Ron Paul on Aging infrastructure

August 27, 2007

  Lew Rockwell.com has a piece by Ron Paul on our aging infrastructure.  He doesn’t mention pigeon poop, which is highly acidic and may have contributed to the collapse, but he does mention some things that are a little troubling.  It’s true that our highway system has some issues, and actions are already being implemented to address these issues.

     I guess the most bothersome thing about this article is it’s timing.  Let’s just pluck the flavor of the day from the tree, and blame everyone else for what’s happening.  The fact is maintaining the highway system is incredibly expensive, and tax revenues alone are not up to the challenge.  Much of the system is over 40 years old, and decrying “ribbon cutting” as the cause for its condition is verging on scandalous.  While its true that the occassional bridge to nowhere ends up on a budget, the vast majority of highway dollars are spent on…well…highways.  If you don’t believe me when is the last time you went anywhere and weren’t hampered by road construction?  These projects aren’t cheap, and recent efforts to tie in private enterprise is showing promise, as will an increase in the gas tax.

   The Trans Texas Corridor section of the article is downright erroneous, and goes against some of his most prominent beliefs.  This is a case of state government and free markets working together to improve the quality of life from a safety and economic standpoint.  It has nothing to do with NAFTA, as Cinta is a Spanish based company.  His allegation that this is phase one of a NAFTA Superhighway is unsubstantiated, and therefore political rhetoric.

   What is factual is that this route doesn’t pass through Ron Paul’s districts, as one of the alternate route’s (I-69) did.   This means no revenue from the Trans Texas Corridor will directly affect his district, and in light of the fact that he sought funding for I-69 as recently as this year, it would not be a huge leap of logic that Ron Paul is unhappy with the route.

   Further Cinta is not only paying for a massive section of the corridor, (the section they will receive toll revenue from), but is also required to maintain it.  This while splitting toll revenue with the state on a sliding scale that will reach 50% prior to the end of the contract.  If someone offered to build you a businesss, maintain it, and give you half the proceeds, would you feel it was a bad deal?  Thought not.

   This article may be the first time I’ve ever felt Ron Paul was not only wrong, but hypocritical.  His free market stance and strong state government position is a matter of public record.  But calling for government oversight seems to be more big government interjection in a state issue.  Why is Ron Paul making unsubstantiated allegations, and calling for federal oversight of a state issue?  Maybe because like one of my readers once said, Ron Paul is for his freedom, and against mine.

Advertisements

Ron Paul and the free market flip flop

August 26, 2007

   I hate to say it but sometimes this guy leaves me drooling.  I know that he means well, and I’m aware that a devoted following has put a lot of pressure on him to be the new Messiah, but you really can’t have it both ways.  In this speech, diatribe, mixed up message, he seems to be firmly against the NAFTA superhighway.  I’m ok with that.  I don’t like it either.  However, it flies in the face of his free market theories.  The Trans Texas Corridor is an inovative way of improving infrastructure in the state of Texas.  It involves private funding to build and maintain a toll road across Texas. While Ron says that it is not clear maintaining it will be the responsibility of the corporations involved, news reports say differently.  For information on the Trans Texas Corridor merely type that in your browser window.

     There are plenty of reasons to build this highway, and plenty of reasons not to.  The one salient factor that seems to be overlooked is that the STATE government elected by the people is entering into a deal that it feels is best for the state of texas.  You can muddy up the waters with talk of eminant domain, and toll splits and all the other little things that play a part, but the people elected these officials, and continue to elect them.  This is what you get from strong state government with limited federal oversight, which is also one of Ron Pauls big ideas.

   The free market is working in Texas.  Private industry combining with governments to fund a massive project that in the overall will improve things in that state. Ron Paul should be standing and cheering that two of his major premises are being practiced in his home state.

   I suppose the fact that its not running up through I-69, and therefore through his district, has nothing to do with his change of heart?  I mean, a Ron Paul as conspiratorial politico just couldn’t be possible.  This is what is known as flipflopping in a big way.  I’m for free markets, and strong state governments, except when they don’t do what I want them to.


Why Ron Paul is not a loony old man

August 6, 2007

    Which is what I heard him described as.  Interestingly enough by a political blogger I tend to respect, overlooking the fact that he supports that loony middle aged man, Mitt Romney.  You read a lot here about why I think Ron Paul is the wrong man for the job.  You also read a lot here about what a pack of moronic orangutans the pauliacs are.  You do not however read any particular disrespect for the man himself.

    The reason for that is on so many issues he is dead right.  Not the little ones…abortion, gun control,  drug legalization, and all the other little niche issues that are rolled out every few years so we can delineate between the idiot and the cow dung that we have to choose from.  On a lot of the big ones though the man is not wrong.

What kind of a hose monkey thinks we don’t need stronger borders?

Who in their right mind supports our current foreign policy agenda, and can’t find sense in a policy of non-interventionism?  Of not going to war unless congress declares war?

Who doesn’t think our government wastes way to much money?  Is it really more important to fight a war in Iraq than to rebuild an infrastructure  that is aging as quickly as the population.

Do you really support the major trade agreements currently shaping the  U.S. economic collapse?  Don’t tell me about the stock market here you dolt.  Tell me about Trade imbalance and deficits.

Further, if he didn’t couch it in terms of states rights I would wholeheartedly support this loony old man.  My problem is I don’t think the states have any more right to dictate to my daughter whether she can have an abortion or not.  It is, to all you idiots that are pro life…none of your  business.  It’s hard fr me to understand a party that is so much more concerned about the unborn than it is about the currently living.

   It is an unfortunate reality that I am not represented by the clowns on the right. or the jokers on the left.  Ron Paul is currently the only candidate that should make sense to anyone in the middle, and unfortunately he is about as electable as a drag queen.  More’s the pity. 

This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul.  I think allowing the young to opt out of Social Security is a stupid idea designed to appease his young voters.  I think a whole host of his other ideas are the wrong cure for the current problem.  What makes him better than the rest of the perfectly coiffed, properly crowned nitwits on that stage today was he at least recognizes the problems we face.


Trust and The Ron Paul idea of Government

July 31, 2007

  That my friends is what it comes down to for me.  Do I trust enough to accept his idea of small federal government?  I know that in his world the states will bear the responsibilities that the federal government is relieved of, but that means trusting even more, and frankly less qualified people.

   Trust is a funny animal.  I have trusted people, and on virtually every occassion found them lacking.  Now, unless you are a dead blood relative you all fall into the same category.  I can trust you until I veer from what you desire for yourself.  In a world with out selfishness trust would be a given, but at least in the society I live in now people have aspirations.  We can be best buddies, and sooner or later what you want for you will be different than what I want for me.  Thats when the proverbial doodoo hits the fan.   As long as what you and I want don’t contradict each other we’re still ok, but if they do, one of is in for some greivious disappointment in our friend. 

    I tend to come out on the short end of the stick most of the time in the trust department.  Not because I am wildly trustworthy.  I can give you a whole stack of sworn affidavits that say otherwise.  It’s more because I have a very limited list of desires.  I’m not going to fight my buddy for the affections of a woman, because, and correct me if I’m wrong, there are about a gazillion of them out there, and plus or minus 30 IQ points and 100 lbs they’re all pretty much the same.  I’m not being sexist, the same can be said for men.  I’m not special, and one monkey don’t stop no show.  I’m also not going to walk over your carcass for a better position in the chain of command because quite simply I’m just not that damned ambitious.  I have been walked over though, and the scum sucking rump lickers that have done it can thank god and government that I was not allowed to respond as I thought appropriate.

   I have with cognizant intent limited my life to those things that are important to me.  Basically, don’t harm my children, or molest my pets and we’ll be just dandy.  This of course is in a society that is quite restrictive.  Not Nazi restrictive, not socialist restrictive, but a free society that through its beliefs and laws is quite controlled.  We have the church to control the 80% of people who claimed some religious affiliation as of 2001.   This number is rapidly declining, and those godless bastards out west are the main reason.  Religion has been used as a form of mass control since  naked folks slathered their buttocks with holly berries and danced in the moonlight.  It sets the moral boundaries that encourages a herd mentality that is amazingly well suited to the human species.  We need control, because without it we are absurdly violent and narcissistic.  It’s all about “me,” and it has always been about “me.”

  For that 20% and growing group of society that is secular  we have laws.  Laws of course are established by congress, approved by the executive branch, and interpreted by the courts.  If Dr. Paul has his way, these three entities will take on a junior role in our society.  Sort of a watch dog on the 50 of each that will become all powerful in our lives.    I’m not trying to be a spoil sport, but when is the last time adding people to a decision making process in society helped?

Look at your state, your city…are these the people you want determining the important decisions in your life?  Do you want to move every time a majority of your stupid assed neighbors come up with some crackpot scheme to make life better?

   Add to this the mans desire to end all controls on drugs, to make guns easy to obtain, to weaken the already understaffed military that we have, and you find me not only ambivalent about his chances, but questioning where I would fit in this free for all society of his.

  I have to assume that when my easy to get a gun ass blows some crackhead all over the sidewalk that there will still be laws to ensure that you folks pay for my incarceration.  You see, my lack of trust for his idea of government is not based on fear of it.  It’s based on fear of me.  I want you cow ponies controlled so I don’t have to control you myself.  i am a very friendly fellow, but stick your nose in my world and I can assure you that jacking off a bobcat in a telephone booth with glass in your hand will seem a wiser option.

   You see, the reality is that society is made up of a whole lot of people like me, and an extensive number of people that I only define as other.  Trust me when I tell you that a strong federal government makes us all safer, freer, and aliver than we would be under Ron Pauls vision.  His road leads to anarchy, and while I think I would do okay under that scenario, I’m not so sure about those of you with strong moral codes, and basic levels of decency.  Getting in touch with my inner beast isn’t a problem for me.  When was the last time you let the dog out?

  


Ron Paul;

July 18, 2007

  Howdy, bub.  How goes the race for the white house?  I have some questions, and no, I’m not one of your supporters so the same old schlock answers aren’t going to make me say “you go Ron” as I continue cleaning my bazooka.  You want to be president so that you can return us to liberty.  To the freedom our forefathers intended

1.  Your followers have me a little confused, and so do you.  Are you for states rights, or individual rights?  I ask because I don’t see the difference between having a state dictate to me what I can and can’t do versus the federal government doing that.

2.  Are you for or against gay rights?  you get a little uncomfortable it seems talking about it, but as a libertarian, don’t you think they should have the same individual liberties as everyone else?

3.  When you say “it’s not in the constitution” are you advocating a government that does only what is expressly permitted in the constitution, or for a federal government that does what is not proscribed by the constitution>  It may seem semantic, but it isn’t.

4.  when you advocate free trade, do you understand that countries like China use slave labor, and a host of other unfair business practices, and as president would you be willing to attach appropriate taxes and tariffs on the import of goods to ensure a level playing field for American industry?

5.  What would you consider justification for use of America’s military?  would it be enough for a foreign entity to attack U.S. citizens abroad, or would they actually have to attack U.S. soil?  Would you be willing to honor America’s longstanding mutual defense treaties with such nations as Taiwan?

6.  up until now, the government has known that cigarettes are a deadly product, and have chosen to tax them at incredibly high rates instead of making them illegal.  How do you feel about products known to cause death in a high percentage of their users being sold legally?  If you approve of the practice, do you consider it proper for the government to profit off the sales of such products?

7.  The gold standard or backing currency with gold has caused most experts to consider you a bit of an eccentric.  Do you feel it’s sensible for the U. S. Government to buy up trillions of dollars worth of a precious metal when our deficti is already alarmingly high?

8.  By placing the responsibility for governing so heavily on the states, it seems that the federal government would become a referee in disputes between the states and individual rights. Is that a sensible role for an advanced societies central government to be playing?  We are not living in the age of our forefathers, and in  fact it strikes me that for states to be controlling almost everything it would put the U.S. at a decided disadvantage when it comes to competing with other nations.

9.   If you could change only one thing by becoming president what would that one thing be?  Your underwear is not an option.

10.  Are you for the seperation of church and state being treated as the constitution intends, or for the watered down variety we see in use today?

Sincerely,

C. Jicket

founder of the Grape Party