Huckabee

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I have every intention of voting for Ron Paul when my state's primaries roll around. The issues I disagree with him on (his personal bias against gay marriage), I can tolerate his views on (he's a states' rights guy), and everything else (except for the gold standard) I agree with.

Huckabee scares me sh*tless. As does Guiliani. And Hilary. Obama I can deal with, but not the others.

[Aphos]

With a sixth place finish and only 4% of the vote, Guiliani needs a miracle in NH.  Another poor showing and his presidential hopes are over.

There is no one on the Repub slate that I like.  Huckabee and Paul are scary...in different ways.  Romney, Guiliani and McCain are all flip-flopping on issues.  And Thompson is a mental lightweight.

[ivor]

I think there's a lot of places to cut spending.  Ron Paul wants to pull our troops out of foreign countries and bring them home.  That should save us tons of money.

Here some info on Ron Paul and the gold standard.

Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I don't find Paul scary at all. Why do you, Aphos? I'm afraid I don't see it, and I'm genuinely curious.

I know why Paul likes the gold standard, but I'm not really sure it's all that great of an idea to switch back.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Paul is a philosophical libertarian, and while some ideas from the American libertarian movement sound interesting on paper, there is a genuine concern on many on the implementation of such policy. On one hand, the federal government is not going away as some wish and there will be an enormous resistance to reduce its size. But the other side is that many (and I count myself among them) don't believe that a country without regulations is a good idea. Letting the markets take care of themselves can quickly lead to monopolies. Also without regulation in a market as big as the US, environmental and health concerns as immoral behavior could easily flourish (look at the sub-prime mortgage crisis and that happened with some regulation). In theory the markets would self regulate because you wouldn't buy something from someone cheating you, but cheating in subtle ways is already common.

I understand that with a corrupt federal government its quite tempting to take it away, but replace it with what, corrupt state governments, nothing?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Yes, I am aware of all that. I AM a libertarian, after all.
I do note that no regulations is not accurate; we simply believe there are too many of them. Most libertarians will tell you that government is a necessary evil--it's anarchists that disagree.
State governments are closer to the people than a national government and more accountable to them than a national government (which is why I'm more willing to give them power).
I'm of two minds about social services--on one hand, there are people that genuinely need them but on the other, they're so venerable to abuse, and I don't like paying for other people. Enough is taken out of my paycheck as is, thanks.

Sorry for the threadjacking! 

[Aphos]

I don't find Paul scary at all. Why do you, Aphos? I'm afraid I don't see it, and I'm genuinely curious.

I know why Paul likes the gold standard, but I'm not really sure it's all that great of an idea to switch back.

Read some of the info provided on Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars".  There are several areas where Paul's take on things is rather scary.  Some of the people endorsing Paul are even scarier.

Even Brayton (who is an avowed libertarian) likes many of the positions Paul has taken, but finds the fringe positions to be too far out.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I do note that no regulations is not accurate; we simply believe there are too many of them.

But that is a moderate position, the speech I've got from a few self proclaimed libertarians is that the only taxes needed are to pay for police and army, and no more regulations of any kind. There is a difference between saying "the tax code is too complicated, too expensive to enforce and too filled with loopholes" and other is saying "lets hike the sales tax to 30% for everybody and no more income tax". If there is too much red tape to start a business or the regulations are obsolete that needs to be revised but that's not a reason to dump all regulations. That's the trick, streamline a system isn't dumping it and the impression I get from the libertarians I know is the latter (including some declarations from R. Paul). You can de-regulate moderately or radically, that's the point.

And don't worry about thread jacking, we all do it.

[ivor]

As president Paul wouldn't be writing law anyway.  Got any links for that "Culture Wars" site Aphos?  I don't see anything on Ron Paul there.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Looking I found this:
[youtube=425,350]6JyvkjSKMLw[/youtube]

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

   Some of the people endorsing Paul are even scarier.

Even Brayton (who is an avowed libertarian) likes many of the positions Paul has taken, but finds the fringe positions to be too far out.

Two things:
1. And there are those who support him who are perfectly sane. Just because there are a few stone-aged wackos support him shouldn't reflect badly on the whole group. I support him, to be honest, and I don't think I'm a paleo-anything.
2. Which positions would these be? I'm afraid I don't see much that I would consider fringe. (Ok, the gold standard is an exception)

I do note that no regulations is not accurate; we simply believe there are too many of them.

But that is a moderate position, the speech I've got from a few self proclaimed libertarians is that the only taxes needed are to pay for police and army, and no more regulations of any kind. There is a difference between saying "the tax code is too complicated, too expensive to enforce and too filled with loopholes" and other is saying "lets hike the sales tax to 30% for everybody and no more income tax". If there is too much red tape to start a business or the regulations are obsolete that needs to be revised but that's not a reason to dump all regulations. That's the trick, streamline a system isn't dumping it and the impression I get from the libertarians I know is the latter (including some declarations from R. Paul). You can de-regulate moderately or radically, that's the point.

I have to say, I would like to only have to worry about the military and police, and de-regulate as much as humanly possible. But I don't think its feasible right now. (Although I don't see why drug legalization is such a scary thing--quadruple the DUI fine and I think it'll be ok)
Additionally, you'll have to forgive me--I have craptacular audio on my laptop, and I couldn't hear anything clearly. Could you give me the gist of the video?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I have to say, I would like to only have to worry about the military and police, and de-regulate as much as humanly possible. But I don't think its feasible right now. (Although I don't see why drug legalization is such a scary thing--quadruple the DUI fine and I think it'll be ok)
Additionally, you'll have to forgive me--I have craptacular audio on my laptop, and I couldn't hear anything clearly. Could you give me the gist of the video?

I'm for drug legalization, but from there to remove the FAA, to make all toll roads, to allow industry to pollute without punishment, to remove FDA, etc, etc, etc, well, that is frankly scary to me.

In the video he says that he doesn't believe in evolution:

I think it's a theory -the theory of evolution- and I don't accept it, as a theory. I think the creator that I know, created us and every one of us, created the universe and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we are at a point where anybody has the absolute truth on either side...

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Oooh, it's that video. You know that glitch in the middle? That's an edit. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124160.html
Additionally, if you read his website, Paul says that he thinks polluters are transgressing against every one else--we have to breath in the crap they put in the air so they can profit--that violates our rights.
I sort of disagree with removing the FDA, but I really think we could cut about 60% of governmental departments and be fine.

[Aphos]

As president Paul wouldn't be writing law anyway.  Got any links for that "Culture Wars" site Aphos?  I don't see anything on Ron Paul there.

Darn!!!  I did something wrong and lost my first post.  Drat!!!

Anyway, here are a couple of the latest post Brayton has made concerning Ron Paul.  These point out areas where Brayton is concerned with Paul's positions.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/the_ron_paul_issue.php

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/neonazi_leader_says_paul_is_on.php

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Um, I think that if this were true, it would have already been used by Mitt, if no one else. I suspect that there's no way to back this up, so he hasn't, knowing that Paultards will challenge him at every step. I seriously doubt Paul has been involved with them, even if some of them DO support him.