Sunday, May 4, 2008

TinyURL in Ron Paul shocker!

You know TinyURL? The URL-shortening service? Guess whose site it links to, on its front page.

Yes, that's right. Noted dangerously insane libertarian politician Ron Paul.

Oh, dear. It's always nice to find out that major, important Internet services are run by crazy people, or at least by people who support crazy people in national elections...

I'd call for a boycott, but Ron is doomed, anyway.
Posted by Robert Synnott at 7:42 PM
Labels: , , ,

10 comments:

  1. Hi Robert,

    Perhaps a short lesson is at hand. Ron Paul has won his congressional district as a Republican not as a Libertarian. Also, he has and is stall running for the Republican Nomination. Your post is void of the truth and I urge you to share why you think Ron Paul is dangerously insane? If supporting the end of abortion from a federal standpoint. Supporting the law of the land, while at the same time understanding our nations economic woes then you can call me insane as well.
    ReplyDelete
  2. I realise that he was running (and theoretically still si running) as a Republican. His policies, however, are basically libertarian, in that he wishes to greatly reduce the power of central government, leave companies to do more or less whatever they feel like, and lots of other silliness.

    You bring up a good point on the abortion, though. He's obviously not a true libertarian in that, while he seems to support reduction of government regulation of corporations and reduction of centralised goverment (which is absurd; the US is already hardly a world standard in sensible regulation), he seems to go for a 'no human rights' approach; in particular, he opposes safe legal abortion (it's going to happen anyway, so it may as well be regulated), gay rights (he's one of the more openly homophobic mainstream politicians in the US), and so on.

    Admittedly, his policies on personal privacy are more or less sensible (except in that he seems of the opinion that the right to have sex with other consenting adults doesn't count, which is silly), but then I suspect that very few sensible people do support the US government's extreme invasions into peoples' privacy.

    However, when it comes to it, his basic policy seems to be to remove control from the somewhat silly federal government and give it up to the, in many cases, batshit-insane states. I'd find it hard to see how anyone could back that. It's your country, not mine, of course, but if you do back Ron Paul, and actually agree with his core policies, well, sorry, but that looks pretty insane to me.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Imagine that... someone tech savvy who supports Ron Paul. How very unexpected.

    >> batshit-insane states

    Missing the [point. It can be *empirically* shown that the open market for ideas outperforms central planning, and Ron's State's rights position seeks only to get one step closer to letting people decide for themselves as opposed to a distant and unresponsive federal, or even worse, global bureaucracy.

    Yeah, it's crazy to actually advocate what works, instead of empty rhetoric. Can't imagine why those familiar with computers would demand performance, efficiency, or results.

    In other news, Microsoft will soon release Vista, the best Windows yet! Or, they've been endorsing him since like October, IIRC. Begs the question of whether being outside the mainstream is preferable to being ignorant.
    ReplyDelete
  4. You CAN NOT apply open market ideals to the rule of law. If Kansas or Texas or whatever crazy state makes schools teach 'intelligent design' nonsense, or bans homosexuality, or whatever, and that fails (as, let's face it, it will), then millions of people have been marginalised to or lied to throughout their education, or whatever it may be. National governments these days are generally very careful about social experiments; if nothing else, they will face international ridicule, boycotts and sanctions if they are not vaguely sensible. Many of the US states, on the other hand, seem keen to cater to Mr. and Mrs. Braindead Religious Fanatic, and if the federal government lets them, they will.

    That's not even addressing the consequences of deregulating the already under-regulated banking and food industries. I'm not going to even argue that one; history proves that regulation of big industry works.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert. I'm curious as to why you feel you have the right to dictate things to other people. Is direct control over your own life not enough for you, that you need to forcefully make other people follow them?

    You want to know why Ron Paul gets attacked from both sides? Because every single issue is more than left vs right as the media presents. Every issue contains 2 questions. The first question is who should control it, you or the government. The 2nd question is how that should be controlled. Both the republicans and the democrats agree on the 1st question, government should have control, and not the individual people/states.

    Any politician who answers the first question and says the the people, not the government should be in control over the issue is excluded, ridiculed etc by the media. Just as Ron Paul is.

    But thats the entire game. They just want to gain control over your life. The same way a dictator would. Voting for the dictator doesn't make you free.

    You should study up on the constitution. It really is a great system. Here is 1 example. Education.

    You'd probably say Ron Paul is bad on education because he is against the department of education correct? Even though the dept of education is in violation of the 10th amendment.

    If education is centralized and 1 program exists for everyone then you have dumbed down the education system. You have 1 system for everyone, and that means any changes needed will take between 4 and 8 years, and only if you are lucky enough to get a guy who is good on the issue to get elected. And then 4 years later, another guy comes in and ruins it. You vote with millions of people, your vote means very little % wise of the total vote, this means you the person has little power over your own life. You can at best hope everyone else shares your views.

    But, if you get rid of the department of education, then you leave it up to the states. Now you have 50 programs rather than 1, each working to be the best. Now you elect these guys every 2 years, change is easier and faster. Your 1 vote makes up a larger % of the vote, you have more power over your life.

    Now that we have 50 programs, each state is able to try different things to see what works. If 1 state is doing something good, then the other states can pick that up. And if 1 state, such as kansas does something bad, it's only the people in that state that is hurt. Because you do have 50 programs all changing faster this allows the greatest amounts of changes and experimentation to lead to the best overall programs for the country.

    Now, you can take that even further and have the education program broken down by countries/citys/communities. Rather than only 50 programs, you now have thousands of programs. Each working to be the best, because we all want the best for our kids/communities. Again many things can be tried and on the local level your 1 vote makes up a much larger % of the vote, and thus you have more power over your life.

    This is what it means to bring the power to the people. Where are when these issues are centralized with a federal government power is taken away from the people.

    Because the power is now returned to the people, this means that you are more able to influence change in your local communities/education. If you dislike something, you can more easily change the minds of those around you, and less people.

    This can go for many social issues etc. For disaster relief, local communities are also best helped by themselves, as they know the area better than anyone. The rebuilding effort also helps their local economy recover, rather than the money being given to outside corporations.

    This also reduces the power of corruption, as a big company would be forced to buyout 1000's of communities for things, rather than a few politicians at the top, and as they would be selling out their own communities specifically it would not be as much of a reward/gain for the local person.

    The federal government does have a role in this. Their role is to ensure that the local government do not infringe on the rights guaranteed by the constitution. They were designed to be the oversee the state governments, and state to oversee the local governments. So, if some town is infringing on your right to speech, or tries to vote that you can't have free speech, then it is the job of the federal government to step in and say NO, you can't do that. That is why they have the amendments, not to limit our rights to just those listed, but rather those are what the federal government is supposed to protect, and that is their only purpose outside defense and dealing with other nations etc. This is also why foreign policy is the #1 issue presidents are elected on historically.

    These are just a few reasons why I support the constitution, and why I am a Ron Paul supporter. A vote for the others is a vote saying that you should be ruled over, and not have direct power over the things in your life.
    ReplyDelete
  6. I mean hey, is there any real difference in say someone who wants the federal government to make schools teach evolution, and 1 that wants to make them teach creationism?

    No, both groups for some reason believe they have the right to force their beliefs on others.

    And politicians sell the illusion of this power over other peoples lives like Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. Democrat or Republican, both are either selling the power illusion or promising to make it better/change. In the end, they pretty much do whatever they want, and just like Dick Cheney said about the Iraq war - "So?". As long as the American people are drunk on this illusion, they will be forced into a prison. Because once you have decided it's ok for them to make the choice for you, then it's over. Those in charge can then do whatever they want. It will always come in a package you will want to buy, that if you just give them this little bit of power things will be alright. But look a bit deeper, you are looking directly in the face of those whom bring false gifts.

    If the American people don't wake up and realize what they are doing, then we will deserve everything we have coming. Because we don't understand what it means to be free anymore, and if we forget that, then we don't deserve it and we won't have it.

    The wise man is wise because he is able to see past the image.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, as for industry regulations, I would advise you take a deeper look and see what the differences between capitalism and corporatism are.

    What we have today is corporatism which I am very much against. This is the result of regulations which are put in place by the bigger corporations through lobbyists in order to put high costs and things on smaller businesses and competition.

    An easy example is TV. Look at all the blank TV channels on UHF. You can buy the stuff to broadcast your own channel for under $500. But now, if you were to try to do that you would have to go through so many regulations that you wouldn't be able to afford it.

    Pollution. Think we need good regulations on pollution do ya? Well, regulations on pollution simple legalize pollution. If I throw a piece of trash in your yard is that ok? No, that is against the law, I have no right to pollute your property. Yet, regulations would make it ok for each person to throw 1 coke can on your yard as they walked by instead of 2. And yet, what will happen is that 1 company will push for regulations through lobbyists that hurt competing companies.

    Under corporatism, the corporations will prop up politicians through the lobbyists to get the changes they want. Also for contracts on supplying government run services. Go ahead and look at who the biggest contributors to each candidates are. You'll find corporation after corporation in all of them except for Ron Paul. You'll find the military as #1 for Ron Paul, and thats not counting vets like myself who list other occupations.

    This is what we have, corporatism. Since having regulations like this goes against the very definition of free markets and capitalism.

    And it is passed off as capitalism in order to keep the rights of the corporations separate as they serve government contracts.

    Capitalism rewards those who do the best, corporatism and regulations reward those with the most lobbyist ties. Why in the world would you promote a system which allows this to happen?
    ReplyDelete
  8. I Have Tried to Write to Dr. Paul, However I have yet to get a responce to How He feels about doing the Constitution a fair turn.
    By expanding the size of the House to it's Constitutional level of 1 Rep. per 50,000 citizens. I guess he's not so hot on the Constitution as he says.
    For More See, http://www.thirty-thousand.org
    ReplyDelete
  9. Open letter to Dr. Ron Paul.

    Honored Member of the House Dr. Ron Paul,

    Maybe, Just Maybe, The President, The Vice President, and the Attorney General would not feel so inclined to circumvent the Constitution if you and you esteemed colleagues would not be so inclined to do so ether. Two wrongs do not a right make. The Time has come to lift the Self imposed 435 membership cap on the house, and Return the House of Representatives to the People.

    The House set up this UN-constitutional 435 cap rule in 1911, now it is so out dated that not only the people, but The House too has to deal with the problems it causes.
    Why 435, because the building was too small. The Poor Representative’s desks were getting to small. This was the argument given by House members of that day. Looking back at that event, think about how petty that was! They circumvented the Constitution, Denied the people the fair representation they needed and deserved because their desks were getting to small?
    My oh My How things have changed.

    Have you ever herd of a lap top computer and a secure wi-fi connection? I thought so, so the house can meet any where today. Or break it down and meet regionally, Most of the Houses' work is done in committee anyway. So why all the urgency to put our eggs in one basket called Washington DC? Are you supplying a target for some loony to exploit?

    It is but a small cost to save our union.

    Your House position was meant for a maximum of 60,000 people per Representative, Your House rule states 50,000. That's a lot of people in the house for sure, A little more than 6,000, but Washington himself suggested 30,000 per district. (Letters from Washington suggest that he did realize how large this nation would become.) A lot of added expenses as well, as you can see. But you also have an 18 person staff per House member. This as I understand, is to address the 550,000+ constituency's you and the rest of your colleagues each have to deal with on a day to day basis.(Adv. 770,000) This staff could be pared down to a more reasonable level almost automatically. The More house members you have = the less constituency you all have to service = lower House membership Work load = Lower staff levels required to do this work.
    No matter how you look at it we would all benefit. If the numbers don't mesh entirely I personally would pay more tax to have the representation I need and deserve, and to maintain staff levels needed to serves busier districts. Any one who complains about the cost of Representative Government Does not deserve it.

    Power corrupts all who wield it too long.

    Yes I know your position is powerful, but was never meant to be so. What good is that power today in an unconstitutional government? The one you’re supposed to put in place, He thumbs his nose at you, the people, and the constitution? Now what do you do? Your House Body is out of order and unconstitutional, Feel like a hypocrite yet? So is Your President. See what I mean about Glass houses? So do you go to the A.G.? You know what that means, nothing gets done! Cut a Deal? No Sir, No Way, No How! You should stand on the foundation of this country, Our Constitution and call this whole thing out for what it is, a farce. Remember your oath!

    Sir, the people, now being so under represented by the House affects you and other member’s ability's to perform even their duties. Today The President tells you, the people, and the constitution, to take a hike, so he can be the Decider? Or is that the dictator? The A.G. feels empowered enough now to say it to you also? AND WHO THE HELL IS HE? He's an appointee, not even elected to his office, not a servant to the people, just Bush. When The House Puts its collective foot down it is the president that should jump. In stead, The House behaves like a compliant servant.

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy

    How this affects you me and everyone else will only get worse in time. The inequity of this system will be addressed, Sooner or later. The rifts Will only become deeper and we will one day wake up to see blood in the streets. You and I are both too old to face that, and I can't stand without an honest political fight, see our people, our children, and our nation die. Die over something as simple as more representation, or caused by something as petty as your desks being too small.

    SIR, if you really love this country you would aid in the return to the Representative government that was promised by George Washington, and the rest of the founding fathers. Not just pay it the cheep lip service that is just so common in government today. If Not I hope in the after life you can explain to Washington what you did to his creation.

    Think about this also Sir, if you aided in this endeavor you would be remembered with the Highest of honor, By We the People. You would be "THE" House member, who put it all back together, and made it work. It would work well enough on it's own but what the hell, take all the credit you want if you would do it. So when The Future Presidents would stand at the podium for Their State of The Union, and Address the Joint members of Congress. It would be the massive body our founding fathers did indeed imagine it would become.

    Good luck in your duties Sir.

    Yours truly,

    A citizen

    PS I don't need to argue this any further. I'll let the Founding Fathers Do it for me. For That Go to-
    www.thirty-thousand.org.

    Thank you for your time. 550,000 are way too many to serve in your position.
    ReplyDelete
  10. I would just like to clarify that I am not, in fact, Ron Paul. If nothing else, I have better hair.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)