>It was you, Doug, and not Cockburn, who proposed the across
>the board comparison of the two.
Comparing quotes on Iraq doesn't qualify as "across-the-board."
Some wisdom from Ron Paul - does any of this matter?
<http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml>
>While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr.
>Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. He
>served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong
>advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the
>Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. He also was a key member of
>the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our
>currency. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family
>values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal
>taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively
>promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels.
<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst080805.htm>
> We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some
>illegal immigrants-- certainly not all-- receive housing subsidies,
>food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This
>alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though
>the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we
>would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and
>support himself.
> Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by
>discouraging American citizens to take low-wage jobs. This creates
>greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and
>minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the
>jobs Americans supposedly won't do.
[...]
> Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our
>borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined
>individual- including a potential terrorist- can enter the United
>States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent
>upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are
>still patrolling Korea's border after some 50 years, yet ours are
>more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for
>failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders,
>particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.
> We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of
>money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at
>home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of
>immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless
>and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the
>problems associated with it will only increase.
<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst053005.htm>
>The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type
>of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal
>government should fund stem cell research at all. Clearly there is
>no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means
>individual states and private citizens should decide whether to
>permit, ban, or fund it. Neither party in Washington can fathom
>that millions and millions of Americans simply don't want their tax
>dollars spent on government research of any kind. This viewpoint is
>never considered.
<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst041105.htm>
>Historically, religion always represented a threat to government
>because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern
>America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their
>independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state
>policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military
>aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches
>challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is
>maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate
>religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has
>co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of
>our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows
>it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the
>legacy left by Pope John Paul II.
<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst030705.htm>
> Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute offers a very
>simple test for any tax reform proposal: Does it reduce or eliminate
>an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a
>political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a
>lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform
>is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels,
>committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem
>complicated, they almost certainly don't cut taxes.
> The reform debate is strictly about politics and not serious
>economics. Both sides use demagoguery but don't propose truly
>significant tax reductions. Both sides use the outrageous
>expression "cost to government" when talking about the impact of tax
>legislation on revenues. This implies that government owns
>everything, and that any tax rate less than 100% costs government
>some of its rightful bounty.
> Government spending is the problem! When the federal government
>takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in
>a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly
>is out of control. Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike,
>because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. By
>this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes
>dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting
>rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax
>reform.
<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst020705.htm>
>The political left equates freedom with liberation from material
>wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to
>create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only
>when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord
>is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given
>away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her)
>demolished this argument by explaining how such "freedom" for some
>is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others.
>In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those
>who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for
>others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom.
>"Liberalism," which once stood for civil, political, and economic
>liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst012405.htm>
> The administration speaks of private accounts, but
>government-managed investment of Social Security funds is not
>privatization at all. True capitalism by definition operates
>without government interference, and we should oppose further
>government involvement in the financial markets. After all, which
>government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds,
>or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will
>you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the
>lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their
>favored investments approved for Social Security accounts.
>Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine
>what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will
>become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.
> If the administration truly wants to give people more control
>over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes
>and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see
>fit? This is the true private solution.
> Your money has never been safe in the government's hands, and it
>never will be. Governments spend money; it's just their nature. It
>is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply
>sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it's
>earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians
>promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your
>money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it
>will be spent.
<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst122704.htm>
> The intense media focus on the divide between "red" and "blue"
>states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new
>questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has
>promised to introduce legislation to abolish the electoral college,
>claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern
>politics. Her stated goal is "simply to allow the popular will of
>the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect
>our president." Many Americans agree, arguing that the man
>receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair.
>In other words, they believe the American political system should
>operate as a direct democracy.
> The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy.
>Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as
>any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the
>Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"?
>The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In
>fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of
>Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV,
>section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States
>shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of
>Government" (emphasis added).
> The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has
>no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed
>with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible
>if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become
>a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we
>are told, is always good. But the founders created a
>constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental
>liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the
>excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created
>in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal
>elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than
>the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according
>to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to
>be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
> By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote
>totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would
>have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of
>less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a
>large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York
>could win a national election with very little support in dozens of
>other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the
>populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.
> Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system
>are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the
>two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal
>government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a
>contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They
>believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states
>powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The
>electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states
>to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters
>still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens
>in southern and western states in particular tend to value
>individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious
>freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The
>collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their
>efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to
>limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.