Why Does the Media Persist in Calling Ron Paul a Libertarian?

[Flaylo]

Asher Smith: Why Does the Media Persist in Calling Ron Paul a Libertarian?

But what exactly about Ron Paul merits the oft-repeated libertarian label? The answer certainly does not lie in his personal views, or his campaign's policy positions.

The Ron Paul phenomenon -- in some pre-Caucus polls, Paul still maintains a slim lead -- represents nothing new under the sun of American politics. Paul represents not a new libertarian age, but old-fashioned American federalism -- the belief that sovereign state governments should have free rein within their borders, free from pesky federal intervention and regulation. It hardly takes a Ph.D. in American history to realize that this has been tried before.

Paul supporters seem to be yearning for a return to a pre-Civil Rights Era federal system. Prominent Iowa Republican and Paul supporter Rev. Phillip Kayser explained to Talking Points Memo last week that Paul's vote in Congress in favor of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not staunch his enthusiasm for Paul. Rather, Kayser believes Paul's view of the Constitution would allow states more latitude in legislating issues of social policy. "Under a Ron Paul presidency," Kayser told TPM, "states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what's politically correct. What he's trying to do whether he agrees with the Constitution's position or not is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate."

Not imposing "political correctness" on the states, of course, is not new policy. It was standard practice for the first 188 years of American history. It did not work.

Yet on other social issues Paul's positions are not libertarian, but federalist. Paul does not want government out of individuals' private lives -- he merely wants the federal government out. For example, Paul twice opposed the George W. Bush-sponsored Federal Marriage Amendment, but he has supported legislation ensuring federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage.


From a libertarian perspective, Paul's logic is strained. In 2004, Paul dissented from celebrations of the 40-year anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "The federal government," explained Paul, "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."

But why, if Paul is opposed to federal regulations necessary to curb "actions decent people find abhorrent," is he comfortable with permitting states to infringe on fundamental rights? There is no inherent reason why actions by state governments should occupy a more sacred plane than do actions by the federal government.

Paul the libertarian, bullllshitt!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Asher Smith: Why Does the Media Persist in Calling Ron Paul a Libertarian?

But what exactly about Ron Paul merits the oft-repeated libertarian label? The answer certainly does not lie in his personal views, or his campaign's policy positions.

The Ron Paul phenomenon -- in some pre-Caucus polls, Paul still maintains a slim lead -- represents nothing new under the sun of American politics. Paul represents not a new libertarian age, but old-fashioned American federalism -- the belief that sovereign state governments should have free rein within their borders, free from pesky federal intervention and regulation. It hardly takes a Ph.D. in American history to realize that this has been tried before.

Paul supporters seem to be yearning for a return to a pre-Civil Rights Era federal system. Prominent Iowa Republican and Paul supporter Rev. Phillip Kayser explained to Talking Points Memo last week that Paul's vote in Congress in favor of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not staunch his enthusiasm for Paul. Rather, Kayser believes Paul's view of the Constitution would allow states more latitude in legislating issues of social policy. "Under a Ron Paul presidency," Kayser told TPM, "states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what's politically correct. What he's trying to do whether he agrees with the Constitution's position or not is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate."

Not imposing "political correctness" on the states, of course, is not new policy. It was standard practice for the first 188 years of American history. It did not work.

Yet on other social issues Paul's positions are not libertarian, but federalist. Paul does not want government out of individuals' private lives -- he merely wants the federal government out. For example, Paul twice opposed the George W. Bush-sponsored Federal Marriage Amendment, but he has supported legislation ensuring federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage.


From a libertarian perspective, Paul's logic is strained. In 2004, Paul dissented from celebrations of the 40-year anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "The federal government," explained Paul, "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."

But why, if Paul is opposed to federal regulations necessary to curb "actions decent people find abhorrent," is he comfortable with permitting states to infringe on fundamental rights? There is no inherent reason why actions by state governments should occupy a more sacred plane than do actions by the federal government.

Paul the libertarian, bullllshitt!

Another huffy puffy thread
BTW you nor the dipshit from huffy puffy have a clue about being a libertarian. Be the good little jackboot liberal you are. and that is all you will ever be.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Asher Smith: Why Does the Media Persist in Calling Ron Paul a Libertarian?

But what exactly about Ron Paul merits the oft-repeated libertarian label? The answer certainly does not lie in his personal views, or his campaign's policy positions.

The Ron Paul phenomenon -- in some pre-Caucus polls, Paul still maintains a slim lead -- represents nothing new under the sun of American politics. Paul represents not a new libertarian age, but old-fashioned American federalism -- the belief that sovereign state governments should have free rein within their borders, free from pesky federal intervention and regulation. It hardly takes a Ph.D. in American history to realize that this has been tried before.

Paul supporters seem to be yearning for a return to a pre-Civil Rights Era federal system. Prominent Iowa Republican and Paul supporter Rev. Phillip Kayser explained to Talking Points Memo last week that Paul's vote in Congress in favor of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not staunch his enthusiasm for Paul. Rather, Kayser believes Paul's view of the Constitution would allow states more latitude in legislating issues of social policy. "Under a Ron Paul presidency," Kayser told TPM, "states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what's politically correct. What he's trying to do whether he agrees with the Constitution's position or not is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate."

Not imposing "political correctness" on the states, of course, is not new policy. It was standard practice for the first 188 years of American history. It did not work.

Yet on other social issues Paul's positions are not libertarian, but federalist. Paul does not want government out of individuals' private lives -- he merely wants the federal government out. For example, Paul twice opposed the George W. Bush-sponsored Federal Marriage Amendment, but he has supported legislation ensuring federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage.


From a libertarian perspective, Paul's logic is strained. In 2004, Paul dissented from celebrations of the 40-year anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "The federal government," explained Paul, "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."

But why, if Paul is opposed to federal regulations necessary to curb "actions decent people find abhorrent," is he comfortable with permitting states to infringe on fundamental rights? There is no inherent reason why actions by state governments should occupy a more sacred plane than do actions by the federal government.

Paul the libertarian, bullllshitt!

Both you and the author of this are clueless. You need to go look up what a federalist is.

 

[Warrior102]

I call him a Communist.

 

[DiamondDave]

3 word article
DiamondDave: Why Does the Populace Persist in Calling Flayo an Idiot and a Liar?

Because he is

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I call him a Communist.

Ron Paul a communist? Are you smoking?

 

[Warrior102]

I call him a Communist.

Ron Paul a communist? Are you smoking?

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I call him a Communist.

Ron Paul a communist? Are you smoking?

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

He's a Constitutionalist, maybe if you would research the man and not the mainstream media coverage of him you would see that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I call him a Communist.

Ron Paul a communist? Are you smoking?

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

Communists want to be able to monitor you, arrest you without cause, and hold you in prison for as long as they want without cause.


It's what the republicans (and democrats) want, and Paul has been fighting them both on this pretty much all by himself.


I'm glad at least you admit you don't know what he is.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ron Paul a communist? Are you smoking?

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

Communists want to be able to monitor you, arrest you without cause, and hold you in prison for as long as they want without cause.


It's what the republicans (and democrats) want, and Paul has been fighting them both on this pretty much all by himself.


I'm glad at least you admit you don't know what he is.

Communists want to be able to monitor you, arrest you without cause, and hold you in prison for as long as they want without cause.

obama defenders have argued for two years that obama wasn't a communist, now that you mentioned it he did along with MOST OF CONGRESS TAKE THE ACTION OF WHAT A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT WOULD DO.

 

[Warrior102]

Ron Paul a communist? Are you smoking?

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

He's a Constitutionalist, maybe if you would research the man and not the mainstream media coverage of him you would see that.

Why do I need to research a man who stands about as much chance of getting the nomination as a snowball surviving a flight through hell?

President-Elect Rick Santorum !!!!!

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

He's a Constitutionalist, maybe if you would research the man and not the mainstream media coverage of him you would see that.

Why do I need to research a man who stands about as much chance of getting the nomination as a snowball surviving a flight through hell?

President-Elect Rick Santorum !!!!!

Researching all candidates and having an informed opinion about all of them and voting for the best possible person isn't how you vote?


Sadly, that's the norm in America, at least amongst the 50% who actually vote.

 

[Warrior102]

Ron Paul a communist? Are you smoking?

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

Communists want to be able to monitor you, arrest you without cause, and hold you in prison for as long as they want without cause.


It's what the republicans (and democrats) want, and Paul has been fighting them both on this pretty much all by himself.


I'm glad at least you admit you don't know what he is.

See post 11.
Isn't it obvious I don't give a fuck about Ron Paul?

 

[Warrior102]

He's a Constitutionalist, maybe if you would research the man and not the mainstream media coverage of him you would see that.

Why do I need to research a man who stands about as much chance of getting the nomination as a snowball surviving a flight through hell?

President-Elect Rick Santorum !!!!!

Researching all candidates and having an informed opinion about all of them and voting for the best possible person isn't how you vote?
Sadly, that's the norm in America, at least amongst the 50% who actually vote.

See Post #11, asswipe.

Thanks

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why do I need to research a man who stands about as much chance of getting the nomination as a snowball surviving a flight through hell?

President-Elect Rick Santorum !!!!!

Researching all candidates and having an informed opinion about all of them and voting for the best possible person isn't how you vote?
Sadly, that's the norm in America, at least amongst the 50% who actually vote.

See Post #11, asswipe.

Thanks

I responded to your very sad and eye opening post.

The next republican will be a Romney/Gingrich type who will find a way to expand Obama's gov't as crazy as that sounds, just like Bush expanded Clinton's massive gov't.

And the parties and the media will still keep a straight face when they label these guys as conservative.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Researching all candidates and having an informed opinion about all of them and voting for the best possible person isn't how you vote?
Sadly, that's the norm in America, at least amongst the 50% who actually vote.

See Post #11, asswipe.

Thanks

I responded to your very sad and eye opening post.

The next republican will be a Romney/Gingrich type who will find a way to expand Obama's gov't as crazy as that sounds, just like Bush expanded Clinton's massive gov't.

And the parties and the media will still keep a straight face when they label these guys as conservative.

Agreed, will add it seems those who say they want change only want the party in charge to change.

 

[occupied]

I am quite certain that Paul would go to extraordinarily authoritarian lengths to prove his lonely vision, mostly ignored until now, to be correct. People with his kind of solitary moral certitude are dangerous in positions of power, he is the most authoritarian candidate we have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm not sure what he is.
I don't think he does either....

He's a Constitutionalist, maybe if you would research the man and not the mainstream media coverage of him you would see that.

Why do I need to research a man who stands about as much chance of getting the nomination as a snowball surviving a flight through hell?

President-Elect Rick Santorum !!!!!

You need to research the out of context mainstream media propaganda against Ron Paul.

 

[Warrior102]

He's a Constitutionalist, maybe if you would research the man and not the mainstream media coverage of him you would see that.

Why do I need to research a man who stands about as much chance of getting the nomination as a snowball surviving a flight through hell?

President-Elect Rick Santorum !!!!!

You need to research the out of context mainstream media propaganda against Ron Paul.

I don't view/read "mainstream" media. They're a bunch of liars.
I don't need ANY source, for that matter, to come to the conclusion that Ron Paul will NOT get the fucking nomination. Anyone who feels otherwise is a flaming fucking idiot.

 

[Warrior102]

Researching all candidates and having an informed opinion about all of them and voting for the best possible person isn't how you vote?
Sadly, that's the norm in America, at least amongst the 50% who actually vote.

See Post #11, asswipe.

Thanks

I responded to your very sad and eye opening post.

The next republican will be a Romney/Gingrich type who will find a way to expand Obama's gov't as crazy as that sounds, just like Bush expanded Clinton's massive gov't.

And the parties and the media will still keep a straight face when they label these guys as conservative.

Now you're getting it...