Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Paul Trades Fox for Jay Leno
MANCHESTER, NH - Well, the choice was sort of made for him, but 24-odd hours after being bounced from the Fox News five-man forum, Ron Paul will be appearing on the Tonight Show. He's en route to Los Angeles to shoot the show for Monday night. Ron's son Rand and his friend ex-Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. will be filling in at Paul's campaign events until he returns Monday night.
I asked Paul if he had any problem breaking the writer pickets to appear on the show. Silly question: He doesn't care about the unions or the pickets. And at his speeches at a Republican brunch (attended by almost 1000 people) and the Liberty Forum (attended by hundreds) But Paul backers in the state were enraged at the Fox shutout. At the Liberty Forum, so many people were organizing a Fox protest that Operation Live Free or Die sent out a request that Paul supporters chill out and devote their energy to an afternoon town hall instead. Some listened, but more than 200 materialized on Elm Street in Manchester to chant "Fox News Sucks!" and reel in local news teams. The Paul crowds were close to Frank Luntz's debate focus group; after it was over, Luntz got the crowd to bet him $1000 that Paul would score 20 percent in the primary.
A little more from this afternoon: Paul will campaign at least until Feb. 5, by which time he'll "reassess" the race.
Derrick|1.7.08 @ 1:02AM|#
Leno is not a bad gig to have on the eve of the NH
primary.
Fox is painting itself into a smaller and smaller corner.
We need a libertarian-leaning cable news network. Someone get right
on that, please.
There you have my two cents.
M|1.7.08 @ 1:10AM|#
Paul will campaign at least until Feb. 5, by which time
he'll "reassess" the race.
Gosh, I hope he stays in long enough to make it worth my while to
have registered as a Republican.
Dustin|1.7.08 @ 1:16AM|#
I doubt any of the other republican candidates could even make it through medical school. Even Romney had to settle for business and law. Anyone can memorize vocabulary and talk slick, it takes an intellectual like Dr. Ron Paul to put the pieces of the puzzle together like is required in the medical profession.
jj|1.7.08 @ 1:20AM|#
Dustin: ...and not just any med. school. Duke--one of the best in the world. Dr Paul's knowledge of medicine, politics and economics put the other GOP candidates to shame. Pity he doesn't speak a little slower and more simply: so that sneering Fred Thompson would be able to understand.
MrWhipple|1.7.08 @ 1:20AM|#
The fact that Fox News employs the services of professional
douchebag Frank Luntz says a lot about Fox News.
And Frank Luntz.
Marc Scott Emery|1.7.08 @ 1:22AM|#
Ron Paul will only leave the race if his supporters stop funding
the campaign. He has almost enough money to buy ads and staff in
all 24 Super Tuesday states, but all the money raised to now will
have been spent so if you want to keep Dr. Paul in the campaign
beyond Feb. 5, we must all give more money in the days ahead.
If he gets third in New Hampshire, he can make perhaps 2nd in
Nevada (Jan. 19) and perhaps third in South Carolina, and from
there develop a truly dynamic momentum for Super Tuesday. I think
Ron Paul can beat Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee in Nevada, only
McCain and Romney will compete with Ron Paul in Nevada. In South
Carolina, Huckabee, Romney, Mccain and Thompson all hope to be
competitive, so Dr. Paul could come in 3rd there in such a tight
race. So its a dogfight until the end!
Tom Walls|1.7.08 @ 1:35AM|#
Watching the Fox forum tonight, I fell asleep while Fred
Thompson was talking, but awoke to see Luntz questioning a roomful
of NH undecideds at a restaurant.
There was a steady stream of Ron Paul signs going by the outside
window. Priceless!
|1.7.08 @ 2:10AM|#
Paul will campaign at least until Feb. 5, by which time
he'll "reassess" the race.
.. just found out a few days ago that the NM Republican primary is
June 3rd, tied with South Dakota for the last one in the nation
..
.. great .. I changed my voter registration to "R" so that I could
vote for Dr. Paul.. now it seems I might be voting for someone who
has bowed out of the race by that time ..
.. oh, well .. like my vote matters, anyway ..
.. Hobbit
|1.7.08 @ 2:14AM|#
My brother is out in NH for operation live free or die and he was part of the 200 shouting fox news sucks. He said that they followed hannity back to his hotel chanting all the way.
|1.7.08 @ 2:21AM|#
it seems that there is something fishy about those luntz focus
groups
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/honkywill/fuckusgroup2.jpg
xtrabiggg|1.7.08 @ 2:22AM|#
F@#$ Frank Luntz!
Sorry, my 'Penn & Teller' tourettes kicks in whenever I hear
that snake-oil weasel's name mentioned. It should be interesting to
hear Jay Leno (who is a STRONG supporter of the Iraq war) avoid
bringing THAT subject up. Good, because the strong issue is now the
economy, (though the war is still important) and ROn Paul is the
strongest candidate on the Economy.
Ron Paul has forgotten more economic knowledge than the accumulated
sum total of all the rest of the Rep candidates put together! I
mean, he's written 13 books on the subject, and many economists and
traders LOVE him! If the American people would only be able to hear
the FACTS about how our economy is controlled (without the shouts
and schoolgirl laughter of the other candidates), then they would
see that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with not only the policies
to help them and the American economy, but also the only candidate
with the intellectual capacity to UNDERSTAND the underlying
principles!
Fred Thompson is NOT an intellectual (though he DID play one on
TV!); if you look close, you can see Ed Rollins hand up the back of
Huckabee's suit, moving his lips; McCain sheds his political skin
more than a Boa Constrictor with Psoriasis; I swear I bought a used
car from Mitt Romney at some point in my life; and Rudy Giuliani
is- 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11!-(sorry about that Giuliani
Tourettes); Rudy Giuliani has more skeletons in his crawlspace than
John Wayne Gacy, and half the charm! At what point in his
'I'm-waiting-for-the-next-state strategy will the media declare him
mathematically eliminated?
The Jay Leno show is as close to 'show biz' as Ron Paul gets,
unlike the freak-show circus behavior the other Republicans have
displayed at the debates (and elsewhere) lately!
xtrabiggg
+++++++++++++++++++++++
|1.7.08 @ 2:34AM|#
"I doubt any of the other republican candidates could even make
it through medical school. "
Medical school? Try an introductory course on economics at their
local community college!
-jcr
e|1.7.08 @ 3:27AM|#
"Paul if he had any problem breaking the writer pickets to
appear on the show. Silly question: He doesn't care about the
unions or the pickets"
Fuck yeah, fuck the working class!! cowboy individualism for teh
win!
|1.7.08 @ 3:37AM|#
In Iowa most of the independents went to Obama. Maybe now that
Obama looks like he's heading for a blowout, some of the indies
will try Paul instead.
The question that converts Obama voters: "When does Obama say he's
pulling out the troops?"
|1.7.08 @ 6:02AM|#
Some listened, but more than 200 materialized on Elm Street
in Manchester to chant "Fox News Sucks!" and reel in local news
teams.
A video of
same.
Actually, I think Crotch News has done Paul a favor - the publicity
he's garnered from this beats the hell out of anything he'd have
got from appearing in another boring and pointless debate.
|1.7.08 @ 7:46AM|#
Hold the phone:
. . . Ron's son Rand. . .
Ron Paul actually named his kid after Ayn Rand?
|1.7.08 @ 7:50AM|#
I don't know about South Carolina but Kentucky is Ron Paul territory. All of my family that lives there says it is Ron Paul signs as far as the eye can see and everyone is talking about Dr Paul. The South has a HUGE number of people in the military and the military is 100% behind Dr Paul.
Eric Dondero|1.7.08 @ 8:08AM|#
I must say, of all the things Ron Paul has done wrong with his
campaign - Don Black, Nazi StormFront Troopers, Larouchie stuff,
Radical Muslim backing - the one thing he's done right is to have
Barry Goldwater II endorsing him and now having him as his
spokesman.
My hat's off to Ron Paul for this. Right move.
Eric Dondero|1.7.08 @ 8:09AM|#
And now back to attacking Ron Paul...
CBS News is reporting this morning that Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee
have "morphed" into each other. They're both spouting the same
exact populist line, on the Fed, government out of control,
ect...
Eric Sundwall|1.7.08 @ 8:44AM|#
'Luntz got the crowd to bet him $1000 that Paul would score 20
percent in the primary.'
David, this is inaccurate. The video on YouTube clearly shows Paul
supporters rejecting the bet.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/22221
|1.7.08 @ 8:48AM|#
I really hate Huckabee with a fiery passion.
There. I got that off my chest for the hour.
It'll probably build up to something grander by the end of the day,
but I let out a little bit of steam, just to take the edge off.
Derrick|1.7.08 @ 8:58AM|#
I don't know about South Carolina but Kentucky is Ron Paul
territory. All of my family that lives there says it is Ron Paul
signs as far as the eye can see and everyone is talking about Dr
Paul.
My extended family in Kentucky is telling me the same thing.
|1.7.08 @ 9:16AM|#
We need a libertarian-leaning cable news network. Someone
get right on that, please.
Hmmm, the Reason Channel? They sort of have that now.
robc|1.7.08 @ 9:16AM|#
I live in KY. I dont expect big numbers here at all. One of my
GOP friends is going to vote for him (well, late May primary, so
YMMV) but leans libertarian but always voted GOP in the general
elections though. Other than that, I just dont see it here.
Then again, my Dad is a lifetime republican from a republican
family in a republican county and he didnt vote GOP for Prez for
the first time in 2004. Bush pissed him off that bad. He voted LP,
he said he figured my guy needed an extra vote (and he wouldnt vote
for Kerry). So, if Paul is still in it come May, my Dad will vote
for him too.
LarryA|1.7.08 @ 9:19AM|#
CBS News is reporting this morning that Ron Paul and Mike
Huckabee have "morphed" into each other. They're both spouting the
same exact populist line, on the Fed, government out of control,
ect...
Obviously CBS doesn't understand the difference between, "The
government is out of control, we need to let the church run it."
and "The government is out of control, we need to take a weed
whacker to it."
|1.7.08 @ 9:28AM|#
LarryA,
To be fair to CBS, it is Eric Dondero who is claiming that
they are conflating the two.
Given Eric's 0.005 accuracy rate for his factual assertions
regarding Ron Paul, it's quite likely that CBS said no such thing
at all.
|1.7.08 @ 9:32AM|#
Honest question from a (mostly) lurker: what IS the libertarian stand on unions in general?
|1.7.08 @ 9:32AM|#
Luntz got the crowd to bet him $1000 that Paul would score
20 percent in the primary.
My highest hopes were for 20% in NH. But loosing to McCain in Iowa,
I'd be happy with 15%. What ever the final tally, if he doesn't
come in ahead of Huckabee (and of course, Giuliani and Thompson) he
becomes the walking dead.
From day one I figured he'd stick it out until someone had a lock
on the nomination. Nothing has changed that. I had hoped he'd do
well enough to get some podium time at the convention. That's
looking less likely now (if it was ever possible that the
establishment would ever give an inch)
|1.7.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Honest question from a (mostly) lurker: what IS the
libertarian stand on unions in general?
The intellectually consistent position, or the real one?
|1.7.08 @ 9:42AM|#
Timmy Mac,
Libertarians have no problem with unions so long as employers
aren't forced to deal with them. IF a group of people wish to band
together in order to improve their bargain power, great! When they
use the state to compel people to bargain with them, then we get
tetchy about it.
robc|1.7.08 @ 9:46AM|#
joe,
The intellectually consistent position, or the real
one?
There is no difference. They have every right to exist, they can
even negotiate themselves into a closed shop if they can get it.
Other than that, they are no different than any other private club
and should have no special legal position. If an owner wants to
fire someone for trying to form a union, thats his call too.
robc|1.7.08 @ 9:49AM|#
On a related subject, around the corner from my office, there are regularly (at least 3 days a week), there are "protestors" holding up a "Shame shame shame" sign in front of some company. I had no idea what this company does or what they have done to be shamed for. Ive since learned they are in the construction biz, which probably helps figure out the rest. However, shouldnt there be a bit more info on the big "shame" banner if you want me to help you shame them? Personally, I just laugh at the guys standing out there. Maybe if they provided me with some info, I might agree with them.
|1.7.08 @ 9:56AM|#
...what IS the libertarian stand on unions in
general?
Libertarians believe in freedom, property rights, and contract law.
Laborers have the right of freedom of association. They have the
right to withhold their own labor. Employers have the right to
contract with Unions. The also have the right to hire non union
labor.
Coming out of the mid twentieth century, big labor was a powerful,
wealth destroying, freedom limiting, force. So there is a lingering
bias against unionized labor. "Right to work" is problematic. On
principle, libertarians should support employers rights to contract
with unions on whatever terms they wish. But there is a good deal
of support for "right to work" which prohibits employers from
requiring union membership.
|1.7.08 @ 10:02AM|#
But there is a good deal of support for "right to work"
which prohibits employers from requiring union
membership.
Just to make this sentence clearer, "Right to Work" laws prohibit
employers and the workers they employ from signing a contract that
contains certain provisions.
And libertarians love it. It's that "lingering bias," wholly
unrelated to the government role, that Warren, much to his credit,
acknwoledges.
You could read book after book about the "freedom of
association/anti-government" intellectual position on unions, and
never find a word to explain why 99 out of 100 libertarians would
cross a picket without a second thought, or with an actual sense of
glee.
|1.7.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Timmy Mac,
What do you think Ayn Rand's disciples would think about people who
join together to negotiate a contract that treats them all the
same?
There is far more to the libertarian vision of the good society
than a small government. They want people to behave in a certain
manner, even if they don't want to compel that behavior, and
"collective" bargaining ain't it.
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:08AM|#
robc,
And libertarians love it. It's that "lingering bias," wholly
unrelated to the government role, that Warren, much to his credit,
acknwoledges.
2 out of 2 libertarians who answered your question explicitly
oppose right to work laws. Yeah, we really love it.
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:10AM|#
oops, 2 out of 3, didnt see tarran up there. He didnt specifically touch on right to work laws.
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:10AM|#
okay, I was replying to joe, not myself at 10:08. Im lucky I didnt post AS joe.
charlie|1.7.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Joe--
Unfortunately you're right with regard to how most (not all)
libertarians view unions. There seems to be an inherent bias toward
business and against labor. How often do you hear libertarians
railing against regulations x, y, and z? Now contrast that with how
often you hearing libertarians argue for the repeal of
Taft-Hartley, which restricts freedom of association by banning
unions from engaging in "sympathy boycotts," amongst other
things... [crickets]
Kevin Carson has written some interesting stuff on this strange
inconsistency with regard to supporting freedom of association --
something he appropriately terms "vulgar libertarianism" -- at
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:15AM|#
joe
They want people to behave in a certain manner, even if they
don't want to compel that behavior
Crack == Unions
Both should be legal.
Using either is a bad idea.
I dont see the problem here.
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:31AM|#
joe,
I didnt follow the link, but charlie doesnt. I would get rid of
Taft-Hartley too.
I favor full freedom of association, I just want the freedom to
call them idiots.
|1.7.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Crack hurts the people who use it.
Unions help the people who avail themselves of collective
bargaining.
How telling that you consider them the same.
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:33AM|#
As an aside, there are probably a few 21st century industries in which unions make some sense, like Major League Baseball.
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Unions help the people who avail themselves of collective
bargaining.
Thats a blanket statement. You trying to say there arent union
employees who wouldnt be better off bargaining without the union,
but cant because its a closed shop?
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Crack hurts the people who use it.
Also a BS blanket statement. There are plenty of people who use
crack, get a high, and are never hurt by using it.
|1.7.08 @ 10:36AM|#
I want the freedom to call them idiots, too, robc.
But I don't think they are necessarily idiots, and you do. That,
too, is a part of libertarian philosophy. Yous position on
government policy towards unions is only part of your position on
unions.
robc|1.7.08 @ 10:39AM|#
joe,
My personal opinion on unions and crackheads probaby has more to do
with me being a baptist than a libertarian. :)
|1.7.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Are you from the South, robc?
I've heard about early 20th century preachers who would sermonize
about how unions were the work of the devil.
|1.7.08 @ 10:54AM|#
I think many libertarians are wary of unions because we
associate them (in our heads) with labor laws, which we generally
oppose. They are notorious for pulling on peoples heart-strings to
get higher pay through government (health care spending,
CSEA-types, etc.), and that is one reason why I (and I suspect I'm
not alone on this) don't like them very much, as a general
rule.
That has nothing to do with my opinion of whether or not they
should be allowed to exist or be protected legally through contract
law.
|1.7.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Reinmoose,
You don't think that the fact that unions 1) organize people
together to operate as a collective, in order to 2) compel
businessowners (whose pursuit of self-interest is responsible for
all the good things in the world) to accede to practices in their
workplaces that they would not choose to do on their own has
ANYTHING to do with libertarian hostility towards them?
Libertarians are anti-collective, and pro-businessowner as king of
his domain. Libertarian hostility towards them is not about the
laws put in place to protect, but to their very nature. Small
government conservatives hated unions even when the government's
involvement with them was limited to sending in the National Guard
to bust strikes.
Rhywun|1.7.08 @ 11:02AM|#
99 out of 100 libertarians would cross a picket without a
second thought, or with an actual sense of glee
I see each case differently. The union of overpaid, underworked,
and resentful folks who run our trains and busses are a much less
sympathetic cohort than, say, the union of writers trying to
squeeze a couple pennies on Internet showings from the colossal
media producers.
Fade|1.7.08 @ 11:05AM|#
This article is crap. "I asked Paul if he had any problem
breaking the writer pickets to appear on the show." And his answer
was?... this article never says. It just attacks Paul without
giving any information from Paul himself. It is a silly question
when you ask it only of yourself, just to frame an attack on Paul.
I'm not a Paul supporter, just wish for something besides bullshit
statements like this.
Edwards 08!
robc|1.7.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Are you from the South, robc?
Thats a tough question. I was born in and currently reside in
Louisville, KY. If you can find a more borderline midwest/southern
city, let me know.
When I lived in Atlanta, I was probably a midwesterner. When I
lived in Madison, WI, I was clearly from the south.
I generally think of myself as being from the south. But definately
not the deep south. Then again, I had 2 ancestors who were Union
cavalry officers and no Gray ancestors as far as I know. But I will
refer to the War of Northern Agression when the mood strikes.
Growing up I attended a methodist church, so I doubt I got those
kind of sermons.
|1.7.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Joe,
Not all libertarians are adamantly pro-Ayn Rand. Some of us
understand the need for unions, but do wish there was a better,
less likely to be abused way for workers to get paid their real
value.
Unions are a good threat against bad business, but they are easy to
abuse the power of, as we have ample history of.
highnumber|1.7.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Libertarians are anti-collective...
That's exactly why any question about what libertarians think about
anything other than the value of freedom tends to get you a
multitude of contradictory answers. I have no problem with unions
anymore than I have a problem with trade associations. Both do
great things, both do stupid things.
highnumber|1.7.08 @ 11:25AM|#
I made a stupid, stupid typo in that last comment - an error
that is a personal pet peeve. I'm going to go hurt myself.
See if you can spot my error!
|1.7.08 @ 11:29AM|#
highnumber,
Can you give us any more information what it might be?
Or are you not doing that anymore?
|1.7.08 @ 11:38AM|#
highnumber -
it's a pet peeve of mine too. It seems like I see someone make an
error of that sort everyday.
;)
R C Dean|1.7.08 @ 11:44AM|#
I think a lot of libertarians have an instinctive aversion to
unions as they currently exist because, as they currently exist,
unions are almost entirely dependent on state power for their
existence, have continuing ties to organized crime and a long
history of using violence and threats of violence to attain their
goals, and have increasingly become part of the political machine
pushing a larger state.
In principle, unions as free associations that do not have special
legal rights and privileges are unobjectionable to libertarians.
The problem is that unions in the real world are anything but
that.
|1.7.08 @ 11:44AM|#
That libertarian in joe's head seems like a very bad person. joe, if he (and it must be a he) ever tries to pull anything funny on your amygdala, let me know. I've got your back.
|1.7.08 @ 11:48AM|#
RC,
Good point. Unions take political positions opposite libertarians
on school choice, free trade, minimum wage laws, health care...
|1.7.08 @ 11:50AM|#
You don't think that the fact that unions 1) organize people
together to operate as a collective, in order to 2) compel
businessowners (whose pursuit of self-interest is responsible for
all the good things in the world) to accede to practices in their
workplaces that they would not choose to do on their own has
ANYTHING to do with libertarian hostility towards them?
Ummmm, not nearly as much as you seem to think it does.
|1.7.08 @ 11:57AM|#
In the theory of good-greed, it's not just business owners whose
self-interest benefits the economy and people as a whole, but it's
*everyone* acting in their own best interest. That includes
laborors unifying against their employer to get paid a few more
cents per hour. It also doesn't imply that those actions alone will
result in the best-case scenerio, but that we approach the
best-case scenerio over time.
But then again, you probably knew all of that and were just emoting
in your post.
|1.7.08 @ 12:00PM|#
If you like two day weekends, thank a union member. If you like safety laws regarding the workplace, thank a union member. If you like the 40 hour work week and overtime pay, thank a union member. If you like having a middle class, thank a union member.
highnumber|1.7.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Sorry, the innominate one. While you are correct, Reinmoose spotted it first. Good job, both of you!
Rhywun|1.7.08 @ 12:09PM|#
If you like a dozen or more "allowed unexcused absences" per year, thank a union member. If you like earning 1/2 the prevailing rate in your now job as a cop in order to protect your superiors' pensions, thank a union member. If you like getting paid great money to treat the public like shit cos hey you'll never get fired, thank a union member.
Ayn R. Key|1.7.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Libertarians are anti-collective...
The focus of libertarianism is the relationship between the
individual and the government. The focus of objectivism is the
relationship between the individual and the collective. The two
often overlap but aren't the same. I know an individual who is a
socialist and votes libertarian because he believes he can only
found his voluntary commune and make it work if the rest of society
is libertarian.
If you like two day weekends, thank a union member. If you like
safety laws regarding the workplace, thank a union member. If you
like the 40 hour work week and overtime pay, thank a union member.
If you like having a middle class, thank a union member.
If you like giving credit where credit is due, forget the unions
that followed the economic trend while claiming to lead it.
|1.7.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Weekends
40 hour work week
What the fuck are those? I should start a grad student union.
highnumber|1.7.08 @ 12:10PM|#
L_I_T,
You get second place. I got bad readin' skilz.
I go hurt me some more.
Bingo|1.7.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Likes Unions: The middle class existed long before organized
labor.
Also if you like to watch unions and incompetant management destroy
an entire economy take a look at Michigan. Having grown up in a
heavily unionized state let me say this: FUCK UNIONS.
|1.7.08 @ 12:14PM|#
HEY!
If you accept "anymore" as a word, joe actually used it correctly,
so that doesn't count.
L_I_T actually got it first.
jimmydageek|1.7.08 @ 12:17PM|#
40 hour work week
Overtime pay
2 day weekends
WTF is all that? I haven't had a (less than) 40 hour work week or
overtime pay since my first job at McDonald's. The 2 day weekend
thing is becoming less and less common for me as well.
Rhywun|1.7.08 @ 12:18PM|#
I'm pretty sure anymore as one word is correct.
Not in the sense he was using it.
|1.7.08 @ 12:20PM|#
"You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!"
|1.7.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Rhywun,
You don't love unions? Are you sure you're from Upstate NY?
;-)
And I think you forgot "if you like your kid going to a crappy
public school with no competition, thank a union member."
robc|1.7.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Brian24,
You got what you deserved for trying to sneak out atoms in your
pocket.
Rhywun|1.7.08 @ 12:27PM|#
WTF is all that?
I must be the only American actively resisting the "workaholic"
trend of the last decade or so. I have a job that doesn't require
overtime or weekends except in rare, special circumstances. If it
did, I would find another job, because free time is important to
me--more important than "getting ahead", I guess...
|1.7.08 @ 12:33PM|#
If you like the 40 hour work week and overtime pay, thank a
union member.
Damn those union members for the 40 hour work week! We should only
have a 35 hour work week, and not be allowed to work over time so
that more people can have a job! That's how they do it in France.
They're so much more enlightened than us though...
If you like having a middle class, thank a union
member.
We shouldn't even have a middle class. Everyone should be upper
class and making above the average pay rate, which they would if it
weren't for the greedy corporations!
Rhywun|1.7.08 @ 12:36PM|#
You don't love unions? Are you sure you're from Upstate
NY?
I'm indifferent to private sector unions, as there is usually a
non-union choice for employment and/or trade. Public sector unions
piss me off, though. And not surprisingly, they are the unions that
have managed to lavish the most bounty on themselves, given the
bottomless source of income they receive.
|1.7.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Reinmoose,
I understand all of that. What you just described is what I called
"the intellectually consistent position." When you push them, you
can get libertarians to acknowledge it. Otherwise, you get what I
called "the real one."
As evidence, I offer the statements made about unions before and
after my comment.
|1.7.08 @ 12:39PM|#
The only time I ever heard Paul comment on unions (this was at
the MI debate), he said he has no problems with unions organizing.
HOWEVER, he also said they deserve "no special legislative favors."
Not to sound like a Paulbot, but I'd have to agree.
There is no union where I work, and I like it that way.
|1.7.08 @ 12:47PM|#
ummm.. I don't see which examples you're pointing to. I trust
that there are examples somewhere of people who are libertarians
and don't hold the intellectually consistent position on unions,
but I just don't see them on this thread.
Care to point one out? I see that robc expresses the consistent
position and then maintains that he still doesn't care for
them.
Also, I think the feller named "e" was joking.
I think libetarians have weirder inconsistencies (hatred toward
HOAs, for example) than a general dislike for unions. HOAs, at
least to my knowledge, don't employ government for their ends.
robc|1.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Reinmoose,
HOAs are like unions and crack.
I moved in October and my new house isnt in an HOA. Yea!!
|1.7.08 @ 1:07PM|#
You're right, Reinmoose, the union-bashing has been much less egregious on this thread than it usually is. My bad.
|1.7.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Paul should not slight the WGA. Paul is sucking up to the hollywood crowd of Les Monnvies and Sumner Redstone.
|1.7.08 @ 1:14PM|#
People need to stop looking for the Government to force
companies to give fair pay - they need to take responsibility for
themselves!
I hate Unions too, stupid workers need to stop taking
responsibility for themselves!
Politifact|1.7.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Ummm... does anyone else notice that ::He doesn't care about the
unions or the pickets::
IS NOT IN QUOTES!
Ron Paul did not say he doesnt care about unions, it is a
speculation of what he may say.
|1.7.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Unions. Done some good things, done some bad things. Should be legal. Like the Kiwanis club.
|1.7.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Just curious:
Do the people at Reason or on Ron Paul's campaign have a 40-hour
work week?
Health care?
Overtime?
Vacation time?
You'd better start caring about unions, RoPaul. You too,
Paultards.
|1.7.08 @ 1:28PM|#
David Weigel wrote: "I asked Paul if he had any problem breaking
the writer pickets to appear on the show. Silly question: He
doesn't care about the unions or the pickets."
Did Paul answer your question about breaking the writer pickets by
saying he doesn't care about the unions or the pickets?
|1.7.08 @ 1:35PM|#
I've worked for several employers who loved their unionized work force. They didn't have to do 50 annual reviews, just one. Give an average raise to all employees, no bitching from those who were worth more. Also liked the "work to rules" aspect - no more management inconsistency and favoritism such as "you let Joe off to watch his kid play ball, why can't I have off to take my dog to the vet?" Just saying that a lot of employers would rather deal with the union.
Rhywun|1.7.08 @ 1:43PM|#
The fact that I have a 40-hour work week now doesn't mean I have to support today's unions' more outrageous demands.
|1.7.08 @ 1:54PM|#
I think it's fine, depending on which union he snubs. I think he'd catch a lot more hell if it was the Film Actors Guild. Ya know?
|1.7.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Just curious:
Do the people at Reason or on Ron Paul's campaign have a 40-hour work week?
Health care?
Overtime?
Vacation time?
Is there something like an army of UnionBots (TM) who automagically
respond to all criticism of unions with the same fucking arguments
argued almost exactly the same fucking way as if they were
copy-pasted from a single source and tailored to the particular
audience?
Jesus...
I've seen this on plenty of other message boards. It's like a
nervous tic, sorta like Edtard and his anti-Paul ravings or Dondero
and his Mayor of 9/11 pole-smoking statements.
It's a tired argument that takes on faith that today's unions are
infallible simply because the unions of old helped to bring these
things about (but were by no means wholly responsible for
them).
|1.7.08 @ 2:22PM|#
I think it's fine, depending on which union he snubs. I think he'd catch a lot more hell if it was the Film Actors Guild. Ya know?
Nice going, F.A.G.
ed|1.7.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Not all libertarians are adamantly pro-Ayn Rand.
The easiest way to remember this is the fact that all objectivists
are libertarians but not all libertarians are objectivists. The
less rigorous party (intellectually) is obvious.
|1.7.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Wiegel wrote: "A little more from this afternoon: Paul will
campaign at least until Feb. 5, by which time he'll "reassess" the
race."
Wonder if by reassess he means, "I'm not winning on this fine
February 6th so I'll take my donations to retain my Congressional
seat, to run third party (cuz the donations keep rolling in and I
really want to fuck with the GOP since they're a bunch of whiny
little bitches), or to start the Ron Paul Revolution World Tour and
just spend the rest of my days telling the world how screwed up our
government is and that we'd be better off if we started using our
Second Amendment rights to fix things (before those rights are
stripped from us forever)."
I will be satisfied if my donations go to either of the latter two.
The first is my expectation but not what I want. Course, if he wins
enough states to keep going, that's what I want. But, I'm not
holding my breath. Too many stupid sheep in the GOP.
Ayn R. Key|1.7.08 @ 6:14PM|#
Health Insurance ... not a result of the Unions.
During WWII, when Roosevelt was dictator of the US Economy,
competing for workers by offering better pay was really supressed.
Employers had to find other ways to entice the best workers into
their folds.
Thus was born benefits, the biggest being health care being paid
for by the employer.
Then the unions came along and took credit for it.
|1.7.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Joe,
Libertarians are anti-collective, and pro-businessowner as king
of his domain.
You seem to imply that there is something insidious or perverse in
believing in the sovereignty of the individual over the
collective.
Libertarian hostility towards [Unions] is not about the laws
put in place to protect, but to their very nature.
Joe, this is innuendo. Libertarianism seeks to protect the right of
individuals to freely associate, as long as their actions do not
mean curtailing another individual's freedom. There is nothing
wrong with collectively bargain services and prices, but you have
to concede that the buyer does not have to abide sorely to a
Union's selling power.
Small government conservatives hated unions even when the
government's involvement with them was limited to sending in the
National Guard to bust strikes.
Half truth in one regard: Strikes usually meant hijacking a
person's use of property freely. There wasn't anything ethical
about strikes; only romantics seem to think so.
|1.7.08 @ 7:26PM|#
F.T., my language was objective and accurate. Any innuendo is read into it by you.
|1.8.08 @ 8:53AM|#
Just wanted to apologize for asking the question and then dropping out of the conversation. I got busy - I didn't intend to just be a douchey gadfly (gaddy douchefly?).
|1.8.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Most people do not yet understand that the free country
established under our Constitution has been transformed into a
socialist beaurocracy with an increasingly tyranical government.
Without a drastic change of course, we are finished as a free
Republic, once the shining hope of the world. Ron Paul is our ONLY
visible hope of salvation.
Peter G
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245