11 ms·

He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest s

He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the same Southern conservatism that has been prominent since they lost the Civil War. Paul was smart enough to realize that you could sell this to a broader audience if you wrapped it in libertarianism is all.

abstractionupon 15y ago
You have to understand that he hasn't shifted his positions in 30 or so years, except on DADT and the death penalty. So to say he isn't a straight-shooter is absurd. As for the newsletters, they dealt with economics primarily. Could he have done a better job of overseeing the newsletters? Sure. But they were released over the span of a decade or more and as a whole contained only a few articles with questionable content. I mean, is someone making noise about Gingrich's or Romney's questionable ethics and corruption? Is someone asking why Romney's people bought all the HDD's from Mass. state computers before leaving office? Is someone calling other GOP candidates racist for supporting racial profiling and the drug war? Of course not. But a 20-year old ghostwritten dead horse has been re-re-exhumed and is being paraded on every network "news" show. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?
fl3tch 15y ago
> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. People talk about how he wants to legalize drugs, but he would be perfectly fine with state governments creating even more draconian drug laws.
- maratd 15y ago
  > He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.
  - dreamdu5t 15y ago
    The fetus is trespassing on the women's body, and it would be self-defense to remove the invader.
    - maratd 15y ago
      You invite your friend to your home for a party. Your guest walked to your home. A blizzard starts outside. Your friend does something that pisses you off. You kick him out of your home, into the blizzard. He dies as a result. Were you just asserting your property rights or did you commit murder?
      - dreamdu5t 15y ago
        When you tell your guest to leave, and they won't, or they don't have anyone to pick them up, and you wanted them gone, you would forcibly remove them from your home and place them outside.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      That's only going to work in US politics if someone can figure out a way to remove the fetus witha gun.
  - shasta 15y ago
    You know that bacteria is "life", right? Does the government need to protect them? Obviously you intend "human life", but equally obviously that doesn't just mean living human cells (scratching -- killing skin cells -- isn't murder). The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. On the contrary, it rather obviously doesn't.

abstractionupon 15y ago

You have to understand that he hasn't shifted his positions in 30 or so years, except on DADT and the death penalty. So to say he isn't a straight-shooter is absurd. As for the newsletters, they dealt with economics primarily. Could he have done a better job of overseeing the newsletters? Sure. But they were released over the span of a decade or more and as a whole contained only a few articles with questionable content. I mean, is someone making noise about Gingrich's or Romney's questionable ethics and corruption? Is someone asking why Romney's people bought all the HDD's from Mass. state computers before leaving office? Is someone calling other GOP candidates racist for supporting racial profiling and the drug war? Of course not. But a 20-year old ghostwritten dead horse has been re-re-exhumed and is being paraded on every network "news" show. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?

fl3tch 15y ago

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. People talk about how he wants to legalize drugs, but he would be perfectly fine with state governments creating even more draconian drug laws.

maratd 15y ago
> He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  The fetus is trespassing on the women's body, and it would be self-defense to remove the invader.
  - maratd 15y ago
    You invite your friend to your home for a party. Your guest walked to your home. A blizzard starts outside. Your friend does something that pisses you off. You kick him out of your home, into the blizzard. He dies as a result. Were you just asserting your property rights or did you commit murder?
    - dreamdu5t 15y ago
      When you tell your guest to leave, and they won't, or they don't have anyone to pick them up, and you wanted them gone, you would forcibly remove them from your home and place them outside.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    That's only going to work in US politics if someone can figure out a way to remove the fetus witha gun.
- shasta 15y ago
  You know that bacteria is "life", right? Does the government need to protect them? Obviously you intend "human life", but equally obviously that doesn't just mean living human cells (scratching -- killing skin cells -- isn't murder). The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. On the contrary, it rather obviously doesn't.