More on Ron Paul - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LaRondo · #1 01-01-2012, 11:52 AM

Ron Paul was not the type of candidate that fit in well with Sioux County voters four years ago. This deeply religious and conservative community rejected his libertarian message. Paul received only three votes out of the 500 or so that were cast by caucus goers in Sioux Center, the county’s largest town.

Fast forward to Friday. There were more attendees at his stop in Sioux Center than the 137 people who voted for him in the whole county in 2008. Ron Paul’s message has not changed, but the country has. So have the minds of Sioux County voters.

Lorna Wilson caucused for Mike Huckabee four years ago. Ron Paul can count on her vote this time around. “It took me a little while to really understand what he’s saying and what direction he is coming from,” Wilson said. “After I listened to him today, I realize how important the freedom issue is and that means freedom for others as well as ourselves.”

Sioux Center grouped all its caucus precincts into one large site four years ago. The college student who spoke on Paul’s behalf told the crowd “Let’s be honest, we all know America is no longer a great country.” The remark went over as well as a fart in church.

Four years later, Paul’s campaign is smarter. His surrogates have been reigned in from the behavior that turned off many voters last cycle. His base has expanded from angry, male college students to Iowans of all ages.
“We support Ron Paul because we feel like he’s the only candidate right now who is truly fiscally conservative,” said Bethany Van Raalte, a young mother who attended Paul’s Sioux Center event along with her husband and two young sons. “He doesn’t have anything in her past where he’d have to explain or flip-flopped on. He has a very pure record. We feel like he’ll bring a future for our boys.”

Even Paul’s most questionable stances on foreign policy did not seem to shake the crowds he spoke to in Sioux Center and Le Mars. “I do not worry about a foreign government or a foreign entity attacking us. There is nobody that can come close to even thinking about touching us,” he said at the Le Mars Convention Center.

I wondered if Paul had forgotten about 9/11, but he brought it up just minutes later, with a comment that bordered on 9/11 Trutherism. “There’s a lot of debate and explanation on exactly how that came about,“ he said.
“I like his ideas about foreign policy about not policing the world and not just going to war,” said Sharon Drent of Sioux Center. The 175 voters in attendance in Le Mars did not seem to mind, either. That is a staggering crowd number for an event in Plymouth County. By comparison, Michele Bachmann’s recent 99-county tour was launched from Le Mars. She drew less than 30 people for that event two weeks ago.

Ron Paul admits that his foreign policy views are to the left of President Obama. So, it makes sense that his appeal stretches across party lines. John Jacobson of Le Mars caucused for Democrat hopeful John Edwards four years ago. Ron Paul is his candidate of choice this time. “He understands the issues very well,” Jacobson explained. “He says the right things for the right reasons. He had my full attention the whole time.”

Only 101 people in Plymouth County voted for Ron Paul in 2008. It is another reliably Republican county. Judging from Friday’s event, Paul’s ’08 total is likely to be tripled on January 3. Ron Paul obviously has a lot of fans in this conservative section of the state. That means trouble for the rest of the GOP field.

Ron Paul Revolution Expands to Ultra-Conservative NW Iowa | The Iowa Republican

davidmash · #2 01-01-2012, 12:25 PM

Paul on sexual harassment

Quote:

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Paul on AIDS

Quote:

"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care," Paul wrote.

Pauls Book

LaRondo · #3 01-01-2012, 01:28 PM

Those quotes are probably taken out of context, as it happens all the time.
Personally, I don't consider these remarks as broadly significant as to redefine a superpower's future direction at large.

davidmash · #4 01-01-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Those quotes are probably taken out of context, as it happens all the time.
Personally, I don't consider these remarks as broadly significant as to redefine a superpower's future direction at large.

I supplied the link to his book. Why don't you go look?

greazzer · #5 01-01-2012, 01:46 PM

Ron Paul has my vote in 2012. If he runs as a "3rd party" candidate, then he still has my vote. It is sad that all the folks who want smaller government, no or lower taxes, out of the wars, no more aid to other countries, et cet., for whatever reasons, do not want a candidate who actually supports these ideas and has done so for 3 decades -- not just pandering to the media. I wonder how much money Fox News and its parent company will lose if Ron Paul wins? They talked the talk, but they don't walk the walk.

MagnumPI · #6 01-01-2012, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I supplied the link to his book. Why don't you go look?

Were they somehow supposed to be demonizing? It's pretty much common sense to me.

Quote:

Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency
about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people whodon't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights.
Victims demand health care as well and scream "discrimination" if insurance
companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone
already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company
owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance
companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual
suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing
them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I
believe, the Found(ing) Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.

Quote:

Today the lack of understanding and respect for voluntary contracts
has totally confused the issue that in a free society an individual can own and
control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses. The idea
that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay
men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind and further
destroys our competitiveness in a world economy.
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure
employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called
harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended,
but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?
Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force
was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly
an example of a violation of one's employment rights.
The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible
task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea
it's of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume low
power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?
The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing
anyone for any reason he chooses and in the name of rights is a clear
indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.

My employer pressured me into more travel. I quit. Same concept. It's all perfectly in line with voluntarism.

davidmash · #7 01-01-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Were they somehow supposed to be demonizing? It's pretty much common sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

My employer pressured me into more travel. I quit. Same concept. It's all perfectly in line with voluntarism.

Travel = sexual harassment. Sure I can see the moral equivalency

MagnumPI · #8 01-01-2012, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Travel = sexual harassment. Sure I can see the moral equivalency

Oh, so the US should be legislating morality? Gotcha. That's where the disconnect was.

davidmash · #9 01-01-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Oh, so the US should be legislating morality? Gotcha. That's where the disconnect was.

Never said that. The government should be enforcing a safe and equal work place free of harassment. A job description change (travel) is applied to the job, not the person.

MagnumPI · #10 01-01-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Never said that. The government should be enforcing a safe and equal work place free of harassment. A job description change (travel) is applied to the job, not the person.

No, the issue was the morality of it, you said it. Not me. That is legislating morality, you can't back out now. What is equality if not a moral argument?

Being 'pressured' into something you don't want to do is the same if it's cleaning toilets or giving head. If you're forced, as Ron Paul did point out, that's no longer harassment but an entirely different kind of flying, altogether. Coworkers be banging all the time, specifically to further their careers... BAN THE COMPANY!!!!!!!!

And the issue Ron Paul is talking about, in the non-cherry-picked version is voluntary contracts. So, you're just way off base. All these talks of people conducting relationships freely at their own discretion is over your head, as you've shown this in the past.

Honus · #11 01-01-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Were they somehow supposed to be demonizing? It's pretty much common sense to me.

My employer pressured me into more travel. I quit. Same concept. It's all perfectly in line with voluntarism.

The good news here is that we decide these sorts of issues by majority vote and Paul's libertarian approach is in the distinct minority, AFAIK. Libertarianism makes about as much sense as socialism. Both -isms make good points, but neither works as a governing philosophy, IMHO.

MagnumPI · #12 01-01-2012, 03:58 PM

Majority vote? Yeah, that's what the United States are all about.

elchivito · #13 01-01-2012, 04:04 PM

Ron Paul will only be a factor in the election if he runs as a 3rd candidate. Maybe he'll win Iowa. Big deal. With 6% unemployment, Iowa is about as much indicative of the rest of the country as, I don't know, San Francisco maybe.

davidmash · #14 01-01-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

No, the issue was the morality of it, you said it. Not me. That is legislating morality, you can't back out now. What is equality if not a moral argument?

Being 'pressured' into something you don't want to do is the same if it's cleaning toilets or giving head. If you're forced, as Ron Paul did point out, that's no longer harassment but an entirely different kind of flying, altogether. Coworkers be banging all the time, specifically to further their careers... BAN THE COMPANY!!!!!!!!

And the issue Ron Paul is talking about, in the non-cherry-picked version is voluntary contracts. So, you're just way off base. All these talks of people conducting relationships freely at their own discretion is over your head, as you've shown this in the past.

Fine. Poor choice of words on my part. Take out the word 'moral'.

Fine, if you think being forced to give a BJ and cleaning a toilet are the same, have at it.

Short of conscription, all jobs are voluntary contracts. Harassment, like rape are by definition not voluntary. Voluntary relationships are not being discussed here. We are discussing harassment which is not voluntary.

Honus · #15 01-01-2012, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Majority vote? Yeah, that's what the United States are all about.

Call it what you want. The only thing that matters when it comes to this sort of thing is that Ron Paul's positions continue to fail on election day and in the legislatures.