Are Levin and Paul Really That Far Apart?
By Robert Ringer - Saturday, December 10, 2011
Mark Levin is a national treasure. Ron Paul is a national treasure. So it was with great regret that I listened to Levin eviscerate Paul on his radio show Friday. The sad thing is that if the two ever sat down together and had a lengthy talk, they would find that they agree on a majority of the most basic conservative principles.
Let’s get real here. The debate over pro-choice versus pro-life will never end. The debate over how to best provide for our national defense will never end. The debate over civil liberties versus national security will never end. The debate over decriminalization of drugs will never end.
Conservatives — including libertarian-centered conservatives — need to accept the fact that they will never agree on a number of extremely contentious, albeit very important, issues. But they can agree, and do agree, on the efficacy and morality of the three most basic conservative issues: smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation.
One of the reasons the left has been so successful in leading us down the road to serfdom over the past hundred years is because conservatives do not speak with a united voice. With few exceptions, Democrats, by contrast, are in synch on their basic beliefs.
My advice to all conservatives and libertarians is to stick to your fundamental principles, fight for what you believe in, but don’t slam the door on those who share your beliefs regarding smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation.
If we ever manage to get these three items going in the right direction, we’ll have the luxury of debating the more contentious issues that divide us. Again, I emphasize that these issues are important, but if we don’t dismantle big government, they will be nothing more than a collective moot point.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
82 Responses to “Are Levin and Paul Really That Far Apart?”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
So true. Until we have a constitutional limited government, nothing else matters because we have neither the means nor the capacity for dealing with those issues that divide us.
I will never vote for Ron Paul, especially after he made a speech a few days ago saying that the Bush administration was “gleeful” after the 9/11 attacks. That is sick.
I will call Mr. Paul what he is: A loon.
I agree he is out there could not be good as pres
Tammy, you missed the gleefulness of Bush. To us who were more aware of what was going on it was visible in his face. It seems I am the only one who heard Primary election candidate G. W. Bush express a desire to go to war with Iraq and I don’t remember where I heard it. I was always surprised that those in the media who seem to be able to pull up every thing everyone ever said did not bring this up.
My stomach turned when Bush expressed this desire and I despised the man from then on. Then right after the “terrorist attacks” he compared them to Pearl Harbor. Again, I felt sick. My father was in the army when Pearl Harbor was hit and he found out the next day that our government had to be involved. I grew up knowing the truth about Pearl Harbor and knowing the documents would not be declassified for 50 years to a child that is forever. But 1991 finally came and enough was released to at least know Roosevelt knew it was coming and did nothing to aid in defense of he attack. Yet, some documents are still classified. These are the ones that prove Roosevelt was in on the planning.
I will always believe that the “terrorists attacks” were partially planned by Bush. Whenever he was on TV after that he always had that little smirk on his face that showed his glee. He would get his war with Iraq even though Iraq had no connection to the Saudi Arabians who were involved in the attack.
Tammy, a vote for anyone other then Paul is a vote for the destruction of America.
…Re Libertarians…
It is a waste of time debating Libertarians. I come from a family of such folk, and they prefer their fantasies over realities. This is why they spend so much time complaining about conservatives and not doing anything to oppose big government. Likewise, they do not educate themselves. I love how many Libertarian co-workers I have believe “O” is an Ultra-conservative because he has continued or advanced Bushie causes from Gitmo to MJ enforcement to the war, but also failed to raise taxes to 100% and give everyone (except the “rich”) a free ride.
My own family is a case in the point: The Libertarians read Liberal Papers about Liberal-lite RINO’s and justify voting for Liberals who are robbing them blind. Telling them anything – any one thing – takes hours to educate and then they keep changing the subject, playing games with labels and semantics, and searching for one little point one cannot address to “WIN”(which turns out upon research to be a Lefty-Agitprop-Lie). Who cares who wins the argument?!
Can the Libertarian just believe that the dam field has to be plowed, the seed planted, the harvest reaped, and the banker/elevator paid before one can enjoy the fruit of his vision? NO!!!! Never, never, never once!!! It always has to be just according to their fantasy of 1969 or whatever year they woke up. And never, ever, do they see the Left keeps shifting the goal posts.
Libertarians are just Liberal-lites in a different way.
conservatives holding, accumulating, expanding their control/power is what is sick…it’s called megalomania. and d.c. is the max security asylum for the worst of the worst in this condition. nurse ratched was bush league, compared to the dc socio’s.
Actually, you’re insulting loons. They’re beautiful birds, and don’t deserve it.
Tammy missed the entire point of Mr. Ringer’s article today.
Rand Paul is a different person than his father(Ron),but I believe that he loves America and wants what is good for the Country. If he was running for President, I might vote for him, but never Ron Paul. Ron Paul knows the Constitution backwards, and forwards, but his Foreign police is Extreme, as well as his open borders and drug beliefs I love some of the Libertarian beliefs, but not all. I think that Mr Ringer has hit it on the head, we should pull together to get a Repulican in the White House and then discuss our differents.
RP is the real thing, but the foreign policy stance is unrealistic and, as he talks about it, naive. To suggest that North Korea and Iran will somehow be moved by good diplomacy is simplistic and needs much more explanation than he ever provides. Bringing troops home is well and good, and having them strung out along the southern border is fine. But, unfortunately, while we still have “interests” in the Middle East, I don’t see how we can simply remove them and hope diplomacy protects those “interests”.
maidenamerica…your post points to why it is not sensible to say libertarians and conservatives are related. the advice for them to band together can only fall under the logic of my enemy’s enemy is my friend, nothing more. which also means that if they did align, permanently rout the other conservatives (“the left”), their alliance would evaporate & “fresh” war would ensue.
“interests”, indeed. that tent covers anything, everything, including the aspirations of those other conservatives, around here derided as the left wing. is it not schizophrenic for the wings that work together to soar above their prey to also contend with each other? well, only superficially; it’s necessary to keep the feathers of the respective wings bristling, so as to keep the wings flying. because if those wings did actually oppose each other, the prey bird could not fly, and could not have wrought all the damage that it has. for another visual image of the “feathers”, see the flick “fight club”, specifically the scene where it is revealed that ‘everyman’s’ (ed norton) fight with tyler durden (brad pitt) is actually a split personality, fighting with itself – norton’s character is seen actually punching himself in the face, repeatedly.
hitler had “interests” in poland, in ’39. if he hadn’t split his already fractured personality again, by opening a second front with russia, your understanding of “interests” would probably be the same today, only different (lol).
conservatism is primitive. so primitive, in fact, that it is not overstatement to say it represents un-integrated personality. disintegration on the inside is projected to the outer world. fight club. the “first rule” and the “second rule” (right & left rules?) are the same: “you do not talk about fight club”.
patrick henry (libertarian): “give me liberty, or give me death!”
the wings (conservative): “give me security, I’m scared to death!”
don’t just cover, evade; think about it.
Just because you claim it, it doesn’t make it so. Conservatives and libertarians have a lot more in common than either are willing to admit, until they get past their labels.
david…
claims are unequal to truth is correct. do i merely claim? no.
i swallowed the many meals of victor written history. same as everyone else that was extruded thru ‘public education’.
was born in ’60. in the 70’s, the “why” questions began piling up (i have mentioned before that the decade of the 70’s was hard on my family, and the families around us). i was still a kid, but that’s when i started working on getting answers to those “why’s”, which turned out to be a process of regurgitating all those undigested, undigestable, constipating meals from before, and replacing them with nutritional foods, food fit for humans. another long process ensued, morsel of education replacing morsel of programming, and it is a process that continues to this day.
anyone who engages in this process will see what I describe. it is clear. the process will also turn up other minds who figured it out, saw it, described it. “it” hides, in plain sight. james has spoken of his dyslexia, and my brother had dyslexia, and just as dyslexia will literally mirror-image letters in the dyslexic’s brain, and that’s what the dyslexic “sees”, that is not what is there – the letters are in plain sight yet they are unseen. well, dyslexic images can be, have been, are, continue to be, manufactured.
David –
and the attendant gross generalizations that seem to go with them…
As a “reformed” Republican, now an independent, I “get” Paul’s ideas of securing freedom, sound money, and strong national security at home, so that the U.S. once again be a “beacon of light” to the rest of the world.
I “get” Paul’s application of “the Golden Rule” when “projecting” American strength and freedom around the globe.
And as a conservative, I MORE than “get” Paul’s commitment to Constitutional limits on government.
Unfortunately, it may be Ron Paul who could be left up against Obama. Better him than McCain 2.0.
If you put the (R)ats and the (D)emons in one sack, shook it up and dumped it out it wouldn’t matter who fell out first. As Mencken wrote: democracy is the worship of jackels by jackasses.
here, here! democracy extinguishes the fire neath the melting pot of reality, making it the ultimate divide & conquer strategy.
I believe that most conservatives believe in smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation, so most would agree with Ron Paul on those issues. The problem with Ron Paul comes when he turns his commentary to overseas issues. As much as many of us would like to, we cannot realistically withdraw to our borders and let the rest of the world argue among themselves. We cannot even defend our borders now. I could not in good conscience support Ron Paul against any of the other current Republican candidates, and I believe that Mark Levin speaks for most conservatives.
Joe, Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of his strongest points. We are not the world’s policemen. We cannot force our views on the world. We cannot win fighting gorilla wars.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had it right when they said to be friendly with all nations and trade with them.
This war spending is the same as the domestic spending it is destroying our nation financially so that the Marxists can take over. The issue is not Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative the issue is freedom vs. big government. Our nations involvement in world affairs is nothing but big government.
Big government and freedom cannot co-exist weather it is liberal big-government or conservative big-government.
I think the people who don’t like Ron Paul’s foreign policy are the ones who believed the Bush lies.
WHAT Bush lies? Oh, I know. The time he lied and said we found no WMD in Iraq. Well, sort of.
Jefferson went out and conquered the Barbary Pirates (terrorists of his day) on their own turf. There is plenty of precedent. What part of this doesn’t Ron Paul understand?
We can easily defend our nation without oppressing our own people. So I fail to see why defending our nation is the definition of big government.
like maidenamerica’s post, you point out the unrelatedness of libertarianism & conservatism.
libertarian (out of jefferson’s mouth/pen): peace, commerce & honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
conservative: military bases in 150 countries.
Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh and all the other conservative media will never back a candidate like Ron Paul, because they know their backing would likely help to get them elected, then they would have little or noting to rant about.
I believe the majority of conservative media back a candidate they can predict will ultimately give them juicy stuff to whine about into the future. They don’t really care who is elected, so long as it’s someone who will do bone-headed stuff. In fact, they probably secretly hope for a liberal to win so they’ll have even more to rant about.
These people run businesses. They may portend to have the interests of the country and the people at heart but, it’s their business that truly matters to them. They will do nothing to jeopardize their golden egg laying geese.
“these people run businesses”
businesses have been splitting dodge for a long time now. which suggests the golden geese prefer more hospitable climes over whining.
conservatives don’t back paul because they are conservatives. paul is libertarian. so scary.
Paul:
You make a very enlighten point here, one that most never seem to consider. It never fails, but it always seems to boil down to “self-interest & greed” — possibly my all time favorite subject. We tend to associate it with scoundrels, liberals & thieves, but the reality is, it applies to everyone. It’s the most neglected, ignored, misapplied & misunderstood topic on the planet today, and I’m sure RJR could write volumes on this one issue. Further, it’s a 2nd cousin to “intellectual honesty”, a trait very much in short supply in today’s world. This is all wishful thinking on my part, but again, good point on yours.
Reunion: you are speaking in general terms (“businesses have been splitting dodge for a long time now”) — Paul is speaking specifically
BTW Mr. Ringer, it so nice to see the website back in its original condition. Many thanks.
i think we both wrote in generalities; neither of us cited specific instances.
self interest / greed. yes. where would you place the fulcrum? i’d say “recourse”. if you can walk away from some greedy b*****d, or plural, that’s all the leverage required.
conservatism erects gov to move fulcrum to “no recourse” (hopefully you’re not one to argue death/imprisonment is “your choice, too”, and so constitutes recourse).
My usage & connotation of “self interest & greed” — hopefully but not necessarily yours — most frequently manifests itself within the undisciplined/immoral mind. To the intellectual honesty individual, it must seem to by-pass discipline & self-control, and happen almost automatically. To the uninitiated, it must seem to emanate unconsciously. To both, it must seem to occur without forethought. It is simply “one” of the many forms of rationalization.
Someday I’d love to sit down in a room full of libertarian psychologists/psychiatrists to listen and take studious notes in a discussion of said subject. In the meantime, I’m way in over my pay grade level.
So where do I place the fulcrum? It seems to me that my answer to that could only be deemed as arbitrary.
a roomful might be hard to assemble (I’ve met a few, none libertarians, or even close). thomas szasz would qualify, but don’t delay; he’s long in the tooth (fortunately, he’s written a number of books).
are unalienable property rights in your person (and by extension your production) arbitrary?
You live in your naborhood,and just how many people living there are like Iran or North Korea and will not live at peace with you or do you have to put the military between them and you. The world is just one BIG naborhood and America can look after its own after we clean out Washington.
yeah, but, the domino theory! we can’t let that first little domino fall!!
Seems to me that not that long ago, kool-aid drunken Americans elected a Kenyan who thought that the rest of the world would be thrilled to sit down and negotiate with him without preconditions simply because he’s so groovy. Anyone paying attention knows that the world today is far more dangerous for life, liberty and happiness than it was just 3 years ago, simply because meeester beeg stuff is seen by the very nations who seek to either destroy us or absorb us into a kommietopia as a blithering idiot. The trouble with the older of the two Pauls is that he is not that much different from the fool he seeks to replace on how to defend Our Country from all enemies domestic and foreign. The Republicans need someone who views the objective of war the old fashioned way: “We win. They lose!” (I think Ronald Reagan said that).
And please, what we are talking about is the RINO nomination, not the presidency itself. No matter which of those still in the running after the primaries gets that brass ring, all of us with a clue will support him or her for that dream job.
One of the best lines from the debate, in my thinking, came from Gary Johnson who said something like his neighbor’s dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than the kommie-in-chief. I submit that those talented pooches are more qualified for the top job than the current White House Occupier. Right now, the only certainty for next November is that the incumbent must be fired.
the biggest danger in the world now, and for a long time, is amerika, and it’s allies.
your “clue” is the group “thought” of the borg, the matrix. adam sutler, he’s your man.
The big difference that is hard to contest is that Levin is an entertainer that depends on ratings. He has half a dozen well rehearsed mantras that he launches with the amount of hysteria best suited for the moment. Some are research founded and some are anecdotal based on emotion and not fact. The entertainer really doesn’t care. Their interpretation of conservative is somewhat elastic and they use the term to suit the mantra.
Ron Paul on the other hand actually thinks things through and to his detriment is more concerned with fact and what actually might work than ratings. He is the only one of all candidates on either side that seems concerned about individual freedoms.
libertarianism is the product of thought; conservatism is the product of emotional reflex.
And your statement is an example of libertarian thought? What an oxymoron! You assume conservatives don’t think. Bad assumption. When you are blind to the realities of what libertarian policy would do to our nation, you’re not thinking.
Hey, there is a distinct difference between liberty and licentiousness. The licentious have invaded the Libertarian Party. They’re not interested in liberty, and won’t fight for it. They have derailed the LP. Take a look at the LP platform. They no longer support repeal of property tax, the most INSIDIOUS and devastating form of tax. Why is that so? Because it turns property ownership into serfdom. Pay the tax, or we’ll take your home without compensation. That’s a total repudiation of the right to property lawfully acquired.
Refusing to defend your country is another huge problem. We were ATTACKED, if you hadn’t noticed. We have every right to root them out where they live, just like Jefferson did with the Barbary Pirates, and it is gross negligence not to do so. This is why Paul would be a disaster. Under a Paul presidency, the terrorists would be HERE, and YOU would be looking over your shoulder so you don’t get blown up by an IED. We’ve been keeping them pinned down so they don’t have the resources to do that here.
I lived on old battle grove road in north point (in Maryland)Its the most famous road in the world and no one knows about it.
More famous than the Star Spangle Banner,the battle of north point is the back door (land attack) in the efforts to take Baltimore and Ft. M”Henry in 1814.
The battle of north point where two teenage boys climb up a tree and watch an advancing British army led by Gen. Robert Ross coming toward them. I offen wonder what the hell they were thinking.
No one knew which one fire the shot,but it hit its mark.
General Ross would live but a few more hours.
Also they knew if they pull the trigger they would die,its been said they live less than sixty seconds after the shot was fired.
We have these stupid differences about Ron Paul.
Look what happen at the battle of north point,a military force invaded our country and a couple of local rebels shot the British General and halted the advance of the his army.
Sounds something like the U.S. in what country today.
The question is are you willing to climb up that tree.
Keep making fun of Ron Paul and you will never get the chance.
This columnis right on. We must all come together around the base values we have and get power. Then we can move forward in the other areas.
the vying for institutionalized “credentialed” “legitimate” power has been the one constant throughout history. watch ‘lord of the rings’ (or read it). this premise needs a re-think.
Free market is important. But it does not rank first. A free marketeer who is soft on killing undelivered children, slaughtering wards for food, and taking away men’s inalianable right not to be governed by women is a free marketeer for the wrong reasons.
the women, again……
Yes, Mr. Ringer’s justification for voting for them is physical attractiveness or in personal life, being a model for playboy magazine whose two favorite figures are her brother who was a war veteran, and Henry Kissinger who said “military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.” Very consistent. Men AND women have an inalianable right for political power not to be delegated to women, who are due to psychological metaphysical differences between men and women, described by both Ayn Rand (a woman), see her view on female presidents) and Aristotle (a man), as less suited for leadership than men. I certainly do not want someone whose two favorite figures is a brother soldier and a public figure with extreme secret contempt for soldiers to define national opolicy, and long legs and a big chest and a nice mug are not good reasons to vote for someone either. In the business sector, men have an inalianable right to be suckers and work for female bosses, but in politics, they have no right to elect or appoint a woman. Notice that that was only one of three issues I listed though. Salesmen-Bloggers who sell half-truths to be popular are like Africans who sell their tribe members into slavery. If this is what sales is, it is better to live in a Bolshevik slave camp is what I am saying.
Hmmmm. I think Margaret Thatcher did a pretty darn good job. Since when is it a given that NO woman is ever suited for leadership? And if you want to think of it in biblical terms, look up Deborah, the judge.
I would appreciate a link to the speech referred to by Tammy. Describing as a loon, a man of Dr Paul’s exemplary character and family life, considerable qualifications, impressive accomplishments, scholarship and authorship and huge contribution to his community and nation, says more about the name caller than the man himself.
Describing his foreign policy as “unrealistic” immediately implies lack of knowledge and personal experience of Asia and the Middle East and of the enormous consequences the US pays for “protecting” its “interests” there, which the commenter fails to specify.
A check of the latest published opinions of the US people say they are satisfied the US should not have invaded Iraq; they want the troops home from the failed expedition to Afghanistan; they want the troops home from Europe and Korea and they do not want any talk of an invasion of Iran. They want the economy fixed.
Which is about verbatim what Dr Paul has been saying without fear of criticsm and ridcule from the uninformed for years.
enraptured raptors see all other birds as “loons”. the dehumanized project dehumanization.
Mark Levin IS a national treasure. I absolutely love the man, and admire him for his intellect and courage.
But I strongly disagree with his position of the war with Iraq… and our occupation of Afghanistan and a dozen other countries around the world. All those Muslim countries PUT TOGETHER aren’t worth the life of a single American soldier. And yes, Bush DID give us Obama!
What “pie-in-the-sky” leaders like George Bush… and nearly all of our “leaders” in Congress will never understand… is that the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted in the West have their root in the Protestant Reformation and Biblical Christianity.
The Bible sternly warns individuals about being busy-bodies in other men’s affairs. What applies to individuals also applies to countries. PEOPLE DON’T LIKE BUSY BODIES!
And that is certainly what America has become – a BIG, FAT,LOUD-MOUTHED meddler in the affairs of other nations. Worse still, they don’t respect us. Is it any wonder why? Our “leaders” won’t even protect our own borders. Many now have blood on their hands. Is it true that America is now the murder capital of the Western industrialized world?
U.S. of A. is now morally bankrupt and financially bankrupt, too. Why? The answer is simple. We are no longer a Christ-loving, Bible-believing, God fearing people.
“Conservatism” will never provide the answers to any of the problems that plague us. Only God’s pure Word can and will.
tell it brother! to the deists who got it rolling, i mean.
truth is discovered, is processual. it is not a tradition. or an invention.
Mark Levin hates Ron Paul because he will not sacrifice more American lives and treasure for Israel.
I quite agree and I don’t understand Levin’s feud with Savage either. He makes a lot of sense but I think his passion for defense of the Middle East is just too strong. It seems to put all his other opinions out of perspective.
I’ve heard it said there are places in the Southwest of the US that are more dangerous to go to than some hostility zones in the Middle East. After 8 years of Bush as president-much of that with supermajority, what is the excuse for this? Why on earth was our National Guard sent to the Middle East while people get run off their property near our Mexican border?
kudos to RR’s decision to leave ‘respond to writer’ on for this shorter essay. good idea.
Let’s all kiss.
It seems that Mr. Ringer’s reasoning is let’s all be friends and unite against BHO: BHO is going to attempt to finish the job of transforming amerika from a frugal-social-fascist-police state into a fully blown-social-fascist-police state; therefore, Mr. Ringer seems to reason that it would be better to have a Republican who would slow the transformation process down and buy some more time for amerika’s survival. Maybe there is even a chance that the ignorant masses would somehow wise up and realize that small government is better than big government.
For me–even if I agreed with this line of reasoning–the question then becomes is it better to boil the ignorant, unseasoned frogs (amerikans) slowly by having some Neocon as the frugal socialist-in-chief and hope the frogs wise up and figure out what’s occurring before it’s too late or is it better to let the heat get turned up by remaining steadfast to my libertarian principles; and hope the ignorant frogs jump out of the pot when they see Chef-in-Chief Obama boiling the pot dry after he is reelected. The truth is that nobody knows which cooking method (if any) will offer a better chance of saving the frogs from getting fully cooked.
The ignorant, unseasoned frogs just might need to feel the burn and smell their own cooking flesh before they jump out of the pot. I personally believe that the unseasoned frogs will somehow be convinced to remain in their warm, secure cooking pot until until dinner is served
do you bite when you kiss, or just wear braces? lol….
if ‘lesser of two evils’ is default speed, the wireless just never works right. and neo’s (the matrix) input jack is not on the market yet. only big bro has ‘em.
tin foil hat placebos, the market has those…..
There is, indeed, a third way according to Mises: i.e. muddle-through interventionism. Of course, interventionism always leads to more interventionism via problem-reaction-solution governance. Over time, free markets become less free and individual liberties are reduced until you reach a point when hegemons centrally plan everything, expertly administer propaganda to sooth and convince the unseasoned frogs to remain in the cooking pot and elect front-men (sous chefs) by a hegelian-dialectic-electoral process.
Currently, you and I are living in the third way at its most advanced stage; We are surrounded.
Mr. Ringer wants more muddle-through conservatism because he thinks by such compromises the unseasoned frogs have a better chance of survival. Ringer advocates a united croaking that becomes so loud that it drives the current chef (Obama) from the kitchen.
Now here this: The Tortoise is advising the frogs to stop croaking at each other and direct all of their croaking at chef BHO.
Perhaps this is good advice, perhaps not.
Speaking of croaking: It should be very amusing watching the bullfrogs croak out all of their unclean expressions at the debate tonight. Man, can that Gingrich ever croak out the grandiose propaganda. He’s a real croaker, if I ever saw one.
Levin, Rush and Hannity are going to love going ribbit, ribbit, ribbit in their interviews with Newt.
isn’t newt a cracker? or is that just a regionalism for croaker?
the bullfrogs were not safe when i was a boy, growing up in the south (frog legs – the other white meat). i guess they still aren’t.
*i am not a cannibal…lol
The truth is Levin, et al., are either deliberate lying hypocrites or simply incapable of curing their ignorance.
Anyone can read great libertarian literature; anyone can read what Ron Paul has written, both his books and his articles and his speeches, and thus know what his real positions are, know his REASONING to have arrived at his positions.
Anyone who makes the kinds of statements Levin did and that are rampant on this and almost all other Web sites about Ron Paul is inexcusably malicious.
If this is your criterion for “national treasure,” you’re part of the problem.
Men hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.
No excuses. Anyone truly seeking truth CAN find it. It then remains to maintain honesty and accept and incorporate and align oneself with truth.
Today with the glorious access to information we have, there’s no excuse for ignorance of the truth and ignoring truth because it contradicts one’s preferences and ideology. Doing so reveals the heart.
pretty good graycat.
i don’t know where nature leaves off and nurture takes over, but animal pragmatism is inborn.
schooling (cultural, institutional) freezes the blood, fossilizes the viscera. truth becomes the spots and speckles and colors in camouflaging pelts and feathers and scales that enable/facilitate/promote hiding, comfortably amongst validating peers, in plain sight.
self-deception is foundational. you can’t cheat an honest, non-self deceiving, man, but you can barely find one, either. from nature to nurture to blood & treasure thirsty aggrandizing nation state…it’s a toxic fractal crystal.
a little light, melts ‘em right down. but it seems like they just find a lower, darker level, and refreeze. eventually, maybe, far enough down will be close enough to molten core that refreezing can no longer occur.
If we’re nothing but animals, this conversation can’t take place.
Either we’re human beings with free will, or we’re not. Free will means we can make choices.
“Pragmatism” may be inborn, but the supposed glory of human beings is they can choose to exercise intelligence and integrity to inform that pragmatism.
Where there is darkness there is no light; light is available to every man, but light must be sought. “But men loved the darkness, because their deeds were evil.”
not true. animals of all kinds communicate, relatively rudimentary tho the “conversations” may be. to say we’re not animals is one of the first, and largest, ‘manifest destiny’ type self-deceptions ever invented. it’s so eagerly embraced because the elevated, holier than everything validation is so appealing. especially to the timorous. it is one of the great roots of the us/them tree.
human beings exist on a continuum, from more to less animalia (or, if preferred, more or less primitive). where on that continuum is function of particular human doings. it’s as mistaken to make monolith of human beings as it is to hand a trophy to everybody on both teams, winners, losers and bench-warmers.
egalitarianism, as rothbard said, tho perhaps with less sweep than i use it here, is a revolt against nature. and it is one of those premises that cuts the users hands off long before it cuts through his object. counterproductive, “unintended consequences”, all that.
more humanity is learned, not a given, certainly not a baseline.
If you read what I wrote carefully, you’ll discover that nowhere did I say human beings aren’t animals.
What I do emphatically argue is that the human animal has faculties other animals do not possess, and it is anti-human, inhumane, not to respect and exercise them for truth revealed in facts.
Otherwise, there is no capacity for ignorance or choice at all, and, as I mentioned above, we can’t have this conversation — another wholly human attribute entirely out of reach of other animals.
It is absurd and disingenuous to equate human beings with any other species. Your own contention of a continuum makes that argument.
I really don’t want to be bogged down in senseless word games. The fact remains that if people were genuine in their positions they would not be dissing Ron Paul based merely on what they’ve heard in media sound bites, but would take the time — and work — to find out “straight from the horse’s pen” what he REALLY says and WHY.
And then attempt to refute that on truthful, logical, factual grounds.
There aren’t any, which is why they prefer to parrot what others say because they like it.
graycat….
so we’re animals+? precision in language is not a “word game”. You seem to have understood me; do you think I am the only one who misunderstood your legalism?
isn’t some sort of egalitarianism implicit in your faculties argument? aren’t those faculties also on a continuum and aren’t they potentials, contingent & dependent, rather than givens? latent is not kinetic; recessive need not manifest; and institutional motives designed, and applaud, the suspended, minimized, animation. how are “anti-human” and “inhumane” not ways of saying less than human or primitive or animalistic? the lack of “respect & exercise” is epidemic.
economists talk about time preference. eor animals, time preference tends to be “now”. for some people, too (as in the keynesian credo, “in the long run, we are all dead”… anyway). for too many people, time preference is somewhere about 6 inches beyond their noses – just slightly better than your average bear. what time preference is paul concerned with? and what would institutional embrace of that time preference mean to the 6-inchers? what does next week mean to my cat? there is indeed a continuum, and the only thing absurd about it is how good the company is that knows this, and says it straight, instead of things like “supposed glory” (but there is hope; you did say “supposed”). if the lumpen are faculties-homogenized at all, it is downward. bread, circuses, linus’ blankey, done. subsidy surreal, in other words.
Hey, if you want to wallow with the animals, you can certainly do so.
As for me, I know I am NOT an animal, and I choose to rise above the claim and the behavior, and act rationally, and acknowledge I was made in the image of God, and I am not the product of slime, or of a frog turned to prince(ss) with the passage of time. I don’t believe in fairy tales.
We human beings have our own kingdom. You will look in vain for any animal that can communicate abstract ideas, develop a religion, have an aesthetic sense, invent extremely complex tools, learn a complex spoken language naturally, deliberately sacrifice self for strangers, defend himself in court with a complex legal procedure, in other words, create specified information. Half the problem is people are too gullible to see through the fairy tales. As for me, I’m not going there.
Suit yourself, but worldview is critical, because it is the basis for political philosophy. If God didn’t give us unalienable rights, who did? No one. Government has every right to lord it over us. A belief in a higher authority is the best defense against tyranny. People with such a belief cannot be conquered. Their spirits prevail. You can kill my body, but that’s all you get to do.
Huh?
Man, you sure know how to turn a phrase, but what did you MEAN by that?
Or is this the product of public school? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hmm, regarding that Babylon Temple buildet in the desert ,
strange that also the bills of Sadham Hussein where printed in Switzerland and that the Halabja massacre was terrible!
and that the gas mustard used on that Vietcong kids ? and on the opium fields at peack no matter the war state see Afganistan and Pakistan… than what to say? Perhaps Mr Powell Colin know better as his just war experience is soo breed as 4 presidents mandates with replays few..and the Hoover conection regarding the labs and all, when in fact are also the chain of supply toward the socialist sisters worldwide as if the damms policies where not enough you know? Line the Tree Gorgeous Damm in China huge investment from the World Bank funds when in fact, in fact the rain just in time J.I.T. came from Jehovah hand!And Jehovah hand is not shorter or cut to do not supply us all what we need! Rain in times as written! Refreshing times! and how it could as long the blood guilt prevail? and the hebrews know that the blood guilt
is the root of the deserting soo no pastures no milk!Can publish thousands debates Constitutions aso nothing may serve practically he Paradise perspectief as the Bible does! But without knowledge and practice the results will be poor misery and wars.. The Bible teachings talk about familly principles GOOD FOR MANHOOD!By Familly Cell Foundation
It is difficult to understand.
To assure that they get their bloated, huge, unchecked foreign policy, the anti-Ron Paul crowd are willing to accept a failed economy.
No Ron Paul is not only good at domestic policy. He is good at practical economics, which includes all uses and effects of money. You cannot separate them.
an important clarification: austrian school econ. it’s practical, but that is a side effect – of being correct, true. part of what i emphasize is the error of emphasizing ends, rather than means. that’s prgamatism and that’s cart before horse. the “take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves” approach is correct, true; “show me the money!” is incorrect, false.
btw, those who like to fall back on, “let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good” are saying that the cart beside the horse is better than ahead of the horse…no, it’s not. 2+2=4, the horse goes in front, etc.
It is a hard thing to accept that ‘our’ government will protect ‘itself’ before it protects ‘us’, but the sad truth is that this is the way it is and, by the way why does neither party stand up and shout when so called “political leaders” propose, pass and make speeches about items that ignore the constitution?
@graycat
ignorance is built in to the system. ignorance is defended, promulgated, and subsidized. ignorance pays (it has…but time is running out, for this iteration, at least). people are genuine in their positions. their positions are simply incorrect, self-indulgent. self-deception is at the heart of those incorrect positions, and animal-ly pragmatic time preferences are the innermost chamber of that heart (“now; I don’t care how, just NOW – give me”). liberty, even in theoretical lightning strikes lottery winner longshot terms that is a paul nomination/candidacy/dismantling-of-subsidy machine is the last thing they want. nor would they want it even if they were locked in the horse’s pen from now until election.
free will is another conceit. it means we can make choices? by invoking free will you imply either a lack of boundaries, or much wider bounds than actually exist. people make choices within boundaries, both internal & external; free will has nothing to do with it (like the choice I made in face of the thread limit boundary here…). people respond to incentives & boundaries, often without much thought – as do pavlovian doggies. conservatism, via gov weapon, seriously surrealizes incentives – and people respond accordingly. a paul candidacy will not change that. no candidacy will change that. nothing between thee & reality, as in no gov-wielding con-servative wedge, is all that can change that. which brings us back to the continuum of individuals, where the bulk of them reside, have always resided, and why deviations from this mean have been few, and short lived.
Dear Robert, you write a lot of excellent articles that I agree with, but I somehow feel that you haven’t really studied Ron Paul in depth, or examined the Libertarian platform carefully. I have, and there is no comparison between some major policies of the Libertarians – Ron Paul – and the beliefs of Mark Levin.
The areas you listed are indeed those they agree on, generally, but you did not address the military and defense, where Paul would gut our military, bring home our troops from all over the world, and close all of our overseas bases. That would leave us with no pre-positioned supplies or troops for rapid response to an emergency. He also would do nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Paul believes in the Libertarian goal of personal freedom to the extent of making all drugs legal, including cocaine, heroin, crack and meth. Being an addict, which many will become, will cause car accidents, and many will become violent when on drugs. It will make many incapable of holding a job, or being productive citizens. Some say, well, alcohol is legal. It is, and it’s a problem. Compounding the problem by creating more things to addict people legally will only make things worse.
Sincerely, Ronald DuBois Bogota, NJ
Government intervention compounds the drug issue most of all. Just take a look around you. Good intentions don’t count, results do. Government intervention has institutionalized drug running, gun running and money laundering. Drug cartels have become far worse than the mobs were during Prohibition. In fact, the government is the mob.
Ron Paul is not saying that it should be legal to drive under the influence of alcohol, prescription or non-prescription drugs. Citizens have a responsibility and, frankly, a personal interest in reporting to local authorities that kind of dangerous behavior. These issues can and should be handled on a local level.
By the way, what rock have you been living under? amerikans are already drugged up with prescription drugs, alcohol and distracted by various gadgets and stresses when they are behind the wheel. You yourself admit to being an addict, right? Well, the government confiscated my money through taxation to fight a losing war on drugs, and yet that did not stop you or millions of others from becoming an addicts, did it? Spending billions on a losing war on drugs is very similar to spending millions on a war on alcohol. As far as rehab for addicts goes, the issue is that private charity is far more efficient than government, yet private charity does not get the funding it needs because government is sucking up massive amounts of capital.
Furthermore, having a military empire with 900 overseas bases is an outdated strategy that is unsustainable. Like the war on drugs, in the end, it’s just another loser.
amerika can defend itself by the modernized, military strategy which RP has proposed. Iran is a regional issue which can be managed by those in the region. RP has already stated on Fox News that if oil is cut off by an event such as some country closing off the Strait of Hormuz, then he would go to Congress and seek a Declaration of War.
Please don’t be fooled by the fear mongering Neocons, amerika is not going to be invaded and conquered; moreover, I can assure you, amerika will nuke the f*ck out of anybody who attempts to nuke the U.S.a.
RP supports defending our borders against infiltration of anybody carrying suitcase nukes, yet he opposes the TSA sticking their hands in some old lady’s vagina in order to search for said nuke, so stop with the lies about how RP is weak on defense. That’s nothing more than Levin/Morris/Coulter/Limbaugh/Neocon garbage. Ron Paul is the treasure, because he IS the gold standard.
“…I somehow feel that you haven’t really studied Ron Paul in depth, or examined the Libertarian platform carefully.”
Mr DuBois: I’m sure your comment is sincere and well intentioned, however, you may want to study Mr. Ringer’s background a bit more and reconsider that thought. Why? Well, this may hurt a little, but imho you may have just made one of the greatest mischaracterizations of all time… Ouch!!! I know, I know, it hurt more than a little. Truth hurts, huh?
ron…if you err and allow bore holes to be drilled in foundation, you eventually lose that foundation (because to the borers, holes are like lays potato chips and sara lee – you can’t eat just one and nobody doesn’t like…talk about addictive personalities…).
foundation is: bodies are the property of the people who live in them. what they do with them, including what they put into them is their business. all the rest of the noise around these sorts of issues is just that – noise.
beyond that, the borers deciding to make this or that substance illicit/illegal is arbitrary. the vast make-work programs they erect to back these plays, however, are not arbitrary – they are designed, purposeful.
you probably lack historical perspective. easy enough to read about prohibition (alcohol)and see how exactly it parallels the various fill in the blank substances that have been out”lawed” since then. easier still would be to just watch “boardwalk empire”, a cable series about the prohibition era; it’s hollywood, not strict history, but it is close enough on the details & facts.
I guess I was trying to imply this in what I said earlier but I really believe that if Ron Paul did not have the opinions he has on foreign intervention, Levin would like him-a lot. The GOP can overlook the sins of its candidates ranging from flip flopping on health care to marital infidelity to poor competence as a communicator but perhaps the biggest unforgivable sin is to have a strict non-intervention policy. Any candidate with this policy will not be appreciated in the GOP no matter what else they believe. What is sad is that neither side represents this point of view despite its popularity with the American people. Intervention is a parasite value that latches on to other values worth voting for.
yes. it is parasitical. what must be realized is that “intervention” is the raison detre of empire. furthermore, as counterfactual as it may seem, empire is conservative.
a tumor, growing, expanding, encroaching, is forceful self-replication of a single cell, over & over & over, and it will keep growing, replicating itself, until the cancer is stopped, or the host dies.
what could be more conservative than me, me, me, to the forceful exclusion, attempted annihilation, of all potentially competing you’s, them’s, the others?
13 colonies (healthy, differentiated cells); revolution (healthy immune function prevailed); con-stitutional convention (cancer begins); tariff of abominations, morrill tariff (cancer grows); north invades (immunity overwhelmed, local metastasis, differentiation – state rights – gone); force projection abroad (continuing metastasis); fed reserve (to better feed the continued metastasis); entangling foreign alliances, two world wars (continuing metastasis); 150 satellite tumor bases infiltrating every corner of the world body…unless metastasis can find sustenance to continue its advance into outer space, looks to be pretty close to host killing time.
is “cancer bad” a “belief”, or “opinion”? or is it just a fact? the good doctor has the cure for cancer; for this, the cancer industry hates him.
just flashed on an allegory, in the shower, lol.
ever see/read “the shining” (stephen king)? recall that jack torrance was a struggling wannabe writer, with anger & alcohol management issues. he takes a job as winter caretaker of the overlook hotel, somewhere in the mountains of colorado. he intends to use the time, easy schedule, solitude, to write. and write he does. hours of writing, day in & day out. “great progress”, he beams at his wife. eventually wife grows tired of being put off as to details of what’s being written, and allowing curiosity to prevail, sneaks a peak at the piled high pages of the manuscript. what does she read?
“all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.” That’s it. the same 10 words, over and over and over again, for 100’s and 100’s of pages.
now that’s conservative. how’s that definition of insanity go, again?
david….
i’ve done a lot of reading. but I’ve done a lot of living, too. my life, from, a very young age, was such that observation was necessary. i understand people, the human condition, very well. and I understand power, very well. these are summary headings, not attempts at fallacious appeal to authority; there is only so much that can be done, not just in a forum like this, but generally (i have been at this a long time, have engaged familiars in these discussions, face to face, over courses of years, and still, workarounds of the dyslexia are slow in coming).
“alexander hamilton was the ablest as well as the most conservative of the american statesman. he longed for monarchy, and he desired to establish a national government and to annihilate state rights. the american spirit, as it penetrated france, cannot well be described better than it was by him: ‘i consider civil liberty, in a genuine, unadulterated sense, as the greatest of terrestrial blessings. i am convinced that the whole human race is entitled to it, and that it can be wrested from no part of them without the blackest and most aggravated guilt. the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. they are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased, or obscured, by mortal power.”
that’s a passage from lord acton’s (1834-1902) “lectures on modern history”. can you see the schizophrenia, as i’ve characterized it? do you realize that hamilton & his fellow conservatives, the “federalists” / whigs / republicrats, prevailed, fully, over the libertarian “anti-fedralists”?
we all have more in common than most are willing to admit. but the aspect that is most commonly held, is the conservative reflex / impulse. the firebrand vanguards which occasionally capture attention and capture liberty flags, always contain significant conservative elements in the rear, waiting for the opportunity to lock everything up, again. study your history; it is there, continuously. study people (best classroom for that is a position in sales); the commonalities are there, continuously.
But, you’ve got to want to know…”why?”.
@reunion,
this is typical.
Assuming the Left is conservative. Of course. That type of thinking is why Libertarians are ignorant of politics and have never worked the sausage.
Anything a Liberal does not like is “conservative” – the word simply means “evil” and gives the user a “bad” feeling. There is no principle or meaning behind it. It makes the language and communication useless. One might as well try to “Reason” with one’s dog.
Similarly, this is why I consider Libertarians to be “Liberal-lites.” They believe their own fantasies, but they are “lite” because they adopt a “conservative” position on some one or more issues. Often (aside from prostitution, porn and maryjane), they have chosen their position because reality checked in.
In America, not Amerika, the term “conservative” has a meaning.
I wish Libertarians would stop reading Agitprop, and start learning about reality. It would help them both with their political positions, their OCD, and their addictions.
topeka…i’ve been very clear. and redundant (albeit with different presentations). i don’t have any conservative positions. not a single one. nor am i liberal, of whatever weight. you, otoh, have written in this forum of how it was necessary for you to go along to get along, as if it were the most self-obviously intelligent thing in the world to do. i’ll waste time hunting up the post, if you like.
i’ll say it again, just for your benefit. contra whatever meaning you, & yours, are wont to ascribe “conservatism”, it is simply this: use of force & fraud, most typically via the gov weapon (but not always: mafia, for example, is conservative), to cartelize. that’s it & that’s all. what the cartelizers wish to do, what their motives are, “left” or “right”, is irrelevant.
yours is the worms eye view. and the birds eye view – both of the prey birds, and the “loons” who know / describe / warn the worms – know that.
Actually, yes, the debate over abortion WILL end. When a person finds out how much abortion hurts women, he usually stops supporting it. This is why public opinion is shifting away from it. Furthermore, even if abortion were legal, if there are no abortionists, few women would get abortions. Few of them would have reason to support it politically. As various abortionists are put out of business because their facilities don’t pass basic health standards, or because they defrauded the government, or killed a couple of women, there are fewer and fewer of them. Many of them are reaching retirement age, and leaving, and they’re not being replaced. So yes, there will come a time, in the foreseeable future, when people will no longer support abortion, except for a handful.