And the apoplectic Paulbots cries of conspiracy commence…From LGF:After conflicting reports on whether Fox News had dropped Ron Paul from an upcoming debate, today it’s confirmed—and Fox isn’t the only network to shun The Only Man Who Can Save….

I have a question… what’s the difference between Libertarianism and anarchy? Except Libertarians think we should have a military?

As far as I can tell, the Paulbots are anarchists for the most part.

Vanceone on December 31, 2007 at 5:14 PM

I am not a big WikiPedia fan, but they have a decent representation for Libertarianism.

Regarding the military; former active duty Marine myself, but I am no longer the fan of a large standing army. I prefer an armed citizenry where everyone participates and the limited government operates at the consent of the governed.

Depends on where does individual liberty end and anarcy begins. That has always been the major issue with the Libertarians. Ron Paul is no different.

bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Maybe you need to evaluate just how tied you are to the government. I don’t think it is anarchist to decide how much water you want to flush in a toilet, choose your own lightbulbs, or whether to wear a seatbelt or not.

On a larger scale, I would like to see every socialist program (Medicare, social security, grain subsidies, etc) in the federal government cut tomorrow. Also, the end the IRS, Dept of Education and the repeal of every gun control measure since 1933 for starters.

I live in California and have yet to see an ad for ANY of them.

BallisticBob on December 31, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Too early for your state.

Personally, I think individual liberty scares the conservatives as much as the liberals.

AZ_Redneck on December 31, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Depends on where does individual liberty end and anarcy begins. That has always been the major issue with the Libertarians. Ron Paul is no different.

Fact is… there are no real options hear. The ones that are good don’t have a voice.

Ron Paul has raised $20 Million, but I haven’t seen one Ron Paul commercial on national TV. What is he spending the money on?

SoulGlo on December 31, 2007 at 2:24 PM

I live in California and have yet to see an ad for ANY of them.

As far as I can tell, the Paulbots are anarchists for the most part.

3000/19000000 – .015% fraud

Enquiring minds want to know.

Exactly who is sourcing all of this money?

Incredible, literally.

The insanity.

maverick muse on December 31, 2007 at 9:20 AM

14-17 year olds and credit card fraud.

- The Cat

Lets hope the new year doesnt bring us an ultra christian nominee from the republican party, who is weak on every issue that conservatives should be strong on, simply for the sake of electing a religious candidate. Lets hope someone like Romney who is anti second amendment, pro universal health care and who thinks the government should be used to solve all the worlds ills is elected. I don’t see how you can claim RP isnt a conservative. Find me a candidate with more conservative positions on issues than this:

NEVER voted for a tax increase
NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget
NEVER voted for a restriction to the second amendment
Wants smaller government
Wants government OUT of the lives of people
Wants personal liberty to be restored by getting rid of things like the patriot act.

THOSE are things that always were conservative issues. Just because the republican party has changed in the past decade, and only focuses on God, Gays and abortion, doesnt mean conservatism has followed.

Individual Liberties by certain groups at the expense of the Collective

Personally, I think individual liberty scares the conservatives as much as the liberals.

Are there any Paul supporters out there who can point me to something that would indicate Ron Paul has supported American involvement in any war, ever? From what I can tell he has been against even Afghanistan after 9/11, WWI and WWII, and even the Union Army in the Civil War. As I understand Paul’s position, if there isn’t an invading army on our border, then any use of our military is simply meddling where we don’t belong. That’s kind of a deal breaker for me.

Dudley Smith on December 31, 2007 at 10:03 AM

I am not a “Paul supporter”, per se, but I entertain some similar positions.

Ron Paul did vote “for” the war in Afghanistan. Regarding Iraq; I don’t agree with RP that we were sold false information, however, I do agree with him up to the point that we should have never entered into the war in Iraq for reasons of “Regime Change” or “Iraqi Liberation”. Regarding Afghanistan; we were provoked. Regarding Iraq; I believe we are not the world police and should not be meddling in the affairs of other nations.

However, now that our troops are in Iraq, I would like to see Congress find their spine and let our troops do the work the military needs to perform.

Regarding the War of Northern Aggression; If Ron Paul would not have joined the Union Army, guess I would have been standing with him on the Confederate side (no, I am not pro-slavery).

Individual Liberties by certain groups at the expense of the Collective

When given a choice I prefer the individual over the collective. Part of the appeal of the Cold War was that we were fighting societies that emphasized the collective over the individual.

I was hoping newt would run to be in the debates for that reason, he’d make Paul look like a fool more so than he does. maybe he’ll be the VP pick for whoever is nominated.

Libertarian definition of “Liberty” are not the same as those envisioned by the founders.

Libertarians don’t understand liberty, just raw individual liberty/freedom and dumb down or ignore the other side of it when one’s freedom starts to infringe on others freedom, etc.

There are two sides to Liberty also, and Libertarians such as paul basically ignore one side and focus on the Individual Liberty side. There is also the Liberty of the Society as a whole to be secure/safe(i.e. National Security) which is a Civil Liberty. The two sides must balance out to acheive true Liberty given the real world realities of the day, and the hardest thing for legislatures to figure out. The Founders put words like “Unreasonable” in the 4th amendment for a reason. When you have Sleeper Cells for Terrorist agents intent on overtaking the country living inside the country, much less the threats from outside, you have a problem and to some extent “Individual Liberties” will be limited. Paul and Libertarians basically ignore this reality and come up with wild conspiracies and lots of wishful thinking to stay true to absolute individual Liberty. See Murray Rothbard who argued the Cold War was a ruse to expand big govt., same logic is being applied by the same crowd to War on Terror.

the Founders new better, they caught Benedict Arnold and other British spies/traitors, by INTERCEPTING Mail intended for them, reading it, then placing back in mail flow undetected. George Washington did that, he understood the full scope of Liberty unlike modern day libertarians.

This is why the President in his famous 2005 Inaugration address said that “increasingly Liberty at home is dependenet on in prospering abroad”…

Again, you are claiming the Libertarians have originated these ideas and trying to establish the pretext that they are the only ones who think this way. If Ron Paul get’s elected there will be a huge shift away from true conservative principals in lue of liberal anarchy.

You have just described the root and core Conservatism. Libertarianism is a poor copy of Conservatism and claims its self as the only alternative to saving the principals of the constitution. They claim to be the only ones concerned about big government and high taxes. All this without the philosophical and moral explanations that get in the way.

The Libertarian version is a rejection of rationality and justifying actions based on an individuals feelings rather than logic.

People may make decision based on logic (their checkbook?) feelings (love of family?) or a combination of both. Fundamental to the notion of liberty shared by the founders and leaders like Goldwater and later Reagan is the contention that the government is there to protect liberty, not to ration it out. You are endowed by your creator, not the government, with rights.

Abortion and drug use are two different matters. Abortion involves competing rights, not just moral conduct. Drug use–marijuana, alcohol, prescription meds, etc.–are much more a private moral decision. If someone wants to poison themselves with tobacco or weed, I don’t think they should have to get the government’s permission.

If the government could deliver the mail, repair the bridges, and secure the borders that would be a better use of our tax dollars than getting involved in what goes on in private homes.