what a find. here's what some think of her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5k-OE0-fWs
I enjoyed the RP podcast - I appreciate Dr. Paul's positions on many things and am glad he has been able to contribute a contrarian voice at such a high level of government.
However, I find his definition of freedom flawed. It's a Chinese Menu style of interpretation: Let people choose any freedoms that they want except for those he doesn't personally like, which he will make illegal. Isn't that in direct contradiction of the concept of freedom? It sounds like another helping of authoritarian government to me.
If he honestly supports freedom, then he has to tolerate every citizen's own interpretation of it, even and especially when it conflicts with his own.
-Early
I love the criticisms of Dr. Paul.
Arguably the only politician who's been consistent with our nation's expressed constitutional values, and people pick him apart for things that are viewpoints - viewpoints that compose the necessary pool of conflicting values required of a representitive republic.
Where's this discontent with Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd?
With the Obama adminstration or the Bush and Clinton Dynasties?
Have we gotten to a point in society where we're so offended by politicians that we're willing to silently begrudge the worst, and openly deride those who're actually working towards something good, based on the principles set forth by our constitution?
Ron Paul's supporters are "automatons", "Paul Bots", fringe thinkers, and yes, Janet, even our much loathed 'terrorists'. Enemies of the state, and dangerous eccentrics tearing the seams of decency at societies edges.
Now, he's a racist because of a very clear set of statistics, and an anti-environmentalist because he refuses to dabble in creating legal structure that he doesn't believe in?
These kinds of claims are vitriol. They are legitimate only to the dogmatic, and the insinuation that interviewing someone is a claim of support for partisanship is likewise the kind of sensationalism that purports contradictory opinons as some sort of inexcusable offense. It's not.
It's just another set of values and opinions.
I find it ironic that left leaning contributors have received no such scolding.
Thank you, Dr. Paul - for your strict adherence to our democractic prinicples, for knowing when to stand up, and when to call attention to delicate truths. Thank you for your service to our nation, and thank you for the time you took to provide the readers here with an excellent interview.
Cheers,
Aaron
The truth is that every dollar that you have sent to the FedGov, in any form (including SSI, SSD, Medicare, etc.) is a tax. Those monies are not yours. If you get "a benefit" it will be at the political whim and capability of the US Congress to send it to you. There is no legal obligation imposed on this or any other Congress to give you "benefits". You are on your own, brother.The Congress WILL pay Treasury obligations, no-matter-what. If they need to put you to work in a Chinese labor camp in Montana to get them paid, they will. If they need to "assess" 30% of your asset base to balance the stripped-down budget, they could. You might be a terrorist, or know an Imam who knows one, making you an enemy collaborator no longer qualifying to have US-based assets or rights.
I disagree completely that "many" baby-boomers were against .gov spending. They were just like most Americans: taking full advantage early and often in the welfare/warfare State.
The real wealth and labor that my parents and grandparents wish to draw upon must be delivered locally by the younger generation. Will these young people be denied the wealth base needed to raise children and have families so that The Largest Generation will drive along in large cars and live alone in large houses? Yes. This will cause anger, and worse.
Cheers from Portlandia.