?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Bills Ron Paul has sponsored - portrait of a dangerous wingnut - Synchronicity swirls and other foolishness

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> my rpg writing site

November 11th, 2007


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
09:49 pm - Bills Ron Paul has sponsored - portrait of a dangerous wingnut
I've seen several of the more libertarianly inclined people on my friend's list indicate their support of Ron Paul. mindstalk just linked to a site which includes a list of the bills he has sponsored. This are not merely bills Ron Paul voted for, but bills helped come up with or which he came up with himself (mostly ones he came up with himself, since few members of congress are quite as nutty as he is). There are also links to the actual bills, so this is in no way hearsay. Leaving aside the fact that I find libertarianism to be utterly vile, there's a whole lot here I'd imagine most libertarians who are not also arch-conservatives would be highly dubious of. In addition to all manner of anti-choice bills, in keeping with his staunch opposition to abortion, there are also bills to:
  • Prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
  • deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation.
  • Ban flag burning
  • To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit elections to decertify representation by a labor organization. This would make it much easier to decertify labor unions.
I'm leaving out all of many various crazed libertarian bills he has sponsored like abolishing the minimum wage, OSHA, and social security as well as generally turning back the clock on the economy to the 1920s. The fact that he has the backing of the American Nazi party makes good sense, he's the only candidate as crazy as they are, and while he supports some extreme libertarian measures, he also supports a whole lot of other scary stuff.

(14 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:slothman
Date:November 12th, 2007 07:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
I’m still trying to figure out if there’s anyone running for the Republican nomination that I feel I can even respectfully disagree with. (Giuliani would be at least as bad as Bush-Cheney.) I used to like John McCain back when he wasn’t in the habit of overturning his principles for votes, but the Straight Talk Express has broken down in Crazytown.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:November 12th, 2007 07:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
One of my sincere hopes for this next election is the effective collapse of the Republican party. Starting with Nixon's "Southern Strategy", it has largely become the party of bigots and religious zealots and the party of the greedy rich. In contrast, the Democrats are the party of the mildly generous rich. From my PoV, the Democratic Party is a perfectly reasonable conservative party, while the Republican party is utterly devoid of worth. I'd love to see the Republican party collapse and either be entirely rebuilt or (preferably) replaced by an actual liberal party. The fact that large corporations (with the notable exception of the oil & gas industry) have for the first time started donating more to the Democrats than the Republicans indicates to me that this change may be in the process of happening.

I'm already planning a post next October urging everyone reading it to vote a straight Democratic ticket, even if they would otherwise consider voting for the Greens or some other independent party. I think this is a good idea because if the Republican party does poorly enough, we might start to actually see some basic change from the current part make-up which from any reasonable PoV is conservative (Democrats) and insanely conservative (Republicans)
[User Picture]
From:slothman
Date:November 12th, 2007 03:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My Republican friends are the fiscal conservative types who haven’t been getting much of that from their party for the past thirty years.
[User Picture]
From:scholargipsy
Date:November 12th, 2007 10:31 am (UTC)
(Link)
A lot of my friends identify as libertarian, and while my personal politics are pretty libertarian themselves when it comes to a host of social issues (sexuality, marijuana, and freedom of expression, to name a few), I've never understood how intelligent, articulate people could espouse the total libertarian platform, which seems to me to not just imply but necessitate a willingness to fuck over those who start out with less. I simply can't support that -- governments exist to help those who need help, and to make sure everyone gets a fair shot, in my book. I've yet to hear about a libertarian candidate who had any sincere desire to do either of those things.

Thanks for spreading the word.
[User Picture]
From:kitten_goddess
Date:November 12th, 2007 12:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"I've never understood how intelligent, articulate people could espouse the total libertarian platform."

Because most of us only hear about the social aspects of it. Many others, like myself, are almost entirely clueless about the economy. The Ron Paul candidacy is a good thing, becuase it helps more people see what the Libertarian party platform is, other than all the neat social stuff. I'd like to see him get the Republican nomination, get defeated by Hillary Clinton in 11/08, and then be appointed to some post by Hillary Clinton to help us get out of Iraq. He'd be useful in the government.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:November 12th, 2007 07:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm in perfect agreement with you right up to:

I'd like to see him get the Republican nomination, get defeated by Hillary Clinton in 11/08, and then be appointed to some post by Hillary Clinton to help us get out of Iraq. He'd be useful in the government.

I think he's a dangerous nutcase who has no business in government. I do not trust rapid ideologs and would very much prefer anyone involved in getting US troops out of Iraq have at least some grasp on reality.
[User Picture]
From:xuenay
Date:November 13th, 2007 10:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've understood that libertarians feel private charities could do a better job than governments in helping people, especially if people were free to spend their (untaxed) money on any charity they wanted - without part of it being lost on the inefficiencies of government.

While they may have a bit of a point in that the government is an inefficient spender of money, I'm not persuaded that any large organization will be substantially better at spending its money just because it's a private charity. Being big is the main problem.
[User Picture]
From:kitten_goddess
Date:November 12th, 2007 12:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for the link to the site! I was not aware Ron Paul was in favor of banning flag burning. That is an idiotic idea, as well as being unconstitutional. Nor did I know that he was into denial of the using the Federal courts for cases regarding religious discrimination.

I knew he was pro-life, but I was willing to accept that because he does want to get the US out of Iraq. But banning flag-burning and repealing OSHA??? No thanks!

And what is up with that bill regarding restoration of American family life? Isn't that up to the individual family?

Nevertheless, Ron Paul may be what the Democratic Party needs to kick it in the butt and field a decent candidate for a change. I would not mind President Hillary Clinton, for instance.
[User Picture]
From:mindstalk
Date:November 12th, 2007 05:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
One should not be surprised that a libertarian wants to get rid of OSHA.

The other stuff, yeah.
[User Picture]
From:siderea
Date:November 12th, 2007 05:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thank you! Very useful. Amplifying signal.
[User Picture]
From:ron_newman
Date:November 12th, 2007 08:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Isn't there already a provision for elections to decertify labor unions? Even if you support labor (as I do), it's only fair that workers can remove a union that they feel no longer serves their interest.
[User Picture]
From:merovingian
Date:November 12th, 2007 09:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald (who is very awesome and I suspect you'd like him) just ran something on the banning of flag burning here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/

According to Glenn Greenwald's article, Ron Paul is against the flag-burning amendment he proposed and he said so quite unambiguously. He proposed that bill as a rhetorical point, to show that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to enact the flag-protection laws that other Republicans were proposing as a regular law.

There are a ton of things I disagree with Paul about. (His views on gender, abortion, sex and reproduction are just about the opposite of mine, for starters.)

On the subject of flag burning, though, the measure he put forth is deceptive.
[User Picture]
From:merovingian
Date:November 12th, 2007 11:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know much about the rest of those, though.
[User Picture]
From:rjgrady
Date:November 12th, 2007 11:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ron Paul is one of the reasons I am now a small "L" libertarian.

Huh. Memory jog. Ron Paul. Up until five minutes ago, I didn't realize I kinda sorta used to know Ron Paul. I was on a mailing list with him, he was always screeing about something.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com