Paul is the only candidate who even bothers to mention that doller bills used to be recipts for gold (the money) that was in the bank. When we went off the gold standard we basically said that the recipt is now the money and the real money (gold) doesn’t matter. Now that is hard core skrewing of the public.

This is a broad based coalition of people across the political spectrum with a general agreement on a non-interventionist foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, and economic freedom (although, just like any other coalition, each of us have some disagreements with Dr. Paul on certain issues). Not one of my friends supporting Dr. Paul is a registered Republican (although many are considering registering as such so as to be able to vote for him in the primary). Granted, it has to do with the circle I frequent, but that is the point. Many liberals are fed up with Democratic candidates who pretend they can’t stop the war (it only takes 41 votes in the Senate to NOT pass an unconditional funding bill, and the Democrats could have just repeatedly passed funding bills with firm withdrawal timelines until Bush was forced to sign or be the one responsible for cutting off funds), and Dem candidates who won’t even commit to removing troops from Iraq by January 2013 if elected!

The primary policy support for Dr. Paul results from his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy: this unifying factor is far different from Buchanan’s coalition built around cultural conservatism. Paul could have run almost as naturally as a William Proxmire liberal in the Democratic party (Proxmire actually had the 2nd highest rating from the National Taxpayers Union when he was a Senator). Obviously, Buchanan was anathema to all liberals.

I very much dislike rudeness, and I won’t deny that some Paul advocates can be rude and childish at times, but he didn’t raise $5.1 million in the third quarter just from 14 year olds. As for whether he has a chance at the Republican nomination, we’ll see (he is listed at 7.4% on the intrade.com futures contract, which is not the same as 0.0%, so I suggest people bet their entire net worth against Paul on Intrade if they’re so sure), but with the breadth of his support, I’m willing to bet his campaign is going to continue to November 2008, and I am not the only one who is planning to commit to the $2,300 maximum for the general campaign if he wins the Republican nomination or agrees to run as an Independent or Third Party candidate.

Getting out of Iraq is important, as is adopting a foreign policy that reduces the hatred of the U.S. government that places all Americans at greater risk. There are many thoughtful supporters of Paul who are looking past party lines (I certainly am) toward a sane foreign policy.

The premise behind the WaPo argument does not fit the objective evidence. But I’m willing to let the evidence continue to pile up, and have no doubt that you will be open-minded if future events give you reason to modify your current view.

Dr. Paul’s advocacy of constitutional principles and the thought of the founders would gain approval from Confucius, who said “I transmit but do not innovate; I am truthful in what I say and devoted to antiquity (The Analects, VII, 1).” The Paul Administration will serve to “transmit” the ideas of our founders and their documents, which are our classics. There will be no officials who “innovate” upon them with creative interpretations or dismiss them as “quaint.” Indeed, Dr. Paul’s strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution is reminiscent of the Confucian devotion to the “Rectification of Names,” i.e. the restoration of original interpretations of words and the rejection of arbitrariness. Said China’s first teacher, “When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty (ibid. XIII, 3).”

The Confucian statement of the Golden rule-”What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others (ibid. VX, 24)”-is remarkably similar to the “no harm” principle that guides Dr. Paul’s libertarian philosophy. While the Confucian version may be less active than the Christian version, it is perhaps more suitable to governance, in that it allows individuals and voluntary associations more leeway and incentive to carry out mutual aid and charity work.

Confucius would applaud Dr. Paul’s opposition to rule by a unitary executive with unchecked powers. Confucius rejected rule by force, going as far to say, “Barbarian tribes with their rulers are inferior to Chinese states without them (ibid. III, 5).” Instead, he proposed leadership by example, which is what the Paul Administration will offer America, at home and abroad. Confucius offered this admonition which could have been levelled at the current occupant of the Oval Office: “Sir, in carrying on your government, why should you use killing at all? Let your evinced desires be for what is good, and the people will be good (ibid. XII, 19).” Indeed, Confucius, like Dr. Paul, was an arch-enemy of tyranny: “An oppressive government is fiercer and more feared than a tiger (The Record of Rites II, 2).”

If Dr. Paul is the consummate Confucian gentleman, he is even more of a Taoist sage. Here, Lao Tzu presages Dr. Paul’s social and economic platform of individual liberty:

The more prohibitions there are, the more ritual avoidances, the poorer the people will be… The more laws are promulgated, the more thieves and bandits there will be… So long as I ‘do nothing’ the people will of themselves be transformed. So long as I love quietude, the people will of themselves go straight. So long as I act only by inactivity the people will of themselves become prosperous. (The Classic of the Way and Virtue II, 57).
The essence of Dr. Paul’s economic ideas are that “by [governmental] inactivity the people will of themselves become prosperous.” When Thomas Jefferson famously reminded us that “the government is best which governs least,” he was expressing a Taoist sentiment.
This “inactivity” or “do-nothingness” is the Taoist ideal of wu-wei, or non-action. What is the non-interventionism Dr. Paul proposes for America, and which he reminds us was our original foreign policy, if not wu-wei writ large? In warning us of “foreign entanglements” and “entangling alliances,” Washington and Jefferson showed themselves to be Taoist sages as well. Like the Chinese, Dr. Paul knows that it is wise to listen to one’s ancestors.

Dr. Paul is a man of peace, but his thoughts echo those of that greatest theorist of war, Sun Tzu, who, not a chickenhawk, warned that unnecessary wars should never be waged. Certainly, a Congressmen Sun Tzu would have voted with Dr. Paul against invading a country that neither attacked us nor had the means to do so: “Unless endangered do not engage in warfare. The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger (The Art of War XII, 11).” Dr. Paul’s call to bring the troops home immediately from what has been foolishly but accurately advertised as “The Long War” would have been seconded by Sun Tzu, who observed, contra Randolph “War is the Health of the State” Bourne, “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare (ibid. II, 4).”

Confucius, Lao Tzu, and Sun Tzu all lived and taught in pre-imperial China. In 221 B.C., Ch’in Shih-huang united the various Chinese states into an empire and set about to burn the Confucian classics and bury their scholars alive. The Legalism of Han Fei Tzu, which centered on the totalitarian power of the ruler, replaced the humanistic teachings of Confucianism and Taoism.

The situation is not unlike our own today. The only difference between our Republic’s transformation to Empire and that of ancient China is that ours has been more subtle. (Ours is the “soft tyranny” spoken of by Alexis de Tocqueville.) Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution have not been burned (yet), nor have their defenders been buried alive (yet), but our founding documents and those who defend them have been ignored, scorned, circumvented, and trampled upon.

Confucianism survived the suppression and became the governing philosophy of the Han and all subsequent dynasties until 1911. Our constitutional republic, too, will survive and be restored. And there is one man calling upon our country to return to its founding principles, Ron Paul Tzu.

Mencius, Confucius’ great heir, carried on and elaborated his master’s theory of benevolent government, calling for a sage-king to lead, not rule, the people. Who among the current crop of Republicrat candidates, or even those of the last generation, has even an ounce of sagacity, save for Dr. Ron Paul, in whom it abounds. Ron Paul Tzu, the Confucian gentleman and Taoist sage, stands alone offering “Hope for America” and the restoration of our Republic.

The problem is not that capitalists interfere with a free market, because capitalists, by definition, are unable to work from outside the market; the problem is coercive interference, which is the result of misapplication of a public goods doctrine. The problem with public goods theories, is that they fail to recognize that public goods are perfectly non-rival AND non-exclusionary. Public goods theorists claim the public goods are, therefore, not produced in adequate proportians to meet demand primarily because once created – they are free. The public goods theorists claim that this limits their production; and that only a public organization can supply the ‘true’ current effective demand. A perfect example of a public good is an idea. Which just shows why this is such a vapid concept. According to public goods theorists, the supply of ideas will never be created to meet the current effective demand for ideas because once created ideas are ‘free’. So, they argue, we must create a government to produce ideas otherwise ideas will chronically be in short supply. If course this is the logical conclusion of a Marxist, and explains the current state of education in this country – but what do you expect from a theory which discounts the efficacy of free markets.

I don’t know if this qualifies as discussion befitting a Ron Paul supporter, but I support Ron Paul because he wants to free Marxists and Greenies to set up a social paradise in any State where they can push through their ill-informed agenda. Vote Ron Paul.

But the guys in charge now — often called the neo-conservatives — are the old FDR and LBJ Democrats who did not share the same goals of the secular crowd in the Democratic Party that were a bit sympathetic to the Soviet Union. The secular peace and love crowd that took over in the 60s chased them away for good. The pro-war New Dealers bolted for the Republican Party.

For decades the pro-war New Dealers and the pro-free enterprise libertarians of the Republican Party were held together in a fragile alliance against the Soviets.

After the Cold War, the big government pro-war Republicans took charge and barely even give the libertarian wing any lip service.

The pro-liberty small government Goldwater Republicans are largely what makes up the Ron Paul crowd. They have nowhere else left to go.

BTR

Way back at the beginning of this entirely strange us vs. Ron Paul ordeal, someone accused us of not covering him like any other candidate. Sad thing is, just to avoid his supporters, I may very well stop covering him like any other candidate.

And his tears still fucking cure cancer.

Can we (and I’m including myself in this) agree to a moratorium on R0n P@ul posts? These Kool-Aid crackheads make me pine for the sober discourse of 9/11 Truthers.

If the system was less about “picking” the Demopublican over the Republcratic “choice”, I would not have sent Dr. Paul money for his bid to get the Republican nod. (If I felt Gravel or Kuchinish had a chance, I’d sent them some money)

I can only hope for Dr. Paul winning NH and then the Republican nomination because at least there would be national discussion(s) about money and the size/power of the federal government.

Listen to this video and hear Joe Scarborough say what we all know (about 4:40 in) that Ron Paul is the only real conservative and Reaganesque figure in the race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlPjvPwpGXs

Sometimes I believe sites like this are setup just to make all liberals look stupid. As a liberal myself, I find that pretty apalling.

I will not support someone who won’t recognize the problems of having a private bank control our monetary system.
What can be done about it will not happen overnight….as the less than naive are aware..

They don’t make any more sense in the real world than any other conservative poppycock.

To partisan hacks, all conservatism is poppycock…

Remove regulations on industry? Bush has done that and we’ve learned, to our sorrow, what it means. That argument has always been gibberish and it still is. Unregulated corporatism is a recipe for murder. Federalism exists because the states can’t control global corporations who don’t give a damn if they kill people as long as they can increase their profits. So we just let them do it?

Spoken like a true liberal..running scared.

It’s the same damn nonsense in a different wrapper. Having integrity doesn’t make you right, it only makes you honest about what you believe.

Once again, you don’t agree. But don’t say that supporters don’t know what he stands for. I do man on the street interviews for my radio show and I have yet to find one I can play from any of the Ds.

Finally. Tho I suspect it was accidental knowledge, that was the point of the post. You just made it for me.

Don’t understand what point you think you are making. It says it right in the article I am an R always have been. It was not accidental that it came out nor did I try to hide it. And I happen to think Ron represents the republican platform as it was intended.