Comment by Kilo

I don’t know Kilo. Do “moderate” Republicans favor a return to the Robber Baron Era of the 1890’s? Ron Paul apparently does.

Thank you for providing this information.

CORPORATE POWER

– He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.

H.R.1247:
To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers.

H.R.1789: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as “antitrust law”, and for other purposes.

Comment by Jeremy Henderson

Many progressives support Ron Paul because they do not understand the inherently racist nature of libertarianism, and Ron Paul certainly isn’t going to educate them about it. When they Libertarians about individual rights in relation to discrimination, it is code for the repeal of Civil Rights Law. White supremacists are obviously aware of this basic principle of libertarianism, and they correctly see in it their long cherished goal of a return to Jim Crow, whites only lunch counters, and darkys to the back of the bus.

Once again, from the Libertarian Party Platform:

Section I, Part 18 DISCRIMINATION.
Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including discrimination in employment, housing, and privately owned so-called public accommodations. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.

Given how popular Paul is with white supremacists and anti-government militia types, you might want to rethink that invitation.

Well, he was right about those retarded Paulites (there are about 5 really loud ones). He was wrong in that the Republican party wouldn’t skew that way.

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”- President Dwight Eisenhower

What??? That is one of the largest libertarian platforms!!!

Must be northern WI. I never had much faith in their common sense.

Excuse me if I don’t want the country to fall further down the Texas hole. Texas is one big sh!thole and the big reason is the politicians there.

Comment by Brutus

Of course. Why then, does the Libertarian Party put this in their NATIONAL platform?

9. PUBLIC UTILITIES

We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges and governmental monopolies for such services as garbage collection, fire protection,

You are obviously a real Libertarian, and you know why. It’s because you want exactly what your party platform says. You know you can’t disband local fire departments from the federal level. Your goal is to rework our entire governmental system from top to bottom. In the end, you want to do away with even local government services, including the Fire Department. Your Party Platform lays it all out.

The “foolishness” as you call it, my friend, was believing in party over principle. The principle being that this is a constitutional republic…not a “one-size-fits-all” democracy. The system “works” only if we ALL are involved…ACTIVELY…not just one party, one message. E PLURIBUS UNUM.

Farewell friend.

Brutus

I actually looked into it and, yes, he IS against the fairness doctrine. Sucks to be him. I am not throwing a pity party for him any time soon.

The fairness doctrine would take care of this issue quite nicely. I am thinking Paul wouldn’t support it though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/opinion/03tierney.html

Talks about how Ben Franklin “invented” the idea of the fire department…

“Ben Franklin Had the Right Idea for New Orleans
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: September 3, 2005

Why is New Orleans in so much worse shape today than New York City was after the attacks on Sept. 11?

The short answer is that New York was attacked by fire, not water. But then why are urbanites so much better prepared to cope with fire than with flooding? Mostly because they learned to fight fire without any help from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

For most of history, fire was far more feared than flooding. Cities repeatedly burned to the ground. Those catastrophes occurred sporadically enough that politicians must have been tempted to skimp on fire protection – like levee maintenance, it was a long-term investment against a calamity that probably wouldn’t occur before they left office.

But urbanites learned to protect themselves through two innovations Benjamin Franklin introduced to America. He started a fire department in Philadelphia, as well as its first fire insurance company. Other cities followed, often with the firefighters organized by insurance companies with a vested interest in encouraging public safety.

Their customers had a vested interest, too, because they had to pay higher premiums if they lived in homes or neighborhoods that were prone to fire. As fire insurance became a standard requirement for homeowners, they and their insurance companies kept pressure on politicians to finance firefighting and tighten building codes.

As a result, the risk of a fire leveling a city like New York is lower than ever. Although the number of fires has dropped so much that experts routinely advise cities to close firehouses, voters’ fondness for the stations makes local politicians loath to close any.

But as we’ve learned this week, few people seem to care passionately about maintaining levees or preparing for a predictable flood. They’ve left that to Washington, which promised to hold back the waters and absolved coastal dwellers from worrying about hurricanes.

Starting in the 1960’s, the federal government took over the business of insuring against floods. It offered subsidized insurance to people in flood-prone areas, encouraging seaside homes that never would have been built otherwise. Even at bargain rates, most people went without flood insurance – only about a third of the homes in New Orleans carried it.

People don’t bother to protect themselves because they figure – correctly – that if disaster strikes they’ll be reimbursed anyway by FEMA. It gives out money so freely that it has grown into one of the great vote-buying tools of the modern presidency. Bill Clinton set a record for declaring disasters, and then President Bush set the single-state spending record in Florida before last year’s election.

Now it’s New Orleans’s turn. Since Washington didn’t keep its promise to protect the city, the federal government should repair the damage and pay for a new flood-control system. But New Orleans and other coastal cities will never be safe if they go on relying on Washington for protection. Members of Congress will always have higher priorities than paying for levees in someone else’s state.

The federal government has a role in coordinating flood control among states and in organizing outside disaster relief, but the locals should fight floods much the same way they fight fires. Fifteenth-century Dutch burghers didn’t have the financial or technological resources of today’s Louisianians, but they managed to hold back the sea without the Army Corps of Engineers.

Here’s the bargain I’d offer New Orleans: the feds will spend the billions for your new levees, but then you’re on your own. You and others along the coast have to buy flood insurance the same way we all buy fire insurance – from private companies that have more at stake than do Washington bureaucrats.

Private flood insurance has come to seem quaint in America, but in Britain it’s the norm. If Americans paid premiums for living in risky areas, they’d think twice about building oceanfront villas. Voters and insurance companies would put pressure on local politicians to take care of the levees, prepare for the worst – and stop waiting for that bumbling white knight from Washington. ”

Brutus

Once he stops being a lunatic people will stop calling him a lunatic.

Comment by Brutus

How strange that you criticize my obscure source for the 1992 Libertarian Platform and then go on to defend that very platform.

Look, you can’t fool me on this, because I used to be a Libertarian. That’s why I know so much about you and your agenda. I was a fool back in the ’80s. Then I finally started to decode the Libertarian’s lofty words about defending the Constitution and individual rights.

I welcome an open debate on the Libertarian platform. I just don’t want people to be fooled as I was.

Shoeless:

Let’s try some reason.

Fire departments are not granted under the US Constitution.

Fire departments would be a state and/or local matter.

“Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Therefore, Ron Paul as President of the United States could not “do away” with the Fire Department.

Last time I’m gonna wrestle with you.

Brutus

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1441

.