We Like Mavericks – Don’t We?

Comments

1. N. Onimous says:

   9/1/2008 at 5:11 am

   Give me a “maverick” who wants to cut taxes(against the Bush tax cuts), one who wants to stop illegal immigration(wants a “comprehensive immigration package), one who doesn’t believe that someone should be a life long government employee(filed a tax return with $250,000 in complete government compensation), one who believes in free speech(McCain/Feingold is NOT a true friend of free speech) and finally one believes in reducing the size and scope of the federal government(name me one piece of legislation that McCain has offered up in this regard).

   Maverick? Maverick? You can have your maverick kilowatt. I am one conservative who hopes the Republican Party goes down in flames this November.
2. flashy says:

   9/1/2008 at 9:09 am

   Sadaam Hussein was a Maverick, but I don’t think there is much support for Arab Socialism out here…

   Hitler was also a maverick, but you’ll find no support for Nazism (National Socialism) either. Stunningly, much of that philosophy is embraced by the GOP in it’s seeming love fest for Democratic Socialism and the creed of self-sacrifice.

   If a maverick espouses collectivism, self-sacrifice, tyranny, etc., you can bet your bottom dollar he will not be treated kindly by some of the contributors OTBL because of the objective view of history and where such ideas lead.

   You might remember not too long ago a rather vociferous level of support for Ron Paul out here. That support was because Ron Paul was what you would likely refer to as a maverick. Now, I didn’t see you supporting Ron Paul, but his status as a maverick (as you define it) was just as legitimate as McCain. However, Ron Paul is a maverick due to his consistency with regard to applying the Constitution and an adherence to free-market capitalism. He appeared to be a maverick because such consistency and honesty was such a profound difference for what was being vomited at us by the rest of the GOP – including McCain.

   McCain is a maverick (a tag applied to him by the MSM) because he espouses views more interventionist and anti-constitution, believing in self-sacrifice for the sake of government, restrictions upon free speech, seemingly utter ignorance with regard to climate change (but notably politically correct..), and on and on…

   You can have this sort of maverick – I’ll take the Ron Paul flavor.
3. kilowatt says:

   9/1/2008 at 10:35 am

   I will give you the point that Ron Paul is somewhat of a maverick. But surely you have to recognize Ron Paul was never going to be accepted by the mainstream of America. His defense policy was very poor and his monetary reform plans scared even the majority of the conservative base. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it, we didn’t get where we are today in one step and we certainly aren’t going to get out of it in one step either.

   Ron Paul’s statement claiming that if elected he would abolish the IRS scared people, and as well it should. If he believes the President has the power on his own to remove the present tax code, then just how nervous should we be with whatever it is that replaces it? Do you honestly believe a clean slate with the present makeup of Congress would be better? I highly doubt it. And besides, you’d think a strict Constitutionalist would know better than to make a statement like that.

   Another area Ron Paul scares people is with his strict position of non-intervention in defending freedom. It shows his lack of leadership and hesitancy to commit. He’s left me with the impression of a quiter when faced with “Commander in Chief” decisions. And talk about double speak – first he says he’ll abolish the IRS all on his own but then says when it comes to defending the very principle that makes this or any other country great, he takes the “group-think” approach, its …ah, er, well, I’ll need to consult Congress first.

   Yes, I could give Ron Paul a ‘maverick’ label, but he’s not the kind of maverick I’d want for President carrying the torch as “Leader of the Free World”.

   And to counter N. Onimous point on career politicians, wasn’t it Ron Paul would decided to back-off on his losing Presidential campaign so he could get back to Texas to defend his seat in Congress? Why didn’t the die-hard Constitutionalist resign his seat when he decided to run for President? That would’ve been the proper thing to do.

   And to flashy point – you’ve been very vocal out here claiming how (in your words):
   

   “McCain espouses views more interventionist and anti-constitution, believing in self-sacrifice for the sake of government, restrictions upon free speech,…”

   Of the reading I’ve done on him, I find your views unsupported. Now if you’d like to put some examples out here with links to reports supporting your views, I’d be more than happy to read them and make my own ‘maverick’ decision.
4. Henry Patrick says:

   9/1/2008 at 10:47 am

   Flashy is correct. The label of maverick was bestowed upon Mc Cain by the main stream media that would differentiate “good” Republicans from “bad” Republicans.

   Kilowatt, name one thing McCain or for that matter alomost any other politician has done to recede the growth of government. The reaching across the aisle that you find virtue in has resulted in one thing, more government.

   Your comment regarding McCain-Feingold is absurd, accountable speech. So who decides what is responsible speech? the government. No matter how you spin it; it leads down the path to government censorship and invasion of private property.

   Take a look at what happened in Denver and now in Minnesota. During the Democrat convention, an ABC news team was arrested for filming politicians arm in arm with big donors. They were charged with trespassing on a public sidewalk.

   In Minnesota this past weekend government brown shirts were raiding private homes, why? They wanted to intimidate would be protestors. Isn’t the right to protest a Constitutional guarantee? The guise for sending in SWAT teams was fire code violations.

   The premise of the Constitution was to limit the power of the government. Tell me what part of the Constitution that John McCain upholds.
5. kilowatt says:

   9/1/2008 at 11:19 am

   Obviously you haven’t checked out the link I provided to his speech at Wake Forest Univ.

   As for the police actions in Denver and now here – are you too going to believe it was the candidates who demanded that action take place and blame them for it? Gimme a break.
6. flashy says:

   9/1/2008 at 12:25 pm

   kilo,
   Paul’s defense policy was utterly consistent with the Constitution, moreover roughly 65% of the American population believed the conduct of the war in Iraq to be seriously flawed and premised on false information. If you want to now change the facts of history to fit your interventionist/imperialist world-view so be it.

   Secondly, get your facts straight – Ron Paul never suggested he could unilaterally abolish the IRS, but this is typical claptrap from uninformed GOP cool-aid drinkers . Ron Paul was asked the following question in a GOP primary debate at the Reagan library (MSNBC debate on May 3, 2007):

   “If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?”

   Ron Paul:
   

   “Immediately. You can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, & if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage, you can’t get rid of the IRS. But if you want to lower taxes and stop causing all the inflation, you have to change policy. ”

   But the bigger issue here is why should abolition of the IRS scare anyone except the IRS? This is the equivalent of being scared of the abolition of slavery…are you oppsed to that as well? What are you smoking man?? What is it about returning money and liberty to the people that scares YOU? The IRS, by any objective analysis, is an abomination – it is what you should be fearful of, not the elimination of it! But of course, if you believe in more intrusion into individual liberty, the nanny state, and that government is a moral, virtuous, institution that needs more and more confiscated capital then it is understandable.

   Regarding Ron Paul’s position on national defense (or what you so fliply refer to as “defending freedom” – as if you truly understood that idea). Ron Paul has NEVER advocated a “strict position of non-interventionism in defending freedom.” Read what you wrote – words mean things and you’re totally wrong on this. But rather than simply say that, here is what Ron Paul actually said that you twisted to fit your rediculous preconceptions:

   “You do it by understanding of what the goal of government ought to be. If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, you lose liberty. And if the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together; it doesn’t divide us. I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we’re fretting day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force, and we’re getting ready to go to war. But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.”

   But wait, there’s more!

   Ronald Reagan praised Ron Paul for being strong on national defense. Said Reagan, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

   But wait, there’s (much) more!!

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/112/effective-and-practical-counter-terrorism-measures/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/115/suicide-terrorism/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/235/honoring-our-military-veterans/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/236/mistreating-soldiers-and-veterans/

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr111500.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090502.htm

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/63/fixing-whats-wrong-with-iraq/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/111/will-we-bring-bin-laden-to-justice/

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/71/before-we-bomb-baghdad/

   http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204914

   http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/?pid=195576

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/234/legislation-for-our-military-families-and-veterans/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/233/honor-veterans-with-a-better-budget/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/128/paul-votes-for-stronger-border-security/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/70/arguments-against-a-war-in-iraq/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/68/ignoring-reality-in-iraq/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/66/hypocrisy-in-the-middle-east/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/62/the-price-of-delaying-the-inevitable-in-iraq/

   http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/36/your-taxes-subsidize-china/

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604b.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr042204.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr072103.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr042903.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr032800.htm

   http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/shank1.html

   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

   http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm

   http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul93.html

   http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html

   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html

   How you get from Paul’s actual statements to your silly interpretation is an act of mental gymnastics that would impress even the Chinese Communists… Oh, and by the way, the Constitution does not require a sitting Congressman to resign while running for President.

   Lastly, regarding McCain’s anti-constitution position let’s just take a look at one single example for starters – The McCain Feingold law. This law empowers government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech about … government.

   What this law does is restrict the speech by people seeking a redress of grievances. “Redress of grievances” are words from the First Amendment’s enumeration of rights that “Congress shall make no law … abridging. …”

   Read the First Amendment and then come back here and try and tell me he is not anti-First Amendment. You can’t, he is wrong on this, and he is anti-constitution.

   Next, McCain speaks about contributing to things “greater than oneself” at just about every opportunity. At the Saddleback gathering it came out of his mouth innumerable times. Well, this is nothing more than code for elevating government above the individual, the creed of self-sacrifice is antithetical to the foundational concept of America, and that single idea is that the individual is never to be logically (let alone practically) subordinated to any government. McCain’s words and deeds fly directly in the face of this seminal and unique American idea.

   I could go on and on but that should suffice for the moment.

   But wait! There’s more!!

   Global warming – he is an idiot on this and is advocating huge government intrusions through cap and trade into the market without fully (really, at all) understanding this matter. McCain’s website says “the preponderance of scientific evidence points to the warming of our climate from the burning of fossil fuels. We can no longer deny our responsibility to lead the world in reducing our carbon emissions.”

   Kilo, this guy is a nut job on this! The preponderance of scientific evidence does not point to the warming of our climate from fossil fuels! As you know it is a very complex matter but what we do know is that the sun is the single most important aspect, not fossil fuels. If you buy into the now almost universally accepted as suspicious IPCC world-view, sure, you could conclude such nonsense. But there are thousands of scientists who simply do not accept this very shaky science and more are becoming skeptics by the day.

   But to base intervention by government into this is beyond the pale in my view.

   Economics – “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

   More later if need be….
7. Henry Patrick says:

   9/1/2008 at 12:41 pm

   This wavering a bit off track, but since kilowatt btrought the topic of th IRS and monetary policy as part of the discussion, I shall oblige to answer.

   You say that Ron Paul’s views on the IRS and monetary policy are scary.

   Do you not find it scary that the IRS tracks your personal information. Do you not find it scary that this organization without proof of guilt can raid your private property and confiscatet your wealth. Do you not find it scary that the IRS has been used in the past by Presidents to intimidate political opponents.

   To say that Paul’s montery message is scary simply exposes your ignorance of the subject. Without any restraint to print money, government has grown through the ability of the printing press. In other words government has montized the debt. The best collar on an interventionist government is to remove the ink and the paper.

   The source of the Great Depression and the current fiancial storm is a direct result of the governmnet printing presses. Inflating the money supply distorts the credit markets and leads to speculative excesses otherwise known as bubbles.

   Kilowatt I fail to see what is scary about a monetary policy that restrains government growth and retards the chances for economic calamity.

   The problem for kilowatt and other party faithful is that they are unable to see past the present moment. They also believe despite all the historical evidence to the contrary that government can be made to behave.

   If the concept of liberty is your idea of group think so be it. But the path you have chosen is tyranny and that should scare the hell out of everyone!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.