RidleyReport.com - "Just Say No to Dr. No's bad idea"

[Dave Ridley]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJ0trLrItAQ

Me got to oppose Dr. Paul on one thing he suggested in his February netcast...even if it's only the second bad idea he's ever had...

[Atlas]

Yeah, I saw this over at the RP Forums and they aren't too happy right now... You hurt some of the kiddies' feelings Dave

[ReverendRyan]

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13187.0

[dalebert]

I've said this on a couple other places. Dave touched the third rail of libertarian politics- criticizing Ron Paul. I caught so much hell just for mentioning Ron Paul in my criticisms of political activity in general. Of course it was misinterpreted as an attack on Ron Paul. Good luck, Dave.

[practicepro]

I think prehaps he means "spend money" as the democrats use that term
in reference to tax cuts.

[margomaps]

I don't think Paul did a good job explaining what he meant in that clip.  Many times in the past he has talked about eliminating almost all federal agencies and entitlement programs.  During this presidential campaign, he began to "soften" this a bit by acknowledging that the fedgov has fostered dependence among many people with things like social security, medicare, and other programs, and that these people should be "taken care of" while allowing others to "opt out".  He has also at times said that the only way we can afford to transition to non-dependence on entitlements -- for example, relieving the younger folks from the burden of paying for older folk's social security benefits -- is to scale back our foreign empire and use the money saved to pay promised entitlements.

Sometimes Paul doesn't do a good job clearly articulating how all his ideas fit together.  But if you piece together what he's said, it's more or less cohesive and sensible.

While it would be nice if our socialist entitlement programs would just shrivel up and die uneventfully, that is just wishful thinking.  Pulling back troops from around the world, and using some of that money to pay out social security benefits for everyone over a certain age who doesn't want to "opt out" seems like a fairly reasonable idea to me.

I don't know exactly what he meant by his "infrastructure" comment.  He often jokes/complains that we're taxed to bomb Iraq's infrastructure to smithereens, and then we're taxed again to have it repaired, while our infrastructure (the I35 bridge-collapse incident in Minneapolis recently, or the New Orleans levy collapses) in the US is failing.  I don't think he intends to use federal money to launch some huge infrastructure-rebuilding project.  Instead he wants to shrink fedgov small enough that states can/will take responsibility for their own infrastructure and raise funds to make repairs/improvements.  Again, he doesn't always articulate this well, but I believe that's probably what he means.

I can't fault Dave for disagreeing with Paul's statement on the tape.  But if you dig a little deeper I don't think it's even 1/2 as bad as is sounds.  My personal opinion is that Dave just made the video to rile up the legions of "Paultards" for kicks.   

[dalebert]

My personal opinion is that Dave just made the video to rile up the legions of "Paultards" for kicks.   

No. That's not Dave.

[margomaps]

My personal opinion is that Dave just made the video to rile up the legions of "Paultards" for kicks.   

No. That's not Dave.

Eh, I was just looking for an excuse to use the word 'Paultards'. 

I guess the devil-horn emoticon doesn't adequately convey my devilishly sarcastic intent.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Next months issue of Reason tears into Ron Paul pretty harshly. The Editors column and the cartoon both jump all over the ''racism" charges. I didn't know the folk at Reason are so hard-core against Paul.

[margomaps]

Next months issue of Reason tears into Ron Paul pretty harshly. The Editors column and the cartoon both jump all over the ''racism" charges. I didn't know the folk at Reason are so hard-core against Paul.

I've heard the same.  I've also heard the Reason (and Cato) folks derisively referred to as "beltway libertarians".  I'm not really plugged into the L/libertarian political scene, so this term is somewhat new to me.  Apparently a lot of "actual" libertarians think that Reason and Cato folks are essentially neocons with a more liberal civil libertarian bent.  Here's an interesting (albeit a bit long) article talking about this kind of stuff:

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/

[dalebert]

I've said this on a couple other places. Dave touched the third rail of libertarian politics- criticizing Ron Paul. I caught so much hell just for mentioning Ron Paul in my criticisms of political activity in general. Of course it was misinterpreted as an attack on Ron Paul. Good luck, Dave.

Comment on a different Ridley Report:

(20 minutes ago)
Riddly does little research before he posts his report on Ron Paul wanting bigger government was totaly inaccurate and false.
He is not worth watching any more.

[FTL_Ian]

You have spoken against the Messiah!!!!!!!!!! 

[margomaps]

I've said this on a couple other places. Dave touched the third rail of libertarian politics- criticizing Ron Paul. I caught so much hell just for mentioning Ron Paul in my criticisms of political activity in general. Of course it was misinterpreted as an attack on Ron Paul. Good luck, Dave.

Comment on a different Ridley Report:

(20 minutes ago)
Riddly does little research before he posts his report on Ron Paul wanting bigger government was totaly inaccurate and false.
He is not worth watching any more.

Surely you're not surprised about the "third rail" aspect?  If you think about it, Ron Paul is (or perhaps more accurately, was) viewed as the figurehead/last great hope/hero of those libertarians who haven't yet given up and think its possible to reform the current system rather than demolish it completely.

Insulting -- or even questioning -- someone's hero is likely to elicit a negative reaction.  Particularly among the more childish of the hero worshippers, and there seem to be many of these in the Paul camp.  It's mostly an age thing I think.

In defense of 'pure1warrior', even the most cursory review of Paul's record would indicate that the man has tirelessly worked (for decades) to decrease the size of the federal government -- moreso than any other elected official I'm aware of.  However, I won't defend the rest of 'pure1warrior's post.  Dave's videos are certainly still worth watching, and I look forward to each one.

[dalebert]

I'm surprised that even a minor amount of constructive criticism from someone who generally is very supportive elicits such an aggressive responses- in this case to suggest black-listing all of Dave's videos for it. That's not completely true. I expected it this time.

[margomaps]

I'm surprised that even a minor amount of constructive criticism from someone who generally is very supportive elicits such an aggressive responses- in this case to suggest black-listing all of Dave's videos for it. That's not completely true. I expected it this time.

I'd characterize it as a childish response, rather than an aggressive one.  But in either case, this incident is another example of why the 'Paultard' term was invented.

It's a shame.  Freedom lovers are very good at knocking each other down.  Paultards do it when someone criticizes their hero.  Some anarchists do it because libertarians are 'too political'.  And apparently the beltway libertarians do it because regular libertarians haven't jumped on the war bandwagon yet.