field so far — at Microsoft I met Hillary Clinton too and she’s really smart too).
I don’t get Ron Paul’s hype. His issues page is devoid of substance on issues that really effect most of us. He focuses on the divisive issues of immigration and abortion (great “wedge” issues) but doesn’t say a single word about the issues that are already driving the presidential campaign: our war strategy, our energy/global warming strategy, our health care strategy, etc. Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.
He has Pirillo all excited because he comes out tough on fiscal policy. The problem is this policy will NEVER get enacted due to political realities in this country. I remember back when I was a conservative Christian that I bought into this kind of belief system (lots of people believe that you should run a more libertarian-focused fiscal policy and Ron Paul lays that out very well). It’s a nice theory, but getting it enacted is really tough (impossible) and right now our country is in a total fiscal mess because of the war spending that we’ve done (which makes cutting back spending even more impossible than usual). Reduce taxes in the next eight years? If you believe that’s possible you’re smoking some good dope — yet politicans like Ron Paul will tell you that’s what we should do because they know at least 5% of us will bite on that (and usually more, I saw Ronald Reagan use that to great effect). That’d be like Maryam telling me “hey, we should reduce the amount of money we send in for our mortgage every month.” Not gonna happen but we keep believing that’s possible in politics over, and over, and over. And we get idiots as leaders as a result.
Let’s compare Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton’s page (she’s largely seen as the front runner on the Democratic side). Her issues page is more detailed and speaks directly to our #1 issue: ending the war. Ron Paul doesn’t say anything about what he’d specifically do if he were President on this issue on his page (he might have said something somewhere else, but I’m looking at his issues page, which is where he SHOULD say what he’s going to do as President). Yet he talks about abortion which really doesn’t affect most of us the way this damn war does or the way that our energy policy does (I’ve never had an abortion, but my gas prices keep going up).
Barack Obama takes that issue on head on too as does John Edwards. In fact, all three Democratic candidates are doing a MUCH better job on their Web sites and on social media sites than Ron Paul is.
So why, again, is Ron Paul getting support from bloggers? I don’t get it. This guy doesn’t even deserve to be hyped up if he isn’t going to take a stance on the tough issues of the day. Immigration and abortion and fiscal conservatism are NOT the big issues facing us.
What about his stance on Global Warming? He doesn’t have a single word about it on his issue page. What about rebuilding Louisiana? Not a single word. Fixing the health care system? Not a single word. I believe all three of the Democratic candidates believe we’ll need to nationalize health care. That’ll cost money. Yet Ron Paul wants to pull more money out of government and “give back to the people.” I’ve heard this line before. It doesn’t work.
But, then, this is the world that brought us Paris Hilton and George Bush, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when bloggers hype up someone who isn’t willing to talk about the REAL issues of the day.
Count me out.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:01 am
The Ron Paul group is super popular on my social networking site that I run off the cable modem in our office, namely SiteSpaces.net. The reason I will NEVER feature Ron Paul’s group no matter how much people like it, is because aside from disliking GW Bush which is pretty much accepted along 95% of the world’s population including republicans, you should not take political sides as a neutral website or blog. Unless you have a political website or blog, which you don’t. Ron Paul group will never be featured on the home page. It’s just another reason for people to not visit the website or blog.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Chris: yup, I agree. And I’m probably pissing off half of my audience with this post. (Actually probably more, because a good percentage of you don’t live in the USA).
That’s OK. If we aren’t willing to talk about these issues we won’t get better leadership.
I’m tired of crappy leadership.
I want someone smart who is going to solve the tough issues.
So, I’m wanting to know what politician is going to:
1. Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy into a hole (Chris Pirillo should travel to Europe — then he’d see just how weak the dollar has gotten).
2. Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).
3. Make significant steps to reduce global warming causes. That means stopping building new coal plans and investing in cleaner energy. I believe that means nuclear, but we need to be investing in ANYTHING but more coal and oil burning plans.
4. Fix our health care system. Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. Or some other way of controlling cost growth needs to be implemented.
5. Our infrastructure needs rebuilding, especially in the South which is still devastated by Katrina. Our National Guard is very weak cause we’ve moved a ton of equipment and troops to Iraq. If there’s a few more disasters at home we’re going to see severe suffering at home.
6. We need to watch our telecom industry and make sure they don’t get out of control. Network Neutrality is a big piece of this. There’s a whole raft of issues that are going to really need to be looked at by those of us in the tech industry. If we ignore these issues we’ll get things like much higher fees on music which just got upheld.
7. We need rational changes to domestic partner rights. I know this issue pisses off a lot of people, but it’s time to get some equality here.
8. We need rational changes to immigration policies. Did anyone miss that Microsoft is opening an office in Vancouver just to deal with our stupid immigration policies? Heck, we couldn’t hire Stanford’s #1 student because of our immigration policy. What did she do? She moved to England and is going to work for Google there. That’s really stupid. Let’s not let in the world’s best and brightest anymore. Heck, and let’s not let in the people who’ll do the real hard work we don’t want to do, too (I watch the Mexicans work in the fields — I sure don’t want to do that kind of work, do you?)
9. We need dramatic educational system reform here. China is kicking out much better prepared kids for the new world than we are. My son is 13 and I see how much the schools absolutely suck. Mostly cause we don’t want to pay teachers a real wage and we don’t want to hold them accountable for the results of their work the way most of us are held accountable.
Ron Paul doesn’t talk about any of these issues. Instead he blabbers on about constitutional issues and “return taxes to the voters” schemes that sound like tired old Ronald Reagan stump speeches to me.
Sigh.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:28 am
I think part of it is this “Libertarian” mystique he has going on around him. People here libertarian, and especially fiscally, get all excited… They end up treating him like the type of candiate he isn’t - which is to say, a legitimate one. Libtertarianism in a developed country is a joke. It could be allowed on the social level, but not the fiscal - we, unfortunately, need government to do certain things and pretending like it’ll get done some other way is a joke. It’s the exact same thing as communism - it looks great on paper, as long as you don’t let that pesky reality/human nature thing get involved.
But, I know quite a few people who just get weak in the knees about this guy. Smart, educated people. Absolutely astounds me. Admitedly, none of the candiates do much for me (though, I tend to like Edwards a lot - he just doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of steam.) But Paul’s an idealogue, and honestly - after Bush, you’d think we’d be done with idealogues for a while.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:44 am
For a comprehensive look at his positions, check out http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ that includes speeches that he’s delivered in the House. The one thing Paul oould do as President that he couldn’t do in the house is 1. Veto unconstitutional bills.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Robert, Glad you brought this up. It’s been puzzling me, too. Pirillo seems to have latched on to the Ron Paul “abolish the Fed” tirade as the supreme issue of our time. Compared to your rational and pragmatic listing of real issues that have palpable and traceable impact on our safety, health, economy, and well-being, the Paul campaign is a combination of ideology, wege issues and mumbo jumbo about unprovable, unpassable abstractions. Ron Paul is running a reality distortion engine that might rival Steve Jobs… Except that Jobs actually ships.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:56 am
None of those democrats will end WAR. They may “redeploy” the troops from Iraq to … Iran? … but they will not end War anymore than they ever did. That’s a fact. Ron Paul is, therefore, the only credible choice on the most critical issue of our time. Congress is spineless and refuses to do it - in my mind, grounds for hanging the lot of them, the traitors - and thus it’s up to the executive. That’s where Ron Paul comes in.
And have you heard any of the gibberish that comes out of the democratic camp? Socialized health care, more spending all over the place, increasing taxes on the rich to pay for it … you know, the rich can afford to LEAVE this country and go somewhere where the taxes are cheaper, like Germany/France/the Scandinavian countries.
So I ask, how will they pay for this stuff? I will tell you how: they’ll print money. That’s called inflation. The Fed will lie about it, call it “tame” so long as we exclude fuel and food (and probably, I’d imagine, water sooner or later), and we’ll just keep puttering along. But a collapse will happen, because it always does. And when our banking system collapses, it’s going to be a giant immigration problem for CANADA, you just wait. Maybe Mexico, too, if by that time they have their act together a little more.
You say “Ron Paul doesn’t talk about any of these issues” and I just have to laugh, because he’s the only one out there who actually talks, and I mean not just giving some vapid rhetoric that means nothing, about ALL of those issues. ALL OF THEM. Every single one.
I hope you will do some further investigation. There are two parties in this country, the War Party and the Peace Party. Please be sure about which one you are supporting with your choice of candidate. I submit to you that there is, in fact, a right and wrong (morally speaking) answer to that question. Choose wisely.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:23 am
“Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.”
I must apologize for Ron Paul’s website. I know his stance on the issues you said his web page fails to mention. At first I was shocked at your statement and was so enraged by what I thought was your bias sophomoric slash at Paul I was tempted to write a “grow up” response. Instead I counted to ten and when to his home page and guess what? Damn, he states his views as if you already have an idea what “his” are.
For those who haven’t seem him on Youtube and such, I can see how his home page can be somewhat lacking. I would suggest to you to keep watching the man. He has stated his opinion on the war on national tv and many other places. He’s an medical doctor and certainly has a stance on health care.
Good luck,
Allan
July 14th, 2007 at 5:35 am
It is ok not to like Ron Paul, but don’t pretend to have looked into the issues in a thoughtful, considered, way, and just not ‘get it’.
If you went to the issues page and found it lacking, I suggest you review a few YouTube videos, and, in particular, the video of yesterday’s Google Q+A where all of the issues you raise were addressed in detail.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:50 am
let me nudge you in the right direction about where he stands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
If you still feel the same way after reviewing these, you have earned my respect.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:50 am
“1. Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy into a hole (Chris Pirillo should travel to Europe — then he’d see just how weak the dollar has gotten).”
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=USD&to=CAD&submit=Convert
Our money here in Canada is slated to be worth more than American money in the next few months.
You can blame some of that on Bush and the softwood lumber issue that has plagued us for years.
And blame outsourcing to China and India as well as trade inbalances too.
“8. We need rational changes to immigration policies. Did anyone miss that Microsoft is opening an office in Vancouver just to deal with our stupid immigration policies? Heck, we couldn’t hire Stanford’s #1 student because of our immigration policy. What did she do? She moved to England and is going to work for Google there. That’s really stupid.”
That’s bologna. Microsoft has offices in the UK as well. Come to grips with the fact that she didn’t want to work for Microsoft. Microsoft and Google have offices all over the world where they can hire people locally.
The reason people use our company is because they can’t afford the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to set up shop locally in 40 different countries worldwide. That is not the case with Microsoft or Google.
I feel Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have done a terrible disservice to America by setting up major outsourcing operations overseas in order to cut benefits and costs. They got their opportunity from MITS in New Mexico. They got their DOS IBM contract in the US, and then they sold out their own country just because every other major tech firm did it.
As for changes to immigration, how about this change:
Instead of spending millions outsourcing to 3rd world nations, pour the money into the educational system in the US and Canada to insure that some day in the near future Indians aren’t all in management while AMERICANS are flipping cheeseburgers for them.
I think Ballmer and Gates forgot where they came from.
“9. We need dramatic educational system reform here.”
How about the Gates foundation NOT donating Microsoft software as full cost tax deductions to schools and rather donate money or equipment based on need.
What if Microsoft put aside their tax write offs and donated Linux machines to school or money for Apple Macs?
Or money for non-IT related stuff that will never benefit Microsoft in the future.
The problem with privatized donations is that private industry donates with an ulterior motive and it ends up hurting as much as it helps.
Those kids in Russia that now HAVE to use Linux because of the new govt policy there will end up being much smarter than their American counterparts that got donations from the Gates foundation for computers at their schools.
Stop treating everything like a business deal and we won’t need to outsource overseas anymore.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:01 am
The one issue mentioned here that is most in need of attention is education. It is obvious that most people are woefully ignorant of economics; otherwise, most of the above ideas would not have been suggested. Socialism is NOT the answer. You are right about Ron Paul. Regardless of how great some people think his ideas are, they would not be enacted in the current political climate. I keep trying to point that out to his many supporters on Digg.
For a good introduction to economics see “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Robert, so now you’re a Buddhist Liberal?? JUST KIDDING!
I think you’re right. And another point after you have traveled in Europe (as have I) is that the dollar is being artificially held stronger than it should, which means it should be truly killer in Europe.
Chris, there are two minds out there about politics and blogs. If you are an A-lister, you’re probably right. You could blog, but it needs to be a separate blog. But if you’re not an A-lister, say Rand Simberg of http://www.transterrestrial.com/, that’s probably a different thing. I read Rand for his space insight, but boy do I have to suffer through his political stuff. And he’s OK with mixing the two. And yes, I’ve thought about transferring him from my Space folder to my Politics folder in Bloglines many a time.
And then there’s me at the end of tail. I rant about whatever, the cats, the car, the computer, and the idiots that I see out there. I wanted to be a tech blog, but I seem to be coming across more as a political blog. Shrug.
I know that the Fed has been out of control since the inflation driven 70’s, when it was obvious to my teenaged mind that the high rates back then were inflationary in themselves. But that’s not an issue I’m paying any attention to myself. The war, the budget and health care are my big buttons right now. And I’ve only been blogging about the war, so you figure it out.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:40 am
You cannot possibly find another candidate who is more forthright in explaining his position on the issues than Ron Paul. And what kind of logic is it to say, “Well, he may have good ideas, but they won’t be enacted, so I won’t vote for him.” Is it better to support a candidate with bad ideas that have a good chance of being enacted?
Do a little more research on Ron and you will find the answers to your questions.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Ok, I’ll bite. Ron Paul’s position on healthcare, as he has repeatedly stated, is that it is none of the federal government’s business. I could wander off into the theory behind capitalistic healthcare, but I doubt it’d get a good reception here. Suffice to say that plastic surgery, not covered by insurance, gets cheaper while those things under our rediculously over-regulated system get more expensive.
And, that theme continues. Education? Not a Federal issue. War on drugs? Ditto. Welfare? Double ditto. The list goes on.
As for the war in Iraq, both Clinton and Edwards voted for it while Paul voted against it. He has always maintained it is an illegal war and the troops should come home as soon as possible. Oh, and he also believes we need to quit meddling everywhere. If you believe Clinton isn’t going to start a fracas with some poor third world nation at some point, you’re naive.
Now, eliminate every department not found in the constitution, eliminated all forward deployed us bases. and phase out entitlements, and the federal budget fits in 700 billion or so, meaning, with a slight increase in excise, you can eliminate the income tax altogether.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Robert, what should concern you most is that Ron Paul is a racist. He is an unreconstructed Southerner who wants to repeal all civil rights laws and return to the good ole days of Jim Crow and, blacks, browns and women knowing their places. According to Paul, civil rights laws caused problems instead of making American society more equitable.
His behavior is no secret to those of us who have been interested in the far Right for years, a bit more than former Virginia senator George Allen’s was. We became aware of Paul as a leader of the John Birch Society. However, some so-called liberals and progressives have indeed embraced him. When Paul’s blatantly misanthropic beliefs are brought up, his most ardent ‘Left’ supporters are dismissive as if having a racist in the White House wouldn’t matter as long as he supported some pet issue of theirs and opposed the war in Iraq.
You really need to read Paul’s own words for yourself.
He most recently declared the public accommodations act of 1964, which made racial discrimination in most public places illegal and affirmed the right of non-white Americans to vote, unconstitutional in this statement to Congress:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.ht...
Some years ago, Paul flew into a frenzy during the Los Angelos riots, leaving no doubt about his virulent hatred of African-Americans in an article he wrote in his newsletter:
groups.google.com/group/soc.culture…
Paul’s source for his statistics (which are false, of course) is Jared Taylor, a leading white supremacist who runs the American Renaissance website. They are acquaintances, perhaps friends. Other racist organizations, including the Council of Conservative Citizens, Ku Klux Klan chapters and Sons of Confederate Veterans support Paul. He is a favorite at the Stormfront neo-Nazi site.
http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/06/01/ron-pauls-racist-supporters/
Paul is also anti-Semitic, anti-gay and opposed to most immigration, unless the immigrants are from Western European countries. He, is, unfortunately, what most Americans of his background were. . .in 1950.
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/views/0024-views.html
Your observation that Paul’s public answers to questions consists of banalities is accurate. But, considering what he really believes, it behooves him to hide the truth.
Robert, I would love to add more links, but have an erratic Wi-Fi signal. So, I am going to ask that you take a couple hours and do your own Internet research on Ron Paul and social justice issues. Informing the tech community about the REAL Ron Paul could be the most important blogging you do this year.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Fixed link:
http://tinyurl.com/28549w
This is the most telling of Ron Paul’s remarks.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:13 am
[...] winning coffee, and sat down behind my computer to check out the latest news, when I came across this post by Robert Scoble. Scoble doesn’t seem to understand all the hype US presidential candidate Ron Paul is [...]
July 14th, 2007 at 7:14 am
All Ron Paul has is some tech-savvy supporters who know how to spam online polls. He has not, and will not crack 1% in any offline poll or any primary. His foreign policy stands and unwillingness to denounce 9/11 conspiracy theorists and North American Union conspiracy theorists out of hand makes him untenable to the party whose nomination he’s seeking. His domestic policy makes him untenable to Democrats. And the vast majority of ‘libertarian moderates’ aren’t really principled libertarians; they have issues where they don’t want the government involved, and issues where they do, and if those don’t line up perfectly with the GOP or the Democrats, they still end up pretty strongly identified with one party or another, so he’s not going to get support there. And he doesn’t have the kind of engaging personality to attract people purely on that basis.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:25 am
You must be blind. Ron Paul’s whole controversy is that he IS the only R anti-war candidate!
Did you not see the debates? My God how uninformed can a blogger be?
July 14th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Ron Paul is the best! :-)
July 14th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Here are my thoughts on this:
http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/2007/07/14/ron-paul-the-usas-only-hope/
July 14th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I agree with you Karel and I’ll add this, (not the most popular Ron Paul youtube vids, but I like this series as in my opinion it shows Mr Paul to be total opposite to a Kook, Fringe, racist, anti-semitic etc etc etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hly2ynJy5rc
July 14th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Robert, I found this post more interesting than the iPhone slide that you had gotten yourself into. As someone from England, it is interesting to see a snapshot of peoples thoughts on politics and what is happening in their country, without going down the normal well tread focused channels that the media spoon feed us.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:18 am
….and here is part 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxX85RCeVOE
July 14th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Seems we have more of a dynasty form of govt. than democracy. We had the Kennedys, the Bushs, and now the Clintons. Of course G.W. totally hosed the Bush dynasty and his poor brother Jeb probably cries himself to sleep every night knowing it’s the end.
God I hate politics/politicians. All we get are politicians, we need some statesmen for a change.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Uh-oh. Once the Paul-Bots get word of this you’re probably going to be inundated. Just warning you…
July 14th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Ron Paul is not a racist and pretending that there are any issues more important than the individual’s right to be free of morons with lists of issues for him to pay for is failing to get the point. Liberty is the first and last issue. If you can’t get it done voluntarily, it shouldn’t be done.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Edwards is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is a private thinktank started by John Rockefeller, an extremely powerful global elitist. These people are for One World Government, the North American Union (which will merge Canada, Mexico and the USA into one territory under a new constitution), the Amero currency, the destruction of the middle class, world depopulation, and the list goes on and on and on.
Thanks for reading.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Hey, if you don’t like his “page,” maybe you’ll like his “library.”
Dr. Paul is not reticent on any of the issues. Methinks you just need to try a little harder.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
July 14th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Count me in as one of the people who do not understand why otherwise sensible folks think Ron Paul is the second coming. Just because someone is anti-war and anti-drug laws does not make his a good candidate.
The left-leaning poliblog Orcinus has a couple of good articles debunking Ron Paul’s street cred:
here
and here
July 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Ron Paul is against Jim Crow laws.
What are the key issues? War(s), constitutional crisis, global worker competition, and the potential economic crash. Paul addresses those.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Pirillo has bought into some really fringe ideas lately. He has been linking to a lot of conspiracy video’s about the money supply and bankers, et al. He has been on a UFO tear as well. Seems he is mining the murky depths of the internet to find this stuff..not sure if he is link baiting or really believes this drivel. His readers deserve better. Nice job calling bullshit on the Ron Paul hype…I’d love to elect Santa Clause myself but something tells me it ain’t gonna happen.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Most of us who are Ron Paul supporters ended up becoming a supporter as result of his videos on YouTube and from various television, radio, and in-person speaking engagements. These videos address most of the concerns that you have about the candidate.
You are, however, very right in that Ron Paul’s web site is devoid of real coverage on the issues. But do decide for or against a candidate based solely on a single web site seems disingenuous to me.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Ron Paul on Iraq. He’s got a position. Just not on his campaign site.
Mysterious. Ron Paul has, probably, the most extreme anti-war stance of anyone serving in Congress. (See this recent speech.) He voted against authorizing the war, against every supplemental appropriations bill. He wants to end the war. And he wants a complete withdrawal from the region. And yet his campaign site is silent about this. To me that’s a yellow flag. It’s a thing that makes you go “hmm.” His long record is one of appeal to a fringe of radical isolationists. But he’s keeping that just a little bit out of sight (and off of site) for his new found web friends. He’s not ducking it or flip-flopping. He’s being consistent. But it’s odd that, having a radical position on the dominant issue of our time (the Iraq war), he is focusing on the evil Fed. Maybe a Paulist can explain that to us.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:21 am
So what you’re saying Soble is, support should be based on their websites? WTF is that?
If that’s the case my support would have to go to Shaun Inman….
July 14th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Chris #10: I was talking about PodTech there losing an employee to Google, not Microsoft.
To everyone else: the more videos I watch of this guy, the more I understand why the media is ignoring him. But if he floats your boat, go for it. As I told Chris he’s making the process more interesting to watch, even if he won’t have a real impact in the end.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:34 am
To everyone who is mad at me for not doing more homework. Keep in mind most people won’t do research. I did a Google search, found the dude’s Web site, and looked at his issues page.
If he can’t even build a decent Web site that links to ALL of his issues, why should we expect he’ll do a good job of running the country?
July 14th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Hey Robert, you seem to be very passionate about all this, you should add the U.S. Politics application on Facebook to share who you support etc… seems pretty neat:
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2359935501&b
July 14th, 2007 at 9:56 am
“It’s a nice theory, but getting it enacted is really tough”
So you agree with Ron Paul but think it’s too “tough”. I will never understand people that want their government to do everything for them and your comments in post #2 really explain that stance. In almost every case you stated how the government needs to do this or that and control something.
Your under the delusion that more government action in our systems is going to help the system when the reason the system is screwed up in the first place is because the government got involved. The purpose of our government as our founders saw it was to protect our civil liberties, not dictate them.
Just look at your paycheck and see how much comes out for taxes and now imagine that there was no income tax at all in the early 1900’s. After the Federal Reserve Act the government had to tax the people to pay for all the bonds from the Federal Reserve - a private bank. Every time another dollar is printed it decreases the value of our money through inflation. This is called the inflation tax and it mostly affects the poor because they have less money which is decreasing in value. Eventually America will be turned into a socialist/communist country where government runs everything and the sad thing is that many people think that would be fine because they don’t see the danger.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am
@2 It’s no surprise you fall into the same category as every other liberal that thinks the Federal govt should be your Mommy.
1 “Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy”
You want out of the war for purely economic reasons? Brilliant! Look, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, would love nothing more than to end this thing. It seems every Dem’s plan is simply to “bring the troops home” without any rational, well thought out plan about HOW to go about that that ensures what we leave behind is stable and ensuring they’ve considered all the potential consequences”
@2 “Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).”
That’s great 70’s thinking there. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for chiming in. Show me where, in the Constituion, the Fed Govt has the authority to dictate to private business what they should do. Now, I no liberals like to ignore the Constitution, but it is relevant when talking about what “the govt should do”. I’m all for reducing dependence on foreign oil. Are you for more domestic exploration?
@3 “Global warming, bla bla bla”
Again, not the responsibility of the Fed Govt. Moreover, it’s yet to be definitively proven this is a problem. Science by consensus is not science. So, don’t give me the “everyone agrees” proof.
@4 “Fix our health care system. Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. Or some other way of controlling cost growth needs to be implemented.”
Show me where this is the responsibility of the Fed Govt. Like PJ O’Rourke said: If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it’s free” Also, please provide ANY documented incident when ANYONE is this country was denied critical healthcare. (anecdotal evidence will not be accepted). You do not have a RIGHT to health care. So, why do you think I should be using MY MONEY to pay for YOUR health care?
@5 “Our infrastructure needs rebuilding, especially in the South which is still devastated by Katrina. Our National Guard is very weak cause we’ve moved a ton of equipment and troops to Iraq. If there’s a few more disasters at home we’re going to see severe suffering at home.”
What infrastucture? What does the National Guard have to do with building infrastucture? You seem to be raising two separate issues here. Also, you’ve described a state issue. Take it up with the Governor. You do understand that we are a nation made up of States, right?
@6 When did we have a nationalized, Govt controlled telecom system? I must have missed when that bill was passed. Not a fan of the free market, huh?
@7 Show me where in the Constitution that this is the responsibility of the fed govt. There is equality on this issue. Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. No one is ever denied that. There is no federal marriage law, so good luck with that. This, again, is a State issue. Take it up with Arnie.
@8 Well if Stanford’s #1 student wanted to come to work at PodTech, I have to wonder about the quality of student they are turning out. We have an immigration policy. It’s just not being enforced. Let’s try enforcing the laws we currently have first. The problem is not immigration policy change. The problem is people are here illegally and we are too afraid to do what we need to do to address it. Giving them amnesty is not the answer.
9. “education reform..bla bla bla”. Again, show me in the Constitution where this is the responsibility of the Fed Govt. You’ve again raised a State issue that you need to take up with Arnie.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Cade: we don’t live in an 1900 world. Back then hardly anyone went to college. There were very few roads. Our government hadn’t yet helped build the Internet. Very few people had telephones. And on and on.
I don’t want to live in the way the world was 100 years ago. I want to live in today and go forward.
One thing you don’t get about politics is that it REQUIRES compromise. That’s why our founding fathers setup an adversarial system of checks and balances. To make sure that no one idiot would totally be able to mess things up. That system works pretty well.
This guy will never get anything done because most other people in the world simply don’t agree with him. Me included.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:01 am
@28 “These people are for One World Government, the North American Union (which will merge Canada, Mexico and the USA into one territory under a new constitution”
Ah, so THAT’s what he’s talking about when he says there are “two Americas”?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I thought it was a joke.
amm
July 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am
@41 1900’s WTF? It the free market that solved those issues, not the Fed Govt. Yes, the founding fathers set up checks and balances, but the overarching theme of the Constitution was LIMITED GOVERNMENT. You’ve HAVE read the Constitution, have you not? If so then this should sound familiar to you:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So, as your assignment, show me where the Constitution has granted the Fed Govt the authority to do the things you say “our govt” should be doing. I’ll give you a hint: it’s NOT “promote the general welfare”. Read Federalist Paper #45 as a background.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:30 am
“I shouldn’t be surprised when bloggers hype up someone who isn’t willing to talk about the REAL issues of the day.”
It’s also interesting that you should say this, since Ron Paul is the only candidate that I have seen who will take questions directly from the audience without a moderator to censor them. Have the other candidates done this?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:31 am
“His issues page is devoid of substance on issues that really effect most of us. He focuses on the divisive issues of immigration and abortion (great “wedge” issues) but doesn’t say a single word about the issues that are already driving the presidential campaign: our war strategy, our energy/global warming strategy, our health care strategy, etc. Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.”
Excuse me?
The top three issues on his issues page are Debt and Taxes, American Independence and War and Foreign Policy.
It would appear as if you are being dishonest or didn’t really read the page.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Titus: yes. John Edwards did over and over and over. I even have video of him doing it with groups of other bloggers.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:32 am
And I saw Hilary Clinton do it at Microsoft too. My friends say Obama loves doing this as well.
Anyone who works in politics today must be able to take questions and answer them off the cuff.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:39 am
“And yet his campaign site is silent about this. To me that’s a yellow flag.”
This is absolutely false. This is c/p directly from his campaign site linked above:
“The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.”
July 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Rick (#46): now go back and read that page again. Does he explain how he’s going to get us out of the war? No. Does he detail what he thinks will happen when he does that? No. Does he explain how his plan is different than anyone else’s plan? No. In fact there’s not a single word on his Web page about his plan for getting us out of the war, just a bunch of hooey about how we were wrong to get into it in the first place. Congratulations, there’s lots of us who’ve figured THAT out. Now, how about some specifics on the issues? On his campaign Web site?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“Rick (#46): now go back and read that page again. Does he explain how he’s going to get us out of the war? No. Does he detail what he thinks will happen when he does that?”
Do John Edwards or Hillary Clinton even say they would get us out of the war? No. They do not. And they both voted *for* the war.
Only Ron Paul voted against the war. You misrepresented Ron Paul’s issues page. Furthermore, the RP site directs you to several videos which will provide more detail. Things he’s said in front of a national audience several times at the GOP debates.
He would bring the troops home immediately and as President and CIC, he would have that power.
Your aversion to RP is irrational. Paul has a 20 year record in Congress from which he’s never wavered. There are over 700 speeches at the Ron Paul library which would give you all of the detail you could desire. And as has been pointed out, your claims that RP’s issues page doesn’t cover the issues is simply not true. It may not go into as much detail as you’d like, but there are other resources and they are linked directly from his campaign site.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Yes, John Edwards explains in detail how he’d get us out. He told me that personally and his issues page has a LOT more detail than Ron Paul’s does.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Rick has a good point. Ron Paul voted against the war from the beginning. If Congress wanted to go to war, he urged them to do it constitutionally through a formal Declaration of War, which didn’t happen. It’s rather convenient to say that Hillary and Edwards will get us out of the war when they are the ones, in part, that put us there in the first place.
With that said, I think that it’s important to not only look at what these candidates say they will do in the future, but also carefully examine what they have actually accomplished and done in the past. And whether you agree with Ron Paul’s position or not, one thing you can say with certainty is that he is the candidate with the most consistent, unwavering positions on all issues.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I agree with you Robert. I don’t get the hype about Ron Paul. Every time I try to read up on him or watch video clips of him, nothing makes me jump out and say ‘That’s it! I will vote for him!’
July 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am
“Yes, John Edwards explains in detail how he’d get us out.”
Edwards voted to send the troops there. Ron Paul didn’t. Hillary voted to send the troops. Hillary and Obama would not bring the troops home.
Edwards says we should end the war but at the same time says: “he president has vetoed funding for the troops, and he’s the only one responsible for blocking the resources they need.”
This is one of the most dishonest tactics I’ve seen. That’s from his web site.
So is this:
“Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq and the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within about a year. We must also lead on the great challenges like ending the genocide in Darfur and the conflict in Uganda and fighting global poverty and diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.
”
So, as you can see, John Edwards has no problem sending our troops around the world. He just opposes Iraq for political reasons rather than over principle. Edwards is for continuing the empire and foreign meddling. A totally hypocritical stance.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Whenever someone uses the word Libertarian, I feel really funny. Some Libertarians may not agree to what I am saying. But most of their fiscal policies are based on the assumption of free mind, which is not a scientific concept (the concept of free mind is no different from the concept of god). Even their claims that individual can make a rational decisions on their own has been debunked by neuroscience. Clearly, Libertarian ideas are junk. They are just holding on to two papers by two scientists (one tries to model free mind with quantum mechanics and other talks about the chance to stop any action few microseconds before motor action takes place. People who know science understand that you don’t need a quantum model to model the libertarian concept of free mind and the other result becomes redundant when neuroscience established that deformity in frontal lobe makes the person incapable of rational decisions. Also, none of the experiments so far has established anything even closer to what Libertarians are claiming). Under such a scenario, the fiscal ideas of Libertarians will not take us anywhere. Market forces might help level the economic inequality (even this can be disputed looking at today’s scenario where there is a vast difference between rich and poor) but market forces alone will never fix the social inequalities. You need a strong govt. intervention along with market forces to fix the social inequality. If Libertarian fiscal policies were in place, Google would have never made Microsoft run for every penny. I don’t like Ron Paul because I am pretty convinced that Libertarian approach is not a sensible approach. Ron Paul may be a good man but his policies will never fix the problems facing the society and the Libertarian belief system is no different from a religious belief system (relying on supernatural stuff like free mind and god). I also don’t agree with the arguments of certain libertarians who say that they don’t subscribe to free mind idea. If you go and check out their philosophy, it can be reduced to the necessity of free mind at some point or another. So Robet, I commend you for taking an approach that is much more sensible than the RP approach.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I also want to add that Libertarian concepts are very good if the playing field is level throughout the world. This is an ideal case scenario which will never happen. As long as inequality is present in one form or another, Libertarian concepts will only help people who are socially advantaged. As you said, it is a good idea but it is impossible to implement in the current day scenario.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Robert, if you want to see a candidate that has done an excellent job spreading his name and his views over the internet you should check out Mitt Romney (http://www.mittromney.com). In my view, he has used the internet masterfully. You may not agree with him on the issues, but you have to admire what he’s accomplished.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Do you seriously expect a Libertarian to answer these questions? No way. If you just take a look at Libertarians, you will see most of them are people who are in a better place economically and socially. Their idea is to consolidate their social and economic positions rather than bringing social equality in the society. Under such a scenario, I would be surprised if Ron Paul answers these questions directly. If he has to give a sensible answer to these questions, he has to go against his idea of tax reduction. He will never answer these questions.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
There is a very simple reason why he doesn’t highlight issues like global warming, health care, or energy independence prominently on his website.
Republican primary voters don’t vote on those issues.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
And you want Edwards? What has he ever led? He approaches the public arena as an open checkbook to fund his lifestyle.
As for looking for the federal government to address educational issues, refer to the US Constitution. Education is not held to be a federal responsibility, therefore, it passes to the state. Read San Antonio v. Rodriguez where the Court held that education is not a fundamental right. Squandering billions on a federal DOE is just one of the things a leader should put an end to.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
If you really want to know what Ron Paul thinks about anything, go read anything he has written in the past 20 years. He has not wavered once, and history has proven him to be correct time and time again.
But you are right if you are contending that he does not support any type of big government programs.
He believes those things should be left up to the individual states.
He also believes in the rights of individuals, not collectivism.
100+ years of taxing the rich has done nothing except make the rich richer. Watch “fiat empire” and “The Money Masters” if you want an education in monetary systems.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
First time commenter here, but long time reader. This is the first time I felt the urge to.
Ron Paul is being ‘hyped’ because he speaks bluntly, speaks what he truly believes. Bloggers like that, simple.
Now, you are judging the hype when you actually live of it. For example: the other day you wrote about ‘new framework django’ which has been used and widely praised for over 2 years in the public eye, in sites that get more press than pownce, zoomr and others.
You jumped to Twitter when there was all the hype, when the site was up in over 6 months - didn’t you see the benefit back then?!!?
Now is facebook? When it has been open since last year?!!?
Come on, you only jump after the hype, people respect those that see far ahead and detect future trends.
Ron Paul isn’t hype.. it’s just bloggers like honest people, and from that batch of candidates you can tell those that before they speak, they think first about group polls and what is the answer that will get them more votes. Ron Paul just tells what he truly believes and how things are. Next time there is a debate, watch it.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Ron Paul’s stances aren’t mere “soundbites.” I worry more about people who would base a vote based on 2 sentence solutions from any candidates self-promotion site.
But here, let me help you out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
Also, at the Google appearance he made, Paul stated he would reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It all goes with this “rights of the individual” theme he has going.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Paul discusses the issues more in-depth and at greater length than any other candidate I’ve ever seen or heard of. He has over 900 speeches and articles available online doing just that. His website doesn’t touch on issues liberals care about because he is trying to win the GOP primary, not the Democrat one.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
He’s the only candidate who wants to challenge the corporatism that is at the heart of our health care costs, and the foreign policy that is at the heart of the Iraq war and the attacks of 9/11.
He hasn’t said much about global warming other than he’d like to remove the restrictions on building new nuke plants, and he’d like to stop trying to subsidize foreign oil with our foreign policy. But on every other issue you speak about I believe he has more printed material available than any other candidate in the history of American elections.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Wow! When I read this I thought Scoble would get pilloried by the rampant Libertarianism that dominates Silicon Valley and the Internet technorati. Color me surprised at the thoughtful discussion–on both sides here.
Are we finally growing up?
July 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Krish,
Libertarian principles are not based on any requirement of a free mind in the strict sense of the word. Libertarians believe people should be free to act out their own desires as long as those actions do not harm others, but this does not necessarily mean their minds are free or robotic, or whatever. Libertarianism truly doesn’t care how their minds work.
Nor are they based on any assumption that all individual decisions are rational.
For a good understanding of the axioms SOME libertarians base their beliefs on, I’d suggest studying the Austrian (a priori) approach to economics.
Most libertarians base their beliefs on strong economic principles. Socialism, as an effective economic system, is simply intellectually and empirically dead. Politicians may not catch on for a while yet, but capitalism has won, and the old (yes, I say old, because socialism is a far older idea than freedom) ideas of socialism are no longer really accepted as viable by economists. Even Joseph E. Stiglitz’s work, which allows some government interference (and I think is based on some untrue presuppositions, but thats another story), still advocates limited government.
I would also disagree with you that most libertarians are wealthy. Many may be, because wealthier people tend to be more educated, and much of the work in economics supports libertarianism, but I believe many more are simply poorer people who want a job. Government regulations prop up monopolies, minimum wage creates unemployment, and trade sanctions reduce the size of the marketplace. Government interference is almost always bad for business, and therefore bad for the guy who just wants to work for a living.
And of course, poorer people tend to feel taxes rather harshly. Yes, they pay less than the rich, but where do those taxes actually go? Do you think the lower and middle class actually receive government benefits in proportion to the federal taxes they pay? Even something as simple as education costs the taxpayer twice as much per student as private schooling.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Nice post, Robert. To really simplify what I think is going on…Ron Paul is benefiting from the same anti-Bush reaction and hype that fed John McCain’s Straight Talk Express four years ago. Paul has stood on stage with candidates who are afraid to differ with the sitting President from their own party on most major issues, especially the wars. (I think we have a few going.) Paul doesn’t seem to have that fear which is understandable since his nomination and/or election as President are not gaining any traction in the real world. It’s just fun, not a real possibility at this point.
I, like many, believe the next President will come from the other major political party, the Democratic party. So there is a very important job of picking that nominee before the American people who choose to participate in the process. The blogosphere can be a very important communication tool for making that selection process more informed and less based on hype. You are showing good leadership in that regard. Thank you.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Two comments:
1. You don’t speak with everyone in regards to the fact that “everyone wants us out of the war…” I want the troops to come home when the job is done, nothing else.
2. LazyZ I agree with the comments and statements that you have made here.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
>Rick Fisk: see this is what I don’t get about some of you. You want a guy who never compromises, or never listens to other people and tries to find a middle ground. That kind of person would make a horrible politician and would never get anything done.
As for Edwards he admitted that his support of the war was a mistake in hindsight. But you had to go back and remember “the evidence” that Bush presented everyone with.
Truth is the American people mostly supported the war too. So I’m not surprised that our politicans supported the war, especially given the evidence that was being presented to them.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Jonathan: and when will that job be done? How can you define that? Heck, we can’t even stop violence in our own cities, much less over in Iraq. I guess more of our kids have to die and more of our economy has to be uprooted to pay for all this. Sigh.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Ron Paul lost me the first time one of his operatives spammed my political blog with nothing more than spew. My opinion hasn’t changed. If he’s getting blog buzz, it’s likely because everything is delivered with that sort of breathless hyperbole that often accompanies reports about Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan rather than anything of substance.
You’re right on the money about the economic realities of his proposals, too.
But more than that, to me there is very little in the way of substance underneath the hysteria. I really hope this country learns from the last 8 years and takes the time to actually consider the issues and realistic possibilities for change.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
>And you want Edwards? What has he ever led? He approaches the public arena as an open checkbook to fund his lifestyle.
Huh? Edwards has enough money to go and live comfortably without working ever again. I see him doing things to try to improve the world. He also was a successful lawyer and businessperson (whether or not you agree with how he made his money you must admit he was successful at it).
But I’m not enthralled with Edwards either. It’s why I keep looking at the whole field to see if anyone better is out there. So far I haven’t seen anyone and Ron Paul certainly is not it.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
“see this is what I don’t get about some of you. You want a guy who never compromises, or never listens to other people and tries to find a middle ground.”
What middle ground is there when we are talking about the constitution? The constitution isn’t just a “good idea” it is the law our politicians swear to uphold.
You can’t defend Edwards’ stand because it is hypocritical so you resort to saying that Paul is not a reasonable man.
People like Bush and Edwards are the ones who aren’t reasonable. Their “good ideas” are responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers.
Edwards has no excuse. No matter what Bush said, Iraq posed no direct threat to the US. Ron Paul stood in the well of the house and urged Congress not to approve the war. He defied political expediency and voted against it because it was the right thing to do. It was the constitutional thing to do.
He can be trusted to vote the way he speaks. Edwards and Hillary can only be trusted to check the current political wind and vote whichever way they think will help their incumbency.
The “unreasonable” people in government are those who spit on the constitution and use fear to justify the taking of our rights. Edwards and Hillary voted for the Patriot act. Both times. If you honestly think that you can trust any politician who voted for that abomination, then more power to you.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“Wow! When I read this I thought Scoble would get pilloried by the rampant Libertarianism that dominates Silicon Valley and the Internet technorati. Color me surprised at the thoughtful discussion–on both sides here.” Comment by terry chay — July 14, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
To be clear….this is the effect Mr Ron Paul is having on the political areana.
Real discussion on the issues that matter.
Even if you do not agree with all his positions, this has to be a positive.
As for the original BLOG, that is your opinion, I beg to differ and will say that Doctor Ron Paul is the one for me.
I am not swayed by a candidates web site, more by what they have said and demonstrated over the years.
He has revived my interest in politics, and I now know I am not alone!
July 14th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“Ron Paul lost me the first time one of his operatives spammed my political blog with nothing more than spew.”
Karoli,
I think that what you’re seeing here is simply a bunch of genuine and passionate supporters of Ron Paul. After all, if you’re against the war and fiscally conservative, you only have one Republican candidate to choose from.
Furthermore, if Scoble likes Hillary, and I don’t like Scoble, should I automatically dislike Hillary? A political candidate has no real control over who supports him. If you don’t like his positions, then that’s fine. I can respect that. But don’t judge him based on the comments of a few random individuals who aren’t under his control.
The only person who you should be judging is Ron Paul himself. Either you believe in his message, or you don’t. And I believe in it.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
“One thing you don’t get about politics is that it REQUIRES compromise. That’s why our founding fathers setup an adversarial system of checks and balances. To make sure that no one idiot would totally be able to mess things up. That system works pretty well. …”
Comment by Robert Scoble — July 14, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Scoble, I think the thing that has people excited about Paul is that he gives a voice to those who believe in personal liberty AND personal responsibility. The role of big government is such an assumption now that we we try to give nuance to political conversations by highlighting the scope where government intervention is more tolerable to us (Social liberal, Fiscal conservative, etc.) Those of us who feel that government intervention should be minimal in every facet of life don’t have a voice in the either the Democratic or Republican parties. We have two parties that sacrifice liberties on some level, and the only distinguishing factor is which ones they sacrificed. Where is the check against those who want big government? We’re not compromising between big government and little, we’re compromising on what sort of big government we’ll have. Paul is trying to alter the discourse about the inherent assumption of big government. Even though I don’t think a 100% Libertarian world is achievable or even ideal, I think Libertarian influence into our political discourse is to everyone’s benefit.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
@Scoble, there is no need to explain how to end the war on terror, or any war for that matter. It’s up to congress to defund it, period.
Just curious, what made you move away from your “conservative Christian” beliefs?
@LazY, you’re right on. Most people in our generation have no clue what powers the constitution provides to the federal government, they’re few and clearly enumerated. They need to read The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. It’s sad when I listen to people I admire be so clueless about their government.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Spend a few more seconds reading his website, and it’ll be clear that Ron Paul is totally against the war, and would bring the troops home immediately. He has said as much in three debates, numerous interviews, and dozens of speeches in Congress, all indexed on his Congressional website.
Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul didn’t vote for the war. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul has never voted one dime to be spent on it. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul hasn’t had to change his position on the war, or claim that he was misled by false intelligence, because he was smart enough to see through it the first time.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
@G,
I didn’t mean to say that Libertarians base their entire philosophy on the concept of free mind. I have argued that most of their ideas can be reduced to the necessity of a free mind or the necessity of the individuals to make a rational and well informed decisions. Then I argued that the idea of a free mind or the idea that individuals make rational and well informed decisions are not scientifically true. I hope I have made it clear this time.
As far as I am concerned, when a certain philosophy has a “junked basis”, I wouldn’t take it seriously for governing our society. Anyhow, my apologies to others for taking the discussion offtrack.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I’ll include my email reply here. I think it states my opinion on this clearly enough. Keep in mind I’ve not attended every Gnomedex. But I have been there since 3.0. My comment below about the conversation is what I feel Gnomedex is about. However I’m not so sure that means we need to be heading down the political road. What makes Gnomedex is when you have the movers and shakers of this industry stating there opinion and maybe even debating the audience and their colleagues. What really used to make Gnomedex is when the little people could afford it and they had a chance to rub elbows with these same people. Those days are long gone.
I’d have to say it was worthwhile to give it a spin last year. But making it a habit would not set a good precedent. I’m with Kip Kniskern on this one. I’m still not happy that I didn’t get to see Marc Andreessen and Blake Ross get into a conversation last year. That to me would have been something interesting to see. If only to see if the two would have had like viewpoints.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
As soon as I saw the headline I knew what Scoble was going to say. It’s all so predictable now. Maybe I’ll resubscribe to your feed after 2008, but I’m tired of this stuff from you and we are only in 2007. And by the way, I won’t be voting for Ron. How come everybody who has any type of forum to speak to people about music, games, movies, tech or whatever thinks we want to know about their politics? Guess what Robert, most of us don’t want to hear this crap from you. Every time you write about this stuff, you come off as bitter and caustic. I usually like reading your stuff and then I stumble upon this and it totally brings me down.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Anyone who has truly been in touch with the world knew Ron Paul’s positions YEARS before he announced his run for the Presidency. We don’t need a website to tell us where he stands on the issues, we knew years ago.
Where have you been hiding all this time? Why is it that you did not know who Ron Paul was or what his positions on issues where. What rock were you hiding under?
The fact is that Ron Paul has been widely known for a long time. Just take a look at his Congressional campaign funding. Although he represents a district in Texas, most of his funding comes from individuals who live outside Texas. Why? Because we know him and we support his positions. We have been urging him to run for many years. Now that he has FINALLY consented to run, we are pulling out all the stops to get him elected.
Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate who has consistently voted against the was since BEFORE it started.
Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate who will work for the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. In fact, he’s the only candidate with the intelligence to understand why it is important to get rid of the Fed.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who understands that we can get rid of the income tax and replace it with NOTHING! He is the only one who understands that the income tax only takes in 1/3 of Federal revenue and that cutting spending by 1/3 is EASY. (Just cut everything back to where it was before GWB took office.)
It is really telling that you had to LOOK UP Ron Paul. Intelligent people already KNEW.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Michael: it’s nice to live in a fantasy world, isn’t it? Since everyone knows who Ron Paul is, and what he stands for, why isn’t he way out in front in the polls? I knew a little bit about Ron Paul, but I wanted to make sure I really understood his stands on things so I went to an authoritative source: his own Web site. If he can’t even build a great Web site for his campaign that goes into detail on his stands on the issues why should he be trusted to run the USA?
ericdrum: if you know what I was going to write and you knew you would be disappointed in it, why did you read past the headline?
July 14th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
The YouTube Interview: Ron Paul
“Watch Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul answer YOUR questions submitted via YouTube.
Paul talks about individual liberties, plays a game of ’small government, short answers’, and talks about the impact of the Internet on his campaign.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w
July 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Why should Ron Paul dignify the myth of global warming with a position?
And if national health care is your idea of a worthy government goal, the choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is far and away the most awesome statist on the palette.
Ron Paul is for grown-ups competent to take care of themselves and who long for a government limited to undertaking the basics of national defense, sovereign integrity, and protection of liberty, and leaving the general welfare and the administration of justice to state and local governments.
It’s amazing how fast people grow up when hand feeding is cut off.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Ron Paul believes that the individuals can work it out without government interference.
The others believe in the implementation of THEIR OWN plan to affect masses of individuals.
Are we in America? People are yelling “Socialized medicine?” Man, what the hell? People should be yelling “Put a stop to Corporatism!”, but only Ron Paul will speak to that issue.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Wow! The Ron Paul zealots have indeed descended on this blog. You are in for something that will make the Nokia boys look like amateurs.
Robert, it is important that you not be fooled by the sheer number of comments you get supporting Ron Paul. His supporters have been banned from some sites because of voting numerous times in polls and making numerous comment posts under different screen names. They seek to create an illusion that Paul has more than the miniscule amount of support he does.
His supporters, many of them bigots themselves, others merely ignorant, seldom mention the main purpose the Tenth Amendment has been used for in the 20th century — to oppose equal rights for people of color and women by claiming that the states should decide what rights their populations have. Since Paul is a segregationist it is no surprise that he is fond of the Tenth Amendment.
I again encourage you to read the links in comments 15 and 16. However, I will post the most succinct of the material. It is Paul’s most recent speech to Congress declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional.
“The Trouble With Forced Integration
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res.
676.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Anyone who believes to a return to racial segregation and refusing non-whites the vote would be in the best interest of the United States should be reviled, not revered.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
“Anyone who believes to a return to racial segregation and refusing non-whites the vote would be in the best interest of the United States should be reviled, not revered.”
I agree, however, you’ve been demagoguing for several posts. Ron Paul’s position on the issue is pretty clear and he’s right. The racial segregation that occurred in the south and was supposed to be “solved” by federal fiat was a direct result of the Union’s post-civil-war aggression and meddling.
And so is forced integration. You and others who believe that the government should force people to associate with one another argue that your solution makes people free.
It is as absurd as Bush’s claim that dropping bombs on another country can make that country free. It is tautological. Pointing a gun at somebody and telling him “Be free or else!” is an absurd solution to a problem that never existed.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
“I knew a little bit about Ron Paul, but I wanted to make sure I really understood his stands on things so I went to an authoritative source: his own Web site.”
And have never acknowledged that you misrepresented what was there in spite of the fact that anyone can click on it and see that you are wrong.
As has been pointed out to you, it is a fair representation but not exhaustive. This is the internet. It’s a pretty neat thing the internet. You don’t actually have to re-publish the exhaustive works of a given person. You can link to other sources. What a concept!
July 14th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
#85 Dimitar, that’s an excellent video.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
[...] Slight diversion into politics…why is Ron Paul getting blog hype? from Scobleizer by Robert Scoble [...]
July 14th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Google “most honest politician.”
July 14th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
The Ron Paul hype is a bit of an illusion. His draw of the popular vote would only be around 1% of the vote would an election be held today. The popularity among those online who would like to see there to be a ground swell are among some well-meaning citizens who happen to like Ron…They are apparently internet savy. BUT, an overall picture of the the political landscape would reveal a much bleaker picture for a Paul candidacy for president. Not a reflection on the man himself…Just a reflection of the political realities. Still all in all…it makes for great political theatre.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Ron Paul at Google
http://www.justin.tv/ronpaul/7733
[via http://www.dailypaul.com/node/709
July 14th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I think you’re either fibbing about looking at Dr. Paul’s page, or you’re illiterate.
He clearly puts forward his views on Iraq and foreign policy in general on his site.
Rebuilding New Orleans? That’s hardly a presidential position. How far from the constitution have we wandered that people think that rebuilding a city that was effected by a hurricane is even remotely related to the president?
July 14th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
As I said before, Ron Paul has been involved in neo-Confederate circles for decades, so it is not surprising that neo-Confederates such as Rick Fisk support him. Fisk said:
“The racial segregation that occurred in the south and was supposed to be “solved” by federal fiat was a direct result of the Union’s post-civil-war aggression and meddling.”
He means Reconstruction, the initial effort to integrate the freedmen into society by protecting their right to vote, buy and sell property and be educated. The claim that not slavery, but Reconstruction, should be regretted is a major component of the neo-Confederate perspective.
Paul and other racist pols have switched from using the phrase ’states’ rights’ to defend segregationist views to using the word ‘liberty.’ Suffice it to say that if a person’s liberty requires depriving other people of fundamental rights he is misusing the word.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Hi Robert,
The ultimate conbsequence of democracy as is it now seems is that parties (poles) move closer and closer together to get the greatest coverage of people’s agenda (like a venn diagram), the priority then become power rather than winning the argument of radically different ideologies, they then indulge the last iota of citizens who can fit into their tent.
The “Homosexual Rights” agenda and The “Anti-Abortionist” are actually on the same plain of groups, without reference to pragmatism or actual moral direction by the political class, to be brought into their camp with the only consideration largely being which will bring me more votes versus what group will cost votes of other groups.
There are obviously some anomolies, e.g. child-molestation obsessives without respect of civil rights for all, “the War on Terror”, or the zionist lobby -I would hazzard a guess that most americans don’t instinctively care about such an issue, let alone the details, but would a single candidate say anything less the zealots and sumner redstone, et al put their resources to use.
As long as we, the citizens of the democratic world, plead ignorance and lack absolute personal responsibility, and discharge our powers to whoever will indulge us rather than thinking of action and consequence, our own responsibilities and willingness to be told “no, yes you may have to lose out for the greater national good” then it is only our own states that will suffer -while the china’s, india’s and russia’s of the world excel forward and our leaders are matched by whether or not we’d like to hang out with them at a local bar!
Also, can anyone please explain this relatively non-sensical bit:
2. Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).
Why is it most ame