Nov

27

The Gates

Written by

Who gave the College Libertarians chalk?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE 12:24 PM: Bwog daily editor David Iscoe spotted the chalky Libertarian and/or ironist last night. Says David: “I saw him drawing another one (“Ron Paul cured my apathy”) on the sidewalk near (I think) Kim’s, the guy was a somewhat short, hairy character with sideburns and a beard, a real Bolshevik-looking type. At least, pretty sure it’s the same guy, I didn’t see [him drawing] the one on the gates.”

Tags: , ,

48 Comments

  1. bedbug  

    what? some sort of traffic sign?

  2. hmmm  

    damn jester advertising techniques

  3. rjt  

    Ron Paul supports restoring our currency to the chalk standard.

  4. ron paul  

    sounds cool and open and straight talking but that man is as conservative and bigoted as the main stream comes. opposes abortion and gay marriage.

    • .....  

      you're right - he personally opposes abortion and gay marriage. but only to the extent that he wouldn't perform an abortion (he's a doctor), nor would he get married to another man himself.

      but he doesn't want any laws saying that others can't have abortions or gay marriages.

      surely that's not "bigoted". i'd say it's quite an honorable position. even though he's opposed to certain activities, he still supports the right of others to engage in these activities.

      he's not like other conservatives... he even supports legalizing drugs.

      • ryan  

        Sanctity of Life Act...? -- Hardly a passive pro-lifer.

        • ....  

          ron paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act not because he's a pro-lifer but because the act would effectively make abortion a state issue.

          surely this can make everyone more or less happy. predominantly pro-life states can be pro-life and predominantly pro-choice states can be pro-choice. it's not ideal but it's better than fighting presidential elections over the same old "religious right vs secular left" issues over and over again.

          • ryan  

            The legislation effectively overturns roe v wade, defines life as beginning at conception(!), and for god sake, look at the name...Sanctity of Life. This is not about states' rights. its about being anti-choice. c'mon.

          • ....  

            ryan, you are totally wrong. this is all about states' rights and nothing about being anti-choice. just read what the guy says:

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html

            also, i don't think you can tell much these days from the title of a bill. have you ever heard of the patriot act?

          • Alum

            The name "Patriot Act" was chosen in order to make the legislation palatable to voters. The name "Sanctity of Life Act" was designed to do the same thing. Which voters do you think its authors had in mind? There's a reason they didn't call it the "Sanctity of States' Rights Act".

      • Anonymous  

        That's not true. He wants to leave it up to the states, foo. You don't know Ron Paul, you don't know shit!

        p.s. Libertarians are: a) Hippie idiots who dress better than normal hippies. b) Conservative idiots who have gone off the deep end after reading Ayn Rand too many times, and fail to understand the implications of their own philosophy.

        • wfb, jr  

          Since we are all having fun throwing out blanket statements about other groups of people, try this one on for size:

          "Liberals claim to want to give a fair hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views"

          Sums up a good chunk of people at this institution, I'm afraid ;)

      • Why is it

        that a candidate can take extreme positions on almost every issue, but as long as he/she supports the legalization of drugs, a significant segment of people think that the candidate's other positions are suddenly justified?

        Does getting high override all other concerns?

    • EAL  

      Wait a minute...how does opposing abortion and gay marriage make one bigoted? Surely if one were for civil unions rather than marriage itself (provided that person saw marriage as an exclusively religious institution with gay civil unions as an appropriate substitute) that would not constitute bigotry, would it?

      • rmb  

        If you want to say that marriage is a religious matter with no legal standing or relevance, and as a matter of law, everyone gets civil unions, that's fine. If you want to say that marriage is a religious AND civil institution but gays will contaminate it with their filth, and thus must be relegated to civil unions...that's less fine. No one advocating marriage equality is suggesting forcing churches to marry anyone; all we're saying is that gay couples should be able to access the same legal and social categories as straight couples.

        The fact of the matter is that marriage has tremendous cultural resonance, independent of any religious issues, and civil unions don't have that resonance. Why should straight people be the only ones able to tap into that cultural content?

        That's aside from the issue that civil unions don't really work. New Jersey civil unions are supposed to be equivalent to marriage, but there have been quite a few incidents where, for example, companies have refused to extend marital benefits to civilly united couples (UPS only reversed course on this after the governor got involved).

  5. ummmm  

    this is clearly sarcastic.... right? right?

  6. ADDITIONALLY  

    INTO THE WOODS cured my apathy!

    See it 11/29 at 8PM and 11/30 at 3PM and 8PM. Get tickets in the Lerner Box Office. $5 w/ CUID.

  7. kucinich

    Little known fact. Kucinich used to be pro-life as well (in fact, I think he still is, although he won't fully admit to it). The two candidates are thus, fundamentally indistinguishable. All of you Ron Paul fans out there have a candidate that's just right for you in the Democratic Party.

  8. ......  

    except, unlike Kucinich, Paul opposes No Child Left Behind, federal funding for stem cell research, Kyoto, assault weapon bans, gun background checks, illegal immigrant amnesties, net neutrality, minimum wage increases, universal healthcare, etc, etc, etc.

    not much difference at all then!

  9. Paul vs. Kucinich

    I don't see him crusading for gun rights or any of the other things you mention. He may hold those positions (indeed, he ostensibly does), but he certainly doesn't campaign on them or even speak publicly about them. And, as you may recall, he said that he would not repeal "entitlement" programs- just fund them with the money purportedly saved by withdrawing the United States from its foreign engagements.

  10. sorry  

    but ron paul's ideas are broken. he wants to get rid of social security or "cradle to grave support from the government" and get people to invest on their own...

    that idea sounds great, except for the fact that some (probably a lot) would make poor investment choices. that would leave us with two options:

    1) a large population of impoverished old people

    2) a huge and sudden financial burden as we borrow to bail them all out

    both of these outcomes are absolutely terrible.

    additionally, without federal regulation, corporate interests would run rampant. if anything, the subprime meltdown that is currently in the process of fucking our economy (and the world's) teaches us that we need more government oversight of the corporate world, not less.

    he deserves some admiration for being principled, it's just a bummer that his ideas are broken.

    finally, i'll never forgive him for spamming up the internet. that's just rude.

    • Alum

      The very premise that Social Security is an alternative to private investment is flawed. Social Security is a safety net, not a mechanism for wealth creation.

      Privatizing it makes no sense since private investment houses are not trying to do what Social Security is doing. It would make investment managers rich but would not protect Social Security's intended beneficiaries.

      The stock market's success over the years suggests there isn't much problem getting people to invest on their own. We don't need the government trying to push people who lack the time and expertise to make investment decisions into the stock market.

    • agreed

      cured your apathy of what?

      libertarians on a whole are apathetic to the poor. should we have just left Katrina victims to fend for themselves then? (minus...you know government incompetence on all levels)

  11. ugh  

    Columbia liberals cured my liberalism.

  12. Why is it  

    That people at this school are so obsessed with Ron Paul?!

    • gco  

      because he's, by far, the least political candidate-- love him or hate him, you must realize that he has a consistent philosophy that is behind every position he takes.

      in other words-- you can reliably predict Ron Paul's position on most policy issues, even if he's never spoken about them, because he's going to stick to his guns. i find that most other politicians are comparatively spineless..

      that being said, i disagree with ron paul's philosophy because i think that the issues we face in a globalized world require international cooperation and solutions. he thinks that international law is an unnecessary curtailment on our sovereignty. that's a REALLY important part of his platform. all in all, i fucking admire the guy. imagine if all politicians were like him in terms of character-- principled, ideologically consistent, no-bullshit-- but were from across the political spectrum. Paul is a polisci nerd's dream... how many people would hold a press conference to tell Rudy Giuliani to read "Imperial Hubris?"

      -george olive

  13. ron paul  

    used to be a gyno.

    friends don't let friends vote gyno.

    If he was smart he would use the slogan:
    Ron Paul 2008: He's All Up In Your Biznaz

  14. Question  

    Why is it that being principled and sticking to your guns is a good thing? Why can't a politician make comprises, negotiate, flip-flop even where necessary?

    • gco  

      it's idealistic, but i think that politicians should have an ideological vision, and that the compromises should come as those ideologies are debated during legislative process, rather than having each political agent internally try to mush up a bunch of philosophies and come out with a random-ass assortment of positions and policy endorsements. read the article in harper's, "making mitt romney"-- it's all about this exact thing. romney approaches his campaign exactly as you would suggest-- strategically picking each position on an ad-hoc basis, and then employs a tremendous amount of spin to try to weave this frankenplatform into some sort of coherent story.

      when you elect a president, i personally think that it's desirable that you can predict how s/he will stand on new issues that will inevitably come up during a presidential term or two. the best way to do that is to know what that person stands for, what their axioms are. i'm pretty exasperated by single-issue voters and by ad hoc, issue-by-issue platform assemblages and voting decisions. it's short-sighted.

      policy inevitably manifests ideology, and when you don't do so consciously, it's like there's no one at the wheel of the most important long-term aspect of setting our political agenda.

      i think it's all rather odd, honestly... people consider issues in a vacuum, make a decision, and move on to something else... illegal immigration, war on drugs, abortion, tax law, iran, etc... clearly, there is SOMETHING underlying the (presumably cost-benefit?) analysis that you do whenever you decide how you feel about _______. what is it? what is your decision calculus? people act as if they have some sort of black-box moral compass sitting in their brain that helps them pick things out. i think that refusing to consider ideological foundations and issues in light of one another is a relatively shallow way to craft your own personal political beliefs and that it unfortunately misses the best part of these sort of considerations

      • :(*#&Y@  

        (31 again)
        And in response to 27, 29, and 30, gco brings up a good point about consistency, which I am very much in agreement with. In my view, one of the big problems with electing governors to the presidency is that they don't have a voting record, so it's very difficult to know where, or how, they _actually_ stand in a political arena. Romney is a perfect example of this in action, and Bush Jr is a great example of just how badly this can turn out.

        Personally, I'd rather compromise my position on some issues to support a candidate that has a high level of honesty and predictability (best demonstrated by their voting record); rather than support someone who currently agrees more closely with my views, but has an inconsistent or nonexistent record.

        What's the point of representative government if politicians' positions don't stay consistent before and after an election?

    • Because  

      We don't want to vote for somebody whose actions we can't predict.

  15. DHI  

    Hillary Clinton cured my interest.

  16. Consistency = meh  

    It's possible to be consistently wrong, as this administration has showed, so presidential consistency is overrated.

    Also, Ron Paul's ideas would really fuck the poor in America. He seems like a genuine guy, but his policies aren't very practical.

  17. this movie  

    "Teeth" is actually about a future in which Ron Paul is elected.

    http://www.teethmovie.com/

    He will put bears in everyone's cooters.

  18. Basically  

    all of these ideas, which seem controversial, are designed so that power is placed in the hands of state governments. The idea of abolishing the Federal Income tax doesn't mean that the poor end of paying for it in sales tax. There just isn't a replacement for the revenue generated from the IRS. Rather, it is your state governments responsibility to ensure what happens to the poor people, not the federal government, and they can decide what they want to do with regard to funding. The federal government can do this by cutting spending drastically (ending the war) and downsizing. Remember the constitution?

  19. well,  

    'principled, consistent' these are the same reasons why i would support mccain, but also the same reasons why everyone within and outside of his party hates him.

  20. Zach  

    I'm voting for BLOOMBERG.

  21. yes and  

    he also drew it on the side of Low steps and security made him wash it off in front of them. If you see him drawing and ask him about ron paul he'll give you a nice little lecture!

  22. FUCK  

    i don't want to hear any other columbia student say they support ending the war in iraq and NOT vote for either kucinich or ron paul.

    don't trust anybody else to end the war. obama you say? bitch, one name: jfk.

  23. am i  

    the only one who thinks that abortion is a settled issue? i really don't see roe v. wade ever being overturned.

  24. karmen

    It's a shame to see that there is so much ignorance on the Columbia campus. I'm a supporter of Ron Paul. I don't agree with all of his positions, but I agree with many of his principles.

    But sane person really thinks that he would be able to carry through on all of his desires even if he wanted to. He still has to deal with the Congress, and if he were to stay true to his principles he would absolutely respect its role in the system of checks and balances.

    Ron Paul wouldn't abolish Social Security, overturn Roe v. Wade, or reinstitute the gold standard, but he would create an undeniably beneficial (unless you're a neocon) shift in the political discourse of this country. Freedom would be an agreed-upon goal while the means to achieving it would be up to debate. Even if you're a modern liberal or progressive, shifting the other side of the political spectrum away from the neocons and christian right to libertarianism has to be appealing.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.