Ron Paul expected to raise $12 mil in 4th Quarter

[Beefy]

Do a simple google news search for Ron Paul, and its mainly no-name web sites talking about the brothel owners endorsement. Then do a search of Mitt, or Huckaby, or Edwards. The sources become CNN, MSNBC, Foxnews, AP, BBC....

But Ron Paul has this media "buzz" about him.

 

[Cypress]

Sorry guys. At some point you're going to have to stop blaming the mainstream media, and start asking your selves why, after 50 years and now a lavishly funded candidate, libertarian theology never polls out of the single digits.

As a former kucinich voter myself, I can blame the MSM all I want. And media is defintely a problem, but at the end of the day, Kucinich couldn't sell his message. I have to face that.

The rules have changed. Blaming the MSM is not a good excuse anymore. Howard Dean proved in 2004 that an unknown canidate polling close to zero percent in the polls, can vault himself into the top tier of competitors merely on the strength of a compelling message, a strong grass roots organization, and internet fund raising. Howard Dean didn't have the MSM or the party machine behind him. IN fact, the party machine was doing all it could to keep dean down.

The difference I see between the Dean and Paul campaigns - both of which started at less thatn 1% in the polls - is that the dean grass roots movement was not only compelling in the beginning, but they were able to grow that grass roots movement latererally and vertically: convincing more and more people along the way that dean had a message worth hearing.

Paul appears to be stuck at around 3 or 4% nationally. But instead of representing a bigger and broader movement—one that would register in the polls—.Paul’s donors seem to represent only themselves.

 

[theMAJORITY]

Cypress---everybody in the world wants to be free. That sir, is human nature. Liberitarian philosophy started this country to be more free than any country in the world, and that is why it still barely remains the greatist country in the world. Our freedoms are erroded, over time, incrimentally, by the right and the left--but Liberials errode it faster imo. If you want socialism--why don't you pay for it--or move to a country that likes owning their people? The sad fact is, most Americans would not recogonize freedom today, if it slapped them in the face (but they all say they want it). let them experience it though, like I am right now (haven't paid taxes yet this year--and never felt so free in my life--try it sometime)--and no person, who likes to be productive, and make something of themselfs (easier done if more free)---will ever turn into a liberial.

How do you make your money again?

 

[blackascoal]

It's absurd to describe Ron Paul's cash flow as some sort of litmus test for the popularity of libertarian politics. It would be different if Ron Paul had $12 million starting in, say, June of 2007 and not December. The Iowa Caucus is in January - Ron Paul won't even be able to spend the kind of money that would be necessary in order to truly test the waters. Far more importantly, the mainstream media have not given him even remotely enough coverage for a true test of libertarian ideas.

Paul has gotten more coverage than Huckabee who is ahead of him in the polls. He's gotten plenty of coverage, more in fact than his numbers deserve. Many media outlets won't print anything negative about him because they know their servers will soon fill will Ronbot whining.

Nor is Paul the first time libertarian ideas have been introduced to America. I'm glad more libertarian ideas are being exposed because I believe the more people know about them, the less attractive they become .. which kinda' accounts for small "l" libertarians, large "L" libertarians, and the large number of ex-libertarians.

 

[blackascoal]

Sadly, I'd say that most Americans essentially view government as an extension of their own beliefs and care little about protecting individual rights.

Government isn't about the individual, it's about the people.

Individuals who put themselves above the people don't understand government at all.

 

[ironhead]

Government isn't about the individual, it's about the people.

Individuals who put themselves above the people don't understand government at all.

That is the most wreckless and foolish comment I've heard in a long time. Do you believe in majoritarian tyranny? Do you think minorities should be ruled like subjects by a majority? Individual rights protect individuals against the tyranny of others - most often against more powerful groups of people. Government is granted authority by the people in order to protect life, liberty, and property, among other rights. The moment you start believing government is "about the people" (and not about protecting individual rights) is the moment you need to remind yourself about some of the worst atrocities and crimes in human history that ignored the rights of individuals (eg minorities) because of government being about what "most people want".

 

[Litmus]

Government isn't about the individual, it's about the people.

Individuals who put themselves above the people don't understand government at all.

But All people are individuals. You seek to use your statist abstractions as an excuse for tyranny and unspeakable horrors.

 

[blackascoal]

That is the most wreckless and foolish comment I've heard in a long time. Do you believe in majoritarian tyranny? Do you think minorities should be ruled like subjects by a majority? Individual rights protect individuals against the tyranny of others - most often against more powerful groups of people. Government is granted authority by the people in order to protect life, liberty, and property, among other rights. The moment you start believing government is "about the people" (and not about protecting individual rights) is the moment you need to remind yourself about some of the worst atrocities and crimes in human history that ignored the rights of individuals (eg minorities) because of government being about what "most people want".

Government exists for the benefit and protection of it's citizens and for the best interests of their future. Protection and support for equal rights of minority citizens is in the best interest of the collective body.

"We the Individual" only exists in the minds of people who do not understand government. Individual rights should be protected, but they do not trump what is in the best of the people.

The moment you start believing government is "about the people"

What the fuck !!!

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Government exists for the "we", not the "me."

Let me remind you that it was INDIVIDUALS that have been responsible for some of the most horrific and brutal crimes ever committed. Slavery was not an act of the US Government, but the US Government ended it, not the fucking INDIVIDUALS who were committing the atrocity of slavery .. and it was the US Government that stood behind Reconstruction, and it was the US Government that ended the 100 years of Jim Crowism that followed slavery, and it was and still is the US Government protecting the rights of minority citizens.

Individuals only care about themselves and their narrow view of the world. If it was up to individuals there would still be lynchings in the south .. but that ended because THE GOVERNMENT acted.

Your spiel about how wonderful individuals are to minority populations defies history.

 

[DigitalDave]

BAC, goverment exists because of the 'we', but is for 'ourselves'. We, as a collective of individuals, established a constitution in order to protect our individuality. Unfortunatly, at the time this was written, slavery was still accepted in the South and slaves had not 'individuality'. Blacks weren't even considered humans by their slave masters. Now, the have rights and are seen as human individuals with just as many rights as the white man. Unfortunatly, and fortunatly, an individual still has the right to hate whomever they wish, but they have NO right to infringe on another individuals rights. When we start to get into the debate of Democracy, that is when we no longer protect the individual rights, and we start protecting the majority rights. Giving individual rights to people did come around and respect personhood to black men and women, unfortunatly that disrespect of personhood should have been stamped out at the creation of the constitution. I wonder how much of the reason it wasn't was because of a majority of white men owned or condoned slaves....

 

[Litmus]

BAC. The majority race also deserves protection from insane radicalized policy created by radical haters like yourself.

 

[theMAJORITY]

That is the most wreckless and foolish comment I've heard in a long time. Do you believe in majoritarian tyranny? Do you think minorities should be ruled like subjects by a majority? Individual rights protect individuals against the tyranny of others - most often against more powerful groups of people. Government is granted authority by the people in order to protect life, liberty, and property, among other rights. The moment you start believing government is "about the people" (and not about protecting individual rights) is the moment you need to remind yourself about some of the worst atrocities and crimes in human history that ignored the rights of individuals (eg minorities) because of government being about what "most people want".

Goverment not for the individual and for the good of the all is what is tought in school today. I was not taught that back in the day, I was taught individualism, and the right for a individual to persue liberity and happyness. Incrimentally---we lose our freedom as the gov works for its people only. Yea--it is about the people if you look at it that way---just not any people you know, or care if you can retire.

 

[theMAJORITY]

BAC, goverment exists because of the 'we', but is for 'ourselves'. We, as a collective of individuals, established a constitution in order to protect our individuality. Unfortunatly, at the time this was written, slavery was still accepted in the South and slaves had not 'individuality'. Blacks weren't even considered humans by their slave masters. Now, the have rights and are seen as human individuals with just as many rights as the white man. Unfortunatly, and fortunatly, an individual still has the right to hate whomever they wish, but they have NO right to infringe on another individuals rights. When we start to get into the debate of Democracy, that is when we no longer protect the individual rights, and we start protecting the majority rights. Giving individual rights to people did come around and respect personhood to black men and women, unfortunatly that disrespect of personhood should have been stamped out at the creation of the constitution. I wonder how much of the reason it wasn't was because of a majority of white men owned or condoned slaves....

I see no difference between balck slavery, and the slavery we have today. How can I say that---I pay more than half of my income in taxes. That means I am not working for myself. Pretty good write though.

 

[blackascoal]

BAC, goverment exists because of the 'we', but is for 'ourselves'. We, as a collective of individuals, established a constitution in order to protect our individuality. Unfortunatly, at the time this was written, slavery was still accepted in the South and slaves had not 'individuality'. Blacks weren't even considered humans by their slave masters. Now, the have rights and are seen as human individuals with just as many rights as the white man. Unfortunatly, and fortunatly, an individual still has the right to hate whomever they wish, but they have NO right to infringe on another individuals rights. When we start to get into the debate of Democracy, that is when we no longer protect the individual rights, and we start protecting the majority rights. Giving individual rights to people did come around and respect personhood to black men and women, unfortunatly that disrespect of personhood should have been stamped out at the creation of the constitution. I wonder how much of the reason it wasn't was because of a majority of white men owned or condoned slaves....

You can hardly use slavery as some example of how "individuality" should be more important or more central to the role of government than the protection of the whole. Didn't you read what I posted. Government ended slavery, ended Jim Crowism, enacted the Civil Rights Act, and the relative freedom that blacks have in the US now are the direct results of GOVERNMENT.

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. Are you suggesting that individuals ended slavery?

What kind of self-serving argument is my rights and what I want is more important the the well-being of the nation? .. What do you call that? .. "Patriotism" ??

Democracy should be debated as all subjects that affect our lives should be debated.

 

[Litmus]

You can hardly use slavery as some example of how "individuality" should be more important or more central to the role of government than the protection of the whole. Didn't you read what I posted. Government ended slavery, ended Jim Crowism, enacted the Civil Rights Act, and the relative freedom that blacks have in the US now are the direct results of GOVERNMENT.

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. Are you suggesting that individuals ended slavery?

What kind of self-serving argument is my rights and what I want is more important the the well-being of the nation? .. What do you call that? .. "Patriotism" ??

Democracy should be debated as all subjects that affect our lives should be debated.

The WHOLE is an abstraction. We're really a set of individuals. You make this abstraction more real than it actually is so you can use it as an excuse to seize power and do whatever you want, based on upon your spurious logic re: the whole.

 

[theMAJORITY]

You can hardly use slavery as some example of how "individuality" should be more important or more central to the role of government than the protection of the whole. Didn't you read what I posted. Government ended slavery, ended Jim Crowism, enacted the Civil Rights Act, and the relative freedom that blacks have in the US now are the direct results of GOVERNMENT.

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. Are you suggesting that individuals ended slavery?

What kind of self-serving argument is my rights and what I want is more important the the well-being of the nation? .. What do you call that? .. "Patriotism" ??

Democracy should be debated as all subjects that affect our lives should be debated.

You think Slavery has ended in America? Hmmmm. I think it is alive and well.

 

[ironhead]

Government exists for the benefit and protection of it's citizens and for the best interests of their future. Protection and support for equal rights of minority citizens is in the best interest of the collective body.

"We the Individual" only exists in the minds of people who do not understand government. Individual rights should be protected, but they do not trump what is in the best of the people.



What the fuck !!!

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Government exists for the "we", not the "me."

Let me remind you that it was INDIVIDUALS that have been responsible for some of the most horrific and brutal crimes ever committed. Slavery was not an act of the US Government, but the US Government ended it, not the fucking INDIVIDUALS who were committing the atrocity of slavery .. and it was the US Government that stood behind Reconstruction, and it was the US Government that ended the 100 years of Jim Crowism that followed slavery, and it was and still is the US Government protecting the rights of minority citizens.

Individuals only care about themselves and their narrow view of the world. If it was up to individuals there would still be lynchings in the south .. but that ended because THE GOVERNMENT acted.

Your spiel about how wonderful individuals are to minority populations defies history.

Your feckless understanding of history is only overshadowed by your commitment to collectivism. The crime of slavery was a failure of government to protect the natural rights of individuals, in this case, the rights of the slaves themselves. I said nothing about "how wonderful individuals are to minority populations"; your reading of my post was simply exceptionally weak. Minorities ARE individuals; everyone is. I made the point that goverment is charged with protecting the rights of ALL INDIVIDUALS. Sometimes this protection is from other groups or individuals, somtimes it is protection from groups using the power of government.

As egregious a crime slavery in the United States was (and government certainly played a critical role in the crime itself), the killing of untold millions during the 20th century alone at the hand of governments - all of which were popular in their own countries; examples of your majoritarian tyranny - elucidates the point that government run amok is a massive killing machine unleashed.

The smallest minority is a minority of one. Racism is one of the most destructive forms of collectivism.

 

[blackascoal]

Your feckless understanding of history is only overshadowed by your commitment to collectivism. The crime of slavery was a failure of government to protect the natural rights of individuals, in this case, the rights of the slaves themselves. I said nothing about "how wonderful individuals are to minority populations"; your reading of my post was simply exceptionally weak. Minorities ARE individuals; everyone is. I made the point that goverment is charged with protecting the rights of ALL INDIVIDUALS. Sometimes this protection is from other groups or individuals, somtimes it is protection from groups using the power of government.

As egregious a crime slavery in the United States was (and government certainly played a critical role in the crime itself), the killing of untold millions during the 20th century alone at the hand of governments - all of which were popular in their own countries; examples of your majoritarian tyranny - elucidates the point that government run amok is a massive killing machine unleashed.

The smallest minority is a minority of one. Racism is one of the most destructive forms of collectivism.

Save your pompous scorn for the goobers.

Where was the power of individualism while all this mayhem was going on? .. They were doing what was in their own interest and didn't give a damn about the mayhem.

No point dragging this out any further .. believe whatever you wish, but thinking like yours is exactly why libertarians remain a cult of disconnected people that believe any and everything.

Ron Paul and libertarians are really standing America on its head with their versions of "freedom" and "individuality", huh?

Racism is borne of individuals who manipulate the government to their agenda.

 

[ironhead]

Save your pompous scorn for the goobers.

Where was the power of individualism while all this mayhem was going on? .. They were doing what was in their own interest and didn't give a damn about the mayhem.

No point dragging this out any further .. believe whatever you wish, but thinking like yours is exactly why libertarians remain a cult of disconnected people that believe any and everything.

Ron Paul and libertarians are really standing America on its head with their versions of "freedom" and "individuality", huh?

Racism is borne of individuals who manipulate the government to their agenda.

Nothing of substance here, just more strawman arguments. You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between indivdual liberty/rights and individual greed. Moreover, you seem incapable of recognizing how government magnifies the reach and scope of power-hungry individuals/groups.

Racism is a form of collectivism; it is born of fear and hatred. If everyone thought of each other as individuals instead of being part of fallacial, monolithic groupings (and I certainly include nationalism in this context), the world would be a far more peaceful place. Government with too much power which does not protect individual rights of life, liberty, and property enables those who seek power by using collectivist ideology (including racism, nationalism, etc.) to manipulate the public's fears into violating the rights of others and commiting such awful crimes as slavery, war, and genocide. This is precisely what occurred in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, Fascist Chile, Communist Cambodia, and even antebellum U.S.

 

[theMAJORITY]

BAC, goverment exists because of the 'we', but is for 'ourselves'. We, as a collective of individuals, established a constitution in order to protect our individuality. Unfortunatly, at the time this was written, slavery was still accepted in the South and slaves had not 'individuality'. Blacks weren't even considered humans by their slave masters. Now, the have rights and are seen as human individuals with just as many rights as the white man. Unfortunatly, and fortunatly, an individual still has the right to hate whomever they wish, but they have NO right to infringe on another individuals rights. When we start to get into the debate of Democracy, that is when we no longer protect the individual rights, and we start protecting the majority rights. Giving individual rights to people did come around and respect personhood to black men and women, unfortunatly that disrespect of personhood should have been stamped out at the creation of the constitution. I wonder how much of the reason it wasn't was because of a majority of white men owned or condoned slaves....

All that needed to be stamped out in the greatly written constitution is a safe gaurd they did not think of, to stop the possibility for the rich to be the only people who have a chance of winning offices.

 

[DigitalDave]

You can hardly use slavery as some example of how "individuality" should be more important or more central to the role of government than the protection of the whole. Didn't you read what I posted. Government ended slavery, ended Jim Crowism, enacted the Civil Rights Act, and the relative freedom that blacks have in the US now are the direct results of GOVERNMENT.

Protection of the whole means protecting each individual's rights. As soon as you start protecting only what the majority demands, you begin to have a government that feeds off of common hatred (like banning gay marraige almost became an amendment). You have to protect everyone on the individual level in order for the whole to be protected. So my arguement is that it is the governments duty to protect the individual, but not everyone in general, because that comes naturally with individual rights. Ending slavery came about by granting blacks the right of personhood, and they were then treated as individuals protected under our system. But again, it took a long time for everyone to get used to that and we still had a lack of enforcement for individual rights towards the blacks. The were discriminated against as a minority group and government allowed it up until the Civil Rights era. They still had trouble viewing them as individual human beings and saw them as a group.

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. Are you suggesting that individuals ended slavery?

Well, yeah, a group of individuals that created a larger entity.

What kind of self-serving argument is my rights and what I want is more important the the well-being of the nation? .. What do you call that? .. "Patriotism" ??

What you 'Want' is not a right. If we demanded that government just give us what we want because a majority demands it, we'd be bankrupt. I don't think its the governments job to give us what we want, but protecting our individual rights is a requirement in order for everyone to get the things they want using their own means. We all have oppinions of what is 'good for the nation', but 'what is good for the majority' is not the same as 'what is good for the nation'. Often times, what is good for a majority is bad for a minority, or the other way around. So you have to protect everyone on an individual level, to prevent the majority from forcing an individual of his/her rights.

Say a town is doing poorly economically, and they could really use a Walmart Supercenter to not only bring in a few low paying jobs, but also provide cheap goods for those who can't afford to pay top dollar, but they don't have the space. A local farmer had a bad back one year and couldn't get out to farm his lands. Now, it would be good for the majority to take a vote, and remove him from his farm lands so they can build a Walmart Supercenter, at least in simple terms. The unintended consequences means they could do that to anyone at anytime, which is bad for the whole. When people try and protect the whole and try to do what is better for the whole, they tend to forget that we are all individuals that make a whole, and whatever you feel is necessary to do to one individual to benefit the whole, can also be done to you, or any other individual. Certainly, taking away people's individual rights is not good for the whole, at least I hope you concede that.

Democracy should be debated as all subjects that affect our lives should be debated.

Of course, I totally agree!