1/8     Ron Paul says he didn't wright the vile things in his newsletter.
        Ron Paul lies.
        http://csua.org/u/kfc [LGF]
        \_ Whether or not he's lying, he allowed it to be published.  I've
           had vague doubts about Ron Paul, and this morning, I finally
           realized why.  Paul's espoused ideology ultimately comes down to
           every man(*) for himself.  I don't trust someone who is motivated
           purely by self interest, but isn't willing to come out and say it.
           -dans
           (*) As an aside, I say 'man' here because Ron Paul is a misogynist.
           His views on the role of women in society are a throwback to the
           middle ages.
           \_ Please cite a primary reference for Paul's view on role of women.
              \_ a) His stated views on abortion and a woman's right to choose.
                 b) His newsletters.  Go read them. -dans
                 \_ Anti-abortion == middle ages? You're nuts. Women have the
                    right to choose not to fuck people.
                    \_ the constitution is not "freedom to NOT do things."
                       It's freedom TO.
                       \_ That's a really stupid statement. You don't have the
                          freedom to kill a baby. Abortion has little to do
                          with the Constitution. Personally, I see both sides
                          of the argument: I don't care about it as an issue
                          and a candidate's view on abortion doesn't matter to
                          me.
           \_ Odd, it's not "every man for himself", it's that the government
              shouldn't intervene in what every man does.
              \_ I may be mistaken, but I don't get the sense that Ron Paul
                 is espousing the ideologically pure libertarian viewpoint I
                 think you're referencing.  I am curious though, if you strip
                 the government of power, how do you effectively avoid society
                 turning into a free for all? -dans
                 \_ The impression I get of him is that he's trying to push
                    towards a pure libertarian stance. Unfortunately, he's a
                    hypocrite.  However, how do you define "free for all", and
                    how do you see it as being bad? -emarkp
                    \_ What is "pure libertarian"? He's not advocating removal
                       of government. He's advocating limited government based
                       on Constitutional principles.
                       \_ That's what I meant by "pure libertarian". -emarkp
                          \_ Is he really a hypocrite? Let's imagine I am an
                             opponent of public schools. Am I a hypocrite if
                             I send my kid to a public school? No, because
                             that is the existing system. I'm not sure just
                             what you're referring to however.
                             \_ He's a hypocrite because he puts earmarks into
                                bills and then votes against them. -emarkp
                             \_ He's a hypocrite because of what he's done as a
                                rep, not because of anything in this
                                discussion. For instance, he adds pork to
                                bills, and then votes against them so that he
                                can bring pork to his district and also say he
                                votes against it. -emarkp
                                \_ That's why I brought up the school analogy.
            \_ so if you're taking political ideologies to their extremes,
               you'd perfer the opposite, where the government controls everyone
               and everything, for their own good?
        \_ 1st, the things weren't that vile and a couple of them have been
           lied about. For example the article in question did not "support PLO
           terrorists".
           2nd, a philosophy "based on self-interest" is not necessarily
           against the common interest. Communism vs. capitalism. We know
           that EVERYONE is motivated primarily by self interest, that's
           human nature. Even when you help someone else you're doing that
           because it makes you feel good. This is how markets work and why
           they generally perform better over time than management by fiat,
           no matter how selfless the masters. So many supposedly well-
           intentioned efforts end up doing more harm than good. Wasting
           public resources on pointless wars and bloated government
           programs hurts everyone.
           \_ please let us know when you finish reading Atlas Shrugged.  -tom
              \_ let me know when you have anything interesting to say.
              \_ Holy shit, I agree with tom.  I actually believe in such a
                 thing as enlightened self interest, but the self-interest
                 Ron Paul espouses doesn't qualify. -dans
                 \_ why not?
              \_ GOLD STANDARD.