The Right Scoop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSVi45vfA6o&list=UU8EtvIxtcgOdfKpOber0JLw&feature=player_detailpage
Ron Paul has consistently lumped Mitt Romney in with the other candidates. To say someone is not conservative, when they are, in fact, not conservative, is called telling the truth. When you vote for bailouts, you are not a fiscal conservative, when you vote to raise taxes, you are not a fiscal conservative. Ron Paul has never voted for tax increases, EVER. That makes him the most fiscally conservative member. This whole "alliance" thing is a figment of someone's creative imagination. Ron Paul is running to win, and he has my vote.
Statements like these by Rush and Levin illustrate how little these guys know about Ron Paul. Seriously, they have no idea how much RP supporters are rolling on the floor laughing at this whole thing. Neither Rush nor Levin have got a clue as to what makes Ron Paul tick, so they just make stuff up, and to try to make sense of the bizarro scenario they have created they have to come up with more and more of these crazy conspiracy theories.
Well, actually I will vote Third Party if RP doesn't get the nomination. If write-in votes were counted and not just thrown in the trash I'd write-in Ron Paul for sure, but since they're not my vote will likely go to the LP.
ROFL. Will Santorum have to prove he's a better choice than Romney AND Paul...? How OUTRAGEOUS! How horrible!!! Why that's -- that's -- that's exactly what Santorum ALWAYS had to do...
But I do hope many of Levin's listeners will start reading Rothbard. It's about freakin' time they heard some sense....
I believe you are generally on the right track, Mark. Modern day conservatives and libertarians do differ, especially when it comes to social issues. However, conservatism was very much closer to libertarianism back in the glory days of the Old Right. There still existed some differences, but not to the degree that exists by the modern approaches to these philosophies. Anyways, Paul hopes that Santorum gets the nomination. It will explode the GOP into two factions after Santorum inevitably looses the election in 2012; he is undeniably too socially conservative to receive any votes from anyone other than hardcore Republicans. Who's going to be there to pick up the pieces? The faction that characterizes liberty and applies it consistently; it's going to be the libertarians.
Test you? Sure will. What would Reagan say about Libertarianism?
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, what is with your repeated implication that whatever Reagan does is the manifestation of conservatism? Is the biggest budget deficit up until that time "conservative?" Is your "drastic" income tax cuts, that were more than made up by increased Social Security taxes aided by bracket creep, "conservative?" Reagan was a failure by even a conservative standard, especially when it comes to economics.
You're committing the association fallacy by saying that just because Paul's mentors were anarchocapitalists, then Paul must be an anarchocapitalist himself. Sorry, Mark but it does not work that way. Paul is not an anarchocapitalist but is a minarchist, which involves the government taking a role known as the "nightwatchman state." He believes in very limited government; i.e., his views are actually closer to Rothbard's mentor, Ludwig von Mises. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/my_interview_with_ron_paul.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stossel: What should government do?
Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.
Stossel: So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?
Paul: That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.
Stossel: So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?
Paul: Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, the funniest part I heard was that Paul was somehow an "establishment" candidate but also a "libertarian anarchist." You seriously just said, "I love the government and want to use it (establishment)! I also want to get rid of it (anarchist)." Good God, and people like this have their own radio show.
All you need do is watch survivor, who will win, who will be voted off the island. And the alliances ensue....
If you are for limited constitutional government then I feel sure we will find ourselves on the same page on many issues.
Of course, no one agrees completely on everything but my mission is to promote individual liberty as well as responsibility.
Since liberty cannot exist without limited government, I promote and teach "legal government", as taught by Frederic Bastiat in his book - The Law.
When Ron Paul was interviewed by the several Attorney Generals on December 3rd of 2011, he was ask what book he would suggest for everyone. His reply? Frederic Bastiat's, The Law!
As a vital part of one's liberty education and for you to share with others to help win back our liberties under the Constitution, I implore everyone to read it carefully. It's free and it will do the trick! It's short but packs a HUGE punch!
Please, my friends and countrymen, click and read today!. You WILL thank me later!
So, here is a link to The Law:
Mark Levin is obviously on George Soros' payroll. Please, people, do your own research. His vicious tone of voice belies every nonsensical accusation he makes.
That is a fairly serious charge, do you have evidence to support that charge, or is it just political partisan hearsay?
Mark belongs to Soros. What total nonsense he spouts here!! Please, people, do your own research. This man is lying to you.
If you are for 'War' - at any $cost, for any $reason, at any $time and praise Reagan as Jesus-Incarnate, then you are a de-facto 'friend' of Mark Levin. If you are not a fan of the above sequence, you are an enemy, unpatriotic and un-'conservative'.
Tom Woods has already taken Mark Levin to the proverbial 'woodshed' on a few occasions, to which Mark Levin responded in his usual manner - to sling ad-hominem attacks and evade engaging the debate in stark terms, along with little or no historical data to support his positions.
The simplistic arguments offered up by Levin - in this particular case, grasping-at-rumor and innuendo-as-fact, are the mark of a failed ideal. Frustrated that a being a warhawk is no longer popular with the electorate, Levin finds himself tied up in knots, verbally flailing about, in an attempt to create controversy where none exists.
I have never witnessed somebody use a term ('conservative') so loosely and inappropriately, as to dilute its true meaning down to the point of meaninglessness, as Mark Levin so does on a daily basis.
For fans of Mark Levin, who think that his background in Constitutional law somehow confers upon him intellectual superiority in the realm of Constitutional precept and spirit above anyone else, primarily because they have never been exposed to anything else, it is understandable that they would harangue that Levin's opinions are somehow Fact, when they are mostly radio frequency Hot Air, and not much else, but I digress...
This was painful to listen through...jeez, what a snooze....
I find it horribly ironic that while every American has watched each of the "flavors of the week" & Romney work diligently to distract and divide from Ron Paul and now the Neocon media networks have decided to turn the tables and accuse Paul and Romney of what has been afflicting the Paul campaign from day one. Republicans wont win without Ron Paul supporters. Period.
What I find hysterical is that if Romney gets the nomination, all you people hating on Mitt will still vote for him.
However, you will not find many Ron Paul supporters voting for Romney.
And who are the fakes here?
I doubt that even one Ron Paul supporter would vote for Romney. Instead, we will write in Ron Paul. "Never let it be said that we stood by and did nothing."
Ron Paul, you fool, we talked to the Soviets because we were forced to negotiate with them, BECAUSE THEY HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. If they didn't have nuclear weapons and wanted them, we wouldn't have to negotiate them. Don't you see, we're trying to avoid a Cold War situation with Iran?
"Don't you see, we're trying to avoid a Cold War situation with Iran?"
Because 'hot' wars are much better than cold ones.
As I read the comments here I laugh at the stupidity of the writers. It's like when I watched my two dogs fighting over which one got to chase the ball. I laughed and said to myself "They're just dogs." In this case I laughed and said to myself "They're just fools."
LOL
You guys rail on the "mainstream media" and establishment but support whoever Levin/Hannity/Limbaugh tell you to.
What a joke. Grow up and become adults and take a look around.
Maybe just consider for a minute the guy being systematically attacked by the mainstream media and establishment republicans you claim to dislike. Maybe you are being lied to?
Mark who? Oh, the same one that was singing Romney's praises in '08? Gotta be one of two things: (1) He must have invited Romney to be on his show and got turned down and his narcissistic personality absolutely had to get even...(2) He gets to be on the FOX NEWS occassionally, it is no secret that they have gone through the "flavor of the month's" and they have warned him that if he endorsed Romney this time, he won't be on the show anymore (hmmm that too would be part of the narcissistic personality thing)...that's all I can figure.
Did anyone notice how we are talking about some alliance rather than discrediting the claims made that Santorum is NOT a conservative. I wonder why...
Because "the alliance" is the topic of thread. Not whether Santorum is or is not a Conservative.
Or are you just trolling for a fight?
If "the alliance" is the topic of the thread, why did Levin stray so far from the topic (e.g., Ron Paul hates Lincoln, Murray Rothbard is an anarchist, etc.). Could it be that Levin had no proof whatsoever that there was an alliance? Just curious.
I haven't noticed any comments in the thread from Levin as of yet. As far as I heard Levin is expressing his opinions, and as we all know opinions are "colored" by where an individual stands. As for myself, I don't believe Rothbard is an anarchist, nor do I believe that Paul hates Lincoln (although it is obvious that Lew Rockwell has no love for the man). On how Levin sees Paul, I believe Levin is looking at those who surround Paul and like many, wonders why, if Paul does not agree with their views, are they so "highly placed" in his political apparatus.
You are right, I should clarify. I don't mean to poke at what "we" are talking about here. Just the topic brought up by Levin.
The topic is about poor rick getting ganged up on. Nothing can defend what they were saying about Santorum, so it has to be about some conspiracy against him.
Well, you know Ken, the name of the Republican Party is the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party. It contains people from all across the spectrum. Ron Paul was elected as a Republican long before he ever ran for office on the Large L Libertarian ticket, but since then he has run on the Republican ticket -- because the GOP and Dems have created laws to prevent third parties from challenging their hold on power. It is not illegal to belong to more than one party. And I don't hear Republicans whining much about the neocon infiltration and takeover of the GOP. These people aren't conservatives either -- hence the name they gave themselves to distinguish themselves from conservatives.
No, what I am saying is that those that are not honest about themselves cannot be reliably accurate in defining what some one else is or is not.
So are you trying to say that someone who is a liberal cannot adjudicate as to whether someone else's stances are conservative or socialist or libertarian...? That a conservative cannot adjudicate whether someone else's position and record have been socialist or liberal...? A rather bizarre conclusion I think....
Perhaps all conservatives should stop calling Obama a socialist and whatever else they call him -- unless they are the same....
I agree. We should stick to Santorum's voting record. Of course, Santorum (and maybe Levin and a few others) would prefer we NOT examine his voting record. It is far from conservative.
Well let's see we have a progressive RINO and a Libertarian who masquerades as a Republican, trying to tell us who is or isn't a Conservative? And we should believe either one of them, why? Sounds like a non-starter to me.
Ron Pauls letter about Reagans debt and deficits was supposed to prove Paul is NOT a conservative?? Because falling in line and supporting higher debt and deficits is a conservative thing to do? Got it.
LOL. Levin gave us a lesson in how to prove Ron Paul is a conservative without really trying.
Mark Levin is an enemy of the constitution. He is a hypocrite and a joke and an embarrassment to an already embarrassing medium
As some of these posts demonstrate all too vividly, there's a natural and long-standing antipathy between libertarians and big government social conservatives, despite their occasional agreement on economic issues. Just because Dr. Paul went after Sanctorum in the debate, it doesn't mean he's in bed with Romney; it just means that he and Romney both have their own reasons to try and burst the recent Sanctorum bubble. You big government conservatives like Mark Levin, who have been dissing Dr. Paul from the get-go anyway, need to untie that knot in your knickers because you are sounding like a bunch of crybabies now.
By the way, before the invective starts flying in this direction, I don't actually support Dr. Paul's candidacy because of his isolationist foreign policy views. However, on all other issues he deserves to be treated with respect as the conscience of our party.
Nice post, brazen-infidel, except Ron Paul is not an "isolationist," as Soros likes to brand him. He is against the evil practice of turning America's wealth over to war-mongers. Mothers and fathers and babies (ours and theirs) are being obliterated in the name of "democracy?" Wake up!
Hey, I too am against the evil practice of turning America's wealth over to war-mongers. And, unlike many of the posters here, I won't deny that the US has been meddling in too many places throughout the world. However, I don't believe that liberty can survive (or be restored) in the United States if the entire rest of the world has been divided up between the Islamofascists and the socialists.
Isolationist, non-interventionist, whatever, Ron Paul would do well to note that "why muslims hate us" is no longer the issue. They do, and they also hate freedom. Their "religion", which is in fact a strict political system, is as incompatible with our constitution and western tradition as communism and fascism. Their goal is to bring down our system of government and replace it with Sharia. Anyone who embraces their religion as "a religion of peace", or a religion that deserves constitutional protection, is either naive or treasonous.
Rand Paul has spoken ot several people and denied that anyone offered him the vice Presidency or that his Father was offered any Vice Presidency either, this is just a rumor that is going around because it makers ron paul look bad. Rand said his Dad was never even offered anything. I don't listen to Levine anyway, I don't like him although that is beside the point.
Come on, Ron Paul is obviously working an angle to hurt Santorum to keep Mitt in the race. It doesn't take much to figure that out. I just don't get how Santorum didn't know that going into it, because Ron was making rounds on TV snipping at Santorum and not Romney for days before the debate.
You know what the press or Mitt lackey Christie or Sununnu will focus on whenever there's anyone that threatens Romney's chance at the nomination.
However, Santorum nor Gringrich have some lackeys speaking for them. The press is already full on board for Romney.
All we have left is a brokered convention and hoping people don't fall for spin and vote to keep Santorum and Newt in the race.
If you really want to know the truth about why Ron Paul has been going after Santorum, watch the early debates where Santorum arrogantly dismissed Paul as dangerous and unstable, and condescendingly rolled his eyes when Paul was speaking.
When that first occurred, my wife and I came to the same conclusion that Santorum had opened up a hornet's nest. Any politician with as sorry a record as Santorum would do well to be polite and diplomatic, rather than resort to playground tactics.
"All we have left is a brokered convention and hoping people don't fall for spin and vote to keep Santorum and Newt in the race. "
Are you serious? It's obvious from the the posts here the majority of you wouldn't know a true conservative if he bit you on the a**. There is only one candidate who will get enough of the Independent and cross-over vote to defeat Obama. Period. Without those votes, the Dems get it for four more years. Embrace the horror.
And they call us RP supporters conspiracy theorists... *sigh* Occam's Razor folks. Romney is a NE establishment/Rockefeller Republican. No one voting for a man like that will pick Ron Paul as anything but last choice, and possibly would support Obama over him (just as they did against Goldwater in 64 and Buchanan in 92). Thus Ron's campaign sees no benefit in trying to woo his voters.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.