Is Ron Paul Too Intelligent To Be President?

[SpamSandwich]

I suggest here and now to Dr. Paul that he be prepared and eager to get his knuckles bloody with Giuliani or any of the main contenders if he is to carry out a viable run for presidency. When Giuliani mischaracterized Paul's statements regarding Iraq, Paul should have ripped Rudy a new one. He doesn't have the time to be meek with these sharks.

The problem... we (Libertarians) need to dismantle the very institutions that we need to be elected to... The answer... you gotta play the part of the emotionally appealing jingoist to get into the office.

Ron... once more... with feeling! :p

[Fellowship]

His ideas must be a threat to some...

The same corporation which owns Fox news which tilted the latest "debate" against Ron Paul also owns

MySpace which appears to be hostile to Ron Paul supporters.

Listen to the lyrics to the song in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehhj-0JsKmA

Fellows

[Jubelum]

There are hugely powerful people that would rather kill him than let him become president. He would upset trillions of dollars in Elite payoffs and restore many of the freedoms we have let slip away while fighting bullshit partisan battles.

Just read what Dr. Paul has written (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm)about the con of the Federal-as-Federal-Express Reserve Banking System.

Pure tell-it-like-it-is, unapologetic truth.

[Jubelum]

Where on earth do you get the idea that Ron Paul is anything *but* the most corporation-friendly Presidential candidate?

It's absurd.

As opposed to the perennial capitalism-hostile Democratic party candidates?

Ron Paul has written and spoken for years about corporate welfare, the problems with subsidies, and the MI Complex.
I'm not sure which Ron Paul you are talking about?

[AsLan^]

His ideas must be a threat to some...

The same corporation which owns Fox news which tilted the latest "debate" against Ron Paul also owns

MySpace which appears to be hostile to Ron Paul supporters.

Listen to the lyrics to the song in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehhj-0JsKmA

Fellows

That's some crazy shit right there!

I'm not too keen on the new trend to use security as an excuse for just about anything (i.e. your account has been phished!)

My bank changed my Visa card (because their Visa plans changed) and canceled my old card without informing me. When I called and complained the phone operator insisted that I had been informed but my address was wrong so I had not received the notification (which was true).

I wrote to the bank to tell them that it was irresponsible to cancel my old card until I had received and activated my new one. Their response, "... your Visa credit card account potentially may have been involved in a security compromise."

*BULLSHIT!* :mad:

Fear is an excuse for just about anything these days.

[tonton]

Fellows, you've said many times that you're compassionate toward non-Christians, gays, the poor.

If you really believe in your compassion, you cannot support Ron Paul for president. He is more of a social conservative than Bush.

[SpamSandwich]

Fellows, you've said many times that you're compassionate toward non-Christians, gays, the poor.

If you really believe in your compassion, you cannot support Ron Paul for president. He is more of a social conservative than Bush.

Not true. Ron Paul has no agenda against any of those cited groups. He is against government involvement in personal matters.

Explain yourself.

[tonton]

Not true. Ron Paul has no agenda against any of those cited groups. He is against government involvement in personal matters.

Explain yourself.

Take gays and gay marriage, for instance.

And being against goverrnment involvement is often equal to being against the groups, if a group needs government involvement, for instance.

Take welfare. Government absolutely must be involved in welfare to defend the needs of the less fortunate. RP is against this, and would support "sruvival of the fittest", which would eventually see the poor starving on the street.

RP's agenda may not be "against" those groups, but it is complete neglect of them.

[midwinter]

How come he became "Dr. Paul" in this thread? Was there some memo that he's an MD?

[Jubelum]

How come he became "Dr. Paul" in this thread? Was there some memo that he's an MD?

He's always been Dr. Paul. Those that have been familiar with him since his first run have always addressed him as Dr. Paul, at least here in Texas. I've never called him personally anything but that.

[midwinter]

He's always been Dr. Paul. Those that have been familiar with him since his first run have always addressed him as Dr. Paul, at least here in Texas. I've never called him personally anything but that.

In threads around here, I've never seen him addressed that way. I'm just wondering why all of a sudden we get a thread in which he's called "Dr. Paul."

[Jubelum]

Take welfare. Government absolutely must be involved in welfare to defend the needs of the less fortunate. RP is against this, and would support "sruvival of the fittest", which would eventually see the poor starving on the street.

RP's agenda may not be "against" those groups, but it is complete neglect of them.

OMG! Another Republican that wants to kill people!

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jubelum_ammo/OMFG-ONOZ.gif

Run for your lives!


http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jubelum_ammo/That-Is-Excellent-MrBurns.jpg

[Fellowship]

Fellows, you've said many times that you're compassionate toward non-Christians, gays, the poor.

If you really believe in your compassion, you cannot support Ron Paul for president. He is more of a social conservative than Bush.

I can not accept this claim.

If I thought the actions of a President Ron Paul would be harmful to the country I would not so highly consider him for the job.

I do respect all people and I will ask for swift correction by my peers if I ever sway from this standard. I realize I am human and could fail but I also realize that we are all human and thus I have a deep respect for all humanity. Not just at home but abroad. I believe the foreign policy Ron Paul projects that he would employ is so vastly different from the situation we have today with Bush and those before Bush that it is a needed change in the right direction. America should not dominate the world. We should be a partner but we should not dominate. I feel that under corporate control of our leaders they all too readily will risk the lives of far too many lives across the globe. That risk of lives I speak of takes many different forms however in the end the cost is life.

Consider this:

"The most authoritative studies have concluded that approximately 300,000 children lost their lives from infection and illness attributed to the sanctions. But when U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes whether the deaths of the Iraqi children had been “worth it,” she answered that, yes, the deaths had been “worth it.”

Then there were the illegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which had been authorized by neither the U.S. Congress nor the UN. The missiles fired by U.S. warplanes in the enforcement of the “no-fly” policy killed an untold number of additional Iraqis.

Finally, there has been the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so, which has resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis (a recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University put the number at more than 650,000), not to mention the conversion of Iraq into a hellhole and wasteland of violence and destruction.

It is almost incredible that, although U.S. intelligence agencies have recently concluded that the invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism against the United States, there are still U.S. officials who maintain that all the bad things that the U.S. government did in the Middle East had nothing to do with the anger and hatred that led to the 9/11 attacks. It’s all because they hate America’s “freedom and values,” not because the U.S. government has killed, tortured, abused, and humiliated people in the Middle East for years.

Ron Paul has been attacked by "America's Mayor" for pointing out legitimate concerns with American foreign policy. He in my view has courage to stand his ground in the face of corporate controlled power hungry greedy killers.

This is why I have quite a degree of respect for Ron Paul.

Respectfully,

Fellows

[franksargent]

Didn't Will Farrell play this guy in Texas Knight: The Fallacy of Ronnie Paulie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415306/)? :lol:

Oh, I'm sorry, he's the guy who invented this;

http://www.zianet.com/alkone/Pictures/27038.jpg

Nope, I guess that's not him either.

He's actually the guy who fights "The never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way."

http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/tutorials/modeling/superman/superman_main_logo.jpg

You all can put your comic books down now! :p

[trumptman]

Take gays and gay marriage, for instance.

And being against goverrnment involvement is often equal to being against the groups, if a group needs government involvement, for instance.

Take welfare. Government absolutely must be involved in welfare to defend the needs of the less fortunate. RP is against this, and would support "sruvival of the fittest", which would eventually see the poor starving on the street.

RP's agenda may not be "against" those groups, but it is complete neglect of them.

I could care less about Ron Paul at this point, but your claims and insane reasoning need to be called out.

Your mutterings amount to declaring that being against a government program is equal to a hate crime.

Nick

[SpamSandwich]

Compared to what Ron Paul wants to do, those are very narrow criticisms.

More broadly, Ron Paul would create conditions for corporations that William McKinley would frankly be a little embarrassed about. Ron Paul wants to abolish welfare, the federal income tax, and frankly anything else that he considers "interfering with the market." To paint him as critical of corporations just utterly belies the fact that his extreme positions are a right wing economist's wet dream.

Pshaw! If what you claim were true, Ron Paul would have the unquestioning support of every business owner in America (including Rupert Murdoch)! You have an uninformed opinion of Libertarianism. I invite you to read up on it.

Ron Paul's web page (it ain't pretty, but it gets the job done) (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)

Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org)

Oh, and a funny thing I thought this morning... if Americans have come to the point of embracing a Mormon as a viable candidate for president, with Mormonism having a very strange origin and radical view compared to "modern, enlightened Christianity", surely they could get used to the idea of a Libertarian president. Suddenly, Ron Paul's chances look pretty favorable!

[Northgate]

I was tempted to go into the archives and pull out all the snarky comments Republicans and Libertarians on this board threw at Deaniacs and repurpose them...but I'm too lazy.

[Fellowship]

For Shawn and Midwinter and the other left wingers who like the idea of welfare etc. Social nets etc.

May you find yourself in good company with a Network who like you is afraid of Ron Paul.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/yet_another_fox_news_smear_job_on_ron_paul_alex_jo nes.htm

May you have comfort knowing that there is no difference in Hillary and Rudy.

No difference in Bill Moyers and Sean Hannity.

No difference in George Soros and Rupert Murdock.

You left and right wingers are like metal shavings that line up around a bar magnet in perfect allignment around each respective pole of the magnet north and south. Only we are talking left and right. Notice that when you are stuck in such an arrangement you have no freedom to move about rather you snap to grid in a rather predictable pattern.

Little do you know you all worship the same magnet and are controlled by a singular puppetmaster.

Call it left wing policy or right wing policy it is all the same system.

The magnet has you right where it wants you.

When a metal shaving tries to get "out of place" as it were we have a situation like Dr. Ron Paul.

And food for thought,,, Watch the video in the link above and notice the screen shot of the video. The word "infect" is on the screen. Then as you watch the video notice the deceptive woman use words like "virus" and "cesspool" to describe people who do not march in step. Then ask yourself. Is not this kind of language and use of wording not so unlike that used by the Nazis.

I think we should all be concerned.


Fellowship

[trailmaster308]

For Shawn and Midwinter and the other left wingers who like the idea of welfare etc. Social nets etc.

May you find yourself in good company with a Network who like you is afraid of Ron Paul.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/yet_another_fox_news_smear_job_on_ron_paul_alex_jo nes.htm

May you have comfort knowing that there is no difference in Hillary and Rudy.

No difference in Bill Moyers and Sean Hannity.

No difference in George Soros and Rupert Murdock.

You left and right wingers are like metal shavings that line up around a bar magnet in perfect allignment around each respective pole of the magnet north and south. Only we are talking left and right. Notice that when you are stuck in such an arrangement you have no freedom to move about rather you snap to grid in a rather predictable pattern.

Little do you know you all worship the same magnet and are controlled by a singular puppetmaster.

Call it left wing policy or right wing policy it is all the same system.

The magnet has you right where it wants you.

When a metal shaving tries to get "out of place" as it were we have a situation like Dr. Ron Paul.

And food for thought,,, Watch the video in the link above and notice the screen shot of the video. The word "infect" is on the screen. Then as you watch the video notice the deceptive woman use words like "virus" and "cesspool" to describe people who do not march in step. Then ask yourself. Is not this kind of language and use of wording not so unlike that used by the Nazis.

I think we should all be concerned.


Fellowship

Damnit Fellows that's what im talking about. He aint got a chance in hell of winning but you might as well go out swinging.

However, after the last debate, I feel that Ron Paul doesn't have that killer instinct needed to win. He is more of a thinker. Unfortunatley that doesn't win votes (saying stuff thats smart).

Scaring the bejezzers out of people, using buzz words, and blaming the other guy for voters problems is how you win elections.

In the end as always we will be stuck with two piles of poo. Which pile of poo do you want to smell for 4 years? Seems they all smell the same to me.

[franksargent]

For Shawn and Midwinter and the other left wingers who like the idea of welfare etc. Social nets etc.

May you find yourself in good company with a Network who like you is afraid of Ron Paul.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/yet_another_fox_news_smear_job_on_ron_paul_alex_jo nes.htm

May you have comfort knowing that there is no difference in Hillary and Rudy.

No difference in Bill Moyers and Sean Hannity.

No difference in George Soros and Rupert Murdock.

You left and right wingers are like metal shavings that line up around a bar magnet in perfect allignment around each respective pole of the magnet north and south. Only we are talking left and right. Notice that when you are stuck in such an arrangement you have no freedom to move about rather you snap to grid in a rather predictable pattern.

Little do you know you all worship the same magnet and are controlled by a singular puppetmaster.

Call it left wing policy or right wing policy it is all the same system.

The magnet has you right where it wants you.

When a metal shaving tries to get "out of place" as it were we have a situation like Dr. Ron Paul.

And food for thought,,, Watch the video in the link above and notice the screen shot of the video. The word "infect" is on the screen. Then as you watch the video notice the deceptive woman use words like "virus" and "cesspool" to describe people who do not march in step. Then ask yourself. Is not this kind of language and use of wording not so unlike that used by the Nazis.

I think we should all be concerned.


Fellowship

Yeah, it got me to thinkin' all right, ...

... , it got me to thinkin' that you just dropped the biggest stinkin' deuce EVER dropped in PO!

http://www.aeroplastics.net/John_Isaacs/2004/04_Isaacs_big_shit_R.jpg
PHEW!

[Fellowship]

You're not making any sense.

Did all of what I said go over your head or just certain parts?

Fellows

[Fellowship]

[

You do think for yourself do you not?

If you disagree with my post please go over your differences and explain your position.

I am curious what your thoughts are relating to this matter.

Fellows

[franksargent]

You do think for yourself do you not?

If you disagree with my post please go over your differences and explain your position.

I am curious what your thoughts are relating to this matter.

Fellows

Just that, I too would REALLY like to fix the friggin' US Government. I just don't think that any ONE person can do it!

I'm all for a smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, etceteras.

I'll even say that we should abolish the federal system as it exists today. :wow:

As I duck and run for cover.

[tonton]

So Fellowship, the charitable, compassionate Christian would support someone who would abolish welfare and basically all federally funded social programs. No Federal medical program, or even regulation of the big Pharma industry. No Federal prison system. Let the states deal with it. No Federal anything that benefits the populace as a whole.

It would create a dependency on the underpriveliged on the voluntary benevolence of the American people. And we know how benevolent the American people are.

Yeah. Good idea.

:???:

[tonton]

blah blah blah... more personal responsibility... blah blah blah...

In other words the poor are poor because they're lazy. If they just worked harder they wouldn't be poor any more. Is that what you're saying?

[Fellowship]

So Fellowship, the charitable, compassionate Christian would support someone who would abolish welfare and basically all federally funded social programs. No Federal medical program, or even regulation of the big Pharma industry. No Federal prison system. Let the states deal with it. No Federal anything that benefits the populace as a whole.

It would create a dependency on the underpriveliged on the voluntary benevolence of the American people. And we know how benevolent the American people are.

Yeah. Good idea.

:???:

tonton you to be quite honest raise real and valid points to which I want to say I agree with your concerns.

I am not a libertarian nor do I really believe that Ron Paul will become President. I also do not believe that if he were to become president that he could do too much to change our systems which we are all too familiar with. He after all would have congress to deal with.

I will say that I like him however for his bold stance against the war in Iraq. For his foreign policy stance of the US not dominating the world. I think it is ok to get people thinking. I also think it is ok to be different than the pack.

Fellows

[franksargent]

In other words the poor are poor because they're lazy. If they just worked harder they wouldn't be poor any more. Is that what you're saying?

I guess I didn't duck and run fast enough?

But no, I'm NOT saying what you suggest.

But a certain percentage of people (too high IMHO) are taking advantage of the system as it exists today.

I've just seen too many people who don't value an education, or took their limited fixed income and spent it too frivolously, or "bad" parenting, etceteras.

So what's your take, do you value personal irresponsibility? :\

[tonton]

I will say that I like him however for his bold stance against the war in Iraq. For his foreign policy stance of the US not dominating the world. I think it is ok to get people thinking. I also think it is ok to be different than the pack.

Agreed!

:)

Can we be friends again now? :)

[tonton]

I guess I didn't duck and run fast enough?

But no, I'm NOT saying what you suggest.

But a certain percentage of people (too high IMHO) are taking advantage of the system as it exists today.

I've just seen too many people who don't value an education, or took their limited fixed income and spent it too frivolously, or "bad" parenting, etceteras.

So what's your take, do you value personal irresponsibility? :\

I see value in finding the balance.

Welfare creates a lazy class. It does. But it also helps a lot of people.

We cannot eliminate the negative without eliminating the positive. The question is, where does the proper balance lie?

I don't see that our system as it stands now is too far left. You do. That's where we disagree.

But sometimes the right seems to claim that socialist policies are inherently bad, by completely denying that the positive effect is even there.

[franksargent]

I see value in finding the balance.

Welfare creates a lazy class. It does. But it also helps a lot of people.

We cannot eliminate the negative without eliminating the positive. The question is, where does the proper balance lie?

I don't see that our system as it stands now is too far left. You do. That's where we disagree.

But sometimes the right seems to claim that socialist policies are inherently bad, by completely denying that the positive effect is even there.

All I can say is that I kinda know where I would be if I didn't have an education. For me it gave me a great chance at upward mobility.

It was a public education that helped me out of a private education trap. It was an essentially "free" post secondary education (1970's college grants) that really let me "shine."

NOT taking advantage of the "free" public education system seems rather "crazy" to me.

I'd rather invest some of those non-discretionary (e. g. welfare) dollars to give others a greater chance at upward mobility through education, rather than a minimal subsistence (for life) income.

That is all.

[Jubelum]

You left and right wingers are like metal shavings that line up around a bar magnet in perfect allignment around each respective pole of the magnet north and south. Only we are talking left and right. Notice that when you are stuck in such an arrangement you have no freedom to move about rather you snap to grid in a rather predictable pattern.

Little do you know you all worship the same magnet and are controlled by a singular puppetmaster.

Call it left wing policy or right wing policy it is all the same system.


A more perfect truth is rarely expressed, here or anywhere. Absolutely spot-on.
No matter who wins the elections, our freedoms consistently LOSE.

Want an example? Two names- Janet Reno and Alberto Gonzales.

[Frank777]

I was tempted to go into the archives...but I'm too lazy.

That would definitely make you a Dean supporter.

[midwinter]

For Shawn and Midwinter and the other left wingers who like the idea of welfare etc. Social nets etc.

Wow. Calling me out by name and everything, huh, Fellows? I say this because it is true, and I know it's a bit harsh, but you need to stop vacillating between being a liberal, a flag-waving GOP die-hard, and a libertarian. Please. Make up your mind.

May you find yourself in good company with a Network who like you is afraid of Ron Paul.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/yet_another_fox_news_smear_job_on_ron_paul_alex_jo nes.htm

Oh please. Look. I realize that Ron Paul is sexy for parts of the GOP base. He hits all the right libertarian buttons. I also realize that when he doesn't get the GOP nomination, he'll run as a libertarian and split the GOP vote, which is good for my side. So, you know, throw money at him all day. Wear your buttons and scream on discussion forums. The fact of the matter is that Paul will get no more than 4% of the vote, splitting the GOP coalition and thereby weakening the GOP vote.

May you have comfort knowing that there is no difference in Hillary and Rudy.

No difference in Bill Moyers and Sean Hannity.

No difference in George Soros and Rupert Murdock.

A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES! A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES! Please, Fellows, go and read any of addabox's responses to this. Anything I might write here would pale in comparison to his (?) replies.

You left and right wingers are like metal shavings that line up around a bar magnet in perfect allignment around each respective pole of the magnet north and south. Only we are talking left and right. Notice that when you are stuck in such an arrangement you have no freedom to move about rather you snap to grid in a rather predictable pattern.

Little do you know you all worship the same magnet and are controlled by a singular puppetmaster.


Call it left wing policy or right wing policy it is all the same system.

The magnet has you right where it wants you.

And who, precisely, is "the magnet" in this little analogy? Can we please NOT use an analogy? Pretty please? I mean, instead of saying something that is like what we mean, can we simply say what we mean?

When a metal shaving tries to get "out of place" as it were we have a situation like Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul wants to return the country to the late 18th century, largely because he can only make the arguments he does by maintaining a fantasy of what life was like in the late 18th century and, in turn, believing that such a phase of American history constitutes some level of "perfection." The problem is that time passed. I know that that drives libertarians nuts, but really. Time passes.

And food for thought,,, Watch the video in the link above and notice the screen shot of the video. The word "infect" is on the screen. Then as you watch the video notice the deceptive woman use words like "virus" and "cesspool" to describe people who do not march in step. Then ask yourself. Is not this kind of language and use of wording not so unlike that used by the Nazis.

It should not surprise you that the GOP is going to do everything it can to get Romney the nomination and have no challenges from the right to split the vote. Paul is a serious threat to the GOP winning in '08 precisely because he will siphon off just enough libertarian GOP people that he will affect Romney's votes.

If a Socialist candidate (and that is, really, the political analogue of Libertarianism) were to be a threat to the Dems, you bet they'd pull the same kinds of things. If they had a network in their pocket.

[Jubelum]

Wow. Calling me out by name and everything, huh, Fellows? I say this because it is true, and I know it's a bit harsh, but you need to stop vacillating between being a liberal, a flag-waving GOP die-hard, and a libertarian. Please. Make up your mind.


NON-PARTY LINE THINKING MUST BE STOPPED!
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
GET IN THE BOX!
ARBEIT MACHT FREI!

<throws stethoscope around neck> <sigh> I was afraid of this. You seem to have a chronic case of the 2D-World Syndrome. For treatment, keep listening to Fellowship, and mehbee even me on occassion.

Your trite "a pox on both their houses" is directly indicative of your new status in 2D world. <hands you badge, "wear it proudly"> There are those out there, midwinter, that do not give a shit, REALLY DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about donkeys and elephants. I know that is hard for the trained partisan mind to comprehend- hell, I used to be there. Then one day, I woke up (like many are) and said, "hey wait a minute, no matter who gets elected, our government and power elites are screwing us out of our rights, freedoms, and money to boot. This is not about politics, it's about control." And then I promptly left the party of Elephants and started to fight for what really matters- living as a free people, with the government and corporations not able to run every aspect of our lives as they are attempting to do now.

I do not have an issue with your ideas because they are popularly defined as "liberal" or "democratic" - but because they are policies that are contrary to freedom via smaller government. My enemies are not going to one party convention only- they are all of those that want to control my life, and yours. From a tax office or a pulpit. From Gonzo to Bush to Clinton and Soros. Got me?

Saying Fellows "needs to stop vacillating" means that you, midwinter, need him to stop "vacillating" for the sake of your own house of cards. Seems he's overloading your system. I know that you have the intellectual chops (at least in my appraisal) to see his points. The cognitive miser theory is alive and well.

[Jubelum]

Still a work in progress...

---------------------------------------------
10 PRINT "Welcome to the 2D Generator "
20 PRINT "TYPE 1 FOR DEMOCRAT, 2 FOR REPUBLICAN. THOSE ARE YOUR CHOICES. MAKE UP YOUR MIND. NO WE DON’T CARE IF YOU DON’T WANT EITHER OR PARTIALLY AGREE WITH BOTH. THAT’S NOT HOW THIS MACHINE WORKS… ”;
30 REM
40 INPUT "ARE YOU REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT"; N
50 IF N=1 THEN GOTO 70
60 IF N=2 THEN GOTO 80
...
...
...
100 END (of FREEDOM)
---------------------------------------------

[Fellowship]

Agreed!

:)

Can we be friends again now? :)

You bet,

You know some of why I post in PO about Ron Paul of all things is simply because he has made politics interesting again. I mean,,, I had to watch the French elections just for fun as I find American politics so darned boring these days.

Being the honest guy I am I will disclose that some of my posting is a bit over the top or BS or fluff what ever you want to call it simply to get more discussion. Sort of like when the fire is about to go out and you stoke it to keep it going.

I like a lively discussion. It is my weakness :\

I like all you guys here including Shawn and midwinter :p

Fellows

[SpamSandwich]

Still a work in progress...

---------------------------------------------
10 PRINT "Welcome to the 2D Generator "
20 PRINT "TYPE 1 FOR DEMOCRAT, 2 FOR REPUBLICAN. THOSE ARE YOUR CHOICES. MAKE UP YOUR MIND. NO WE DON’T CARE IF YOU DON’T WANT EITHER OR PARTIALLY AGREE WITH BOTH. THAT’S NOT HOW THIS MACHINE WORKS… ”;
30 REM
40 INPUT "ARE YOU REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT"; N
50 IF N=1 THEN GOTO 70
60 IF N=2 THEN GOTO 80
...
...
...
100 END (of FREEDOM)
---------------------------------------------

Love it. :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

You bet,

You know some of why I post in PO about Ron Paul of all things is simply because he has made politics interesting again. I mean,,, I had to watch the French elections just for fun as I find American politics so darned boring these days.

Being the honest guy I am I will disclose that some of my posting is a bit over the top or BS or fluff what ever you want to call it simply to get more discussion. Sort of like when the fire is about to go out and you stoke it to keep it going.

I like a lively discussion. It is my weakness :\

I like all you guys here including Shawn and midwinter :p

Fellows

I agree. Just because there are fundamental disagreements here (and in many other threads) does not mean there is hatred. Peace in the Middle East! :p

[LotharSNL]

Know the difference between "capitalism" in a truly free market (which we don't have, just to be clear), and "mercantilism.".

Being pro-(fill in the blank - Government program) is primarily anti-freedom. This wasn't supposed to be the priority here. I'd suggest moving to somewhere that it is, but it's pretty clear that people don't understand, or much care about, what freedom is in this country. In a democracy, which we've apparently become, it's not like any U.S. citizen has an obligation to try and maintain a free, and Constitutional, nation. Personally, I will support Ron Paul, and keep my fingers crossed, but I don't know if a base of freedom loving/understanding people still exists here. So, in that sense, I guess I might agree with "Dr. Paul being too smart...".

[Jubelum]

I'm amazed with people that do not see money as freedom. And then advocate taking other peoples' money and maintaining that they have not been damaged in some way.

Money is "means." The means to grow a stable future. The means to give to charity. The means to enjoy the result of hard work. While demanding that money be taken, we are also demanding that the resulting pleasure and security that the money provides be transferred to someone else who did not work for it.

It is almost as if average people are not entitled to either financial security or pleasure from the money they earn, as long as there is someone, somewhere who can be found who has acquired less, for whatever reason.

All of this for the mythical ideal of "fairness." :no: If the government in taxes us all to the point where we can no longer do anything but work constantly to survive, that is called slavery...the antithesis of freedom.

Arbeit Macht Frei? Coming to a country near you.

[SpamSandwich]

Know the difference between "capitalism" in a truly free market (which we don't have, just to be clear), and "mercantilism.".

Being pro-(fill in the blank - Government program) is primarily anti-freedom. This wasn't supposed to be the priority here. I'd suggest moving to somewhere that it is, but it's pretty clear that people don't understand, or much care about, what freedom is in this country. In a democracy, which we've apparently become, it's not like any U.S. citizen has an obligation to try and maintain a free, and Constitutional, nation. Personally, I will support Ron Paul, and keep my fingers crossed, but I don't know if a base of freedom loving/understanding people still exists here. So, in that sense, I guess I might agree with "Dr. Paul being too smart...".

Good points. It just may be that Libertarians dominate the Net discussion about Ron Paul, yet may not carry enough weight to influence the actual vote... but I'll admit that I was absolutely electrified by the discussion on "The View" regarding Paul's views (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6SfmXigHpE). Talk about reaching out to middle America! :D

[SpcMs]

It is almost as if average people are not entitled to either financial security or pleasure from the money they earn, as long as there is someone, somewhere who can be found who has acquired less, for whatever reason.

All of this for the mythical ideal of "fairness." :no: If the government in taxes us all to the point where we can no longer do anything but work constantly to survive, that is called slavery...the antithesis of freedom.

Two points:
* it's not about all having the same, it's about all having a certain minimum. And yes, the consequence is that you give up some of the money you earned as long as there is someone, somewhere who does not have that minimum, for whatever reason
* people like yourself are quick to point out that people who make/have a lot of money usually create a lot of employment, give a lot to charity, ... and in general contribute to the greater good of a society. While this may be true, the same can be said from keeping a part of the population from falling off the map completely, where they end up begging in the streets, commiting crimes and don't stand a chance of ever contributing to the economy again. Wouldn't that be a bigger burden on the community (not only economically speaking, but in general)?

What i'm trying to say is, in the extreme, we are all wrong. It's worth debating what the best balancing point is, and it's certainly worth discussing whether the governement is doing a good job at managing this, but there are many good arguments for a more socialist approach, even economic ones.

[@_@ Artman]

Ron Paul to attend the next GOP debate on June 5th (http://ronpaul2008.com/html/Calendar_fx.html)

"The third debate among GOP presidential candidates will be held on Tuesday, June 5th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. ET at the Thomas Sullivan Arena on the Saint Anselm College campus in Manchester, New Hampshire. The debate will be broadcast live on CNN, CNN Radio, CNN.com, WMUR-TV, WMUR.com and UnionLeader.com. CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate with questions from Scott Spradling of WMUR-TV and Tom Fahey from the New Hampshire Union Leader."

I think Wolf Blitzer is a plus. He did well with Paul on the Situation Room (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPI-ogwlXE).

[SpamSandwich]

[QUOTE=SpcMs;1083656]Two points:
* it's not about all having the same, it's about all having a certain minimum. And yes, the consequence is that you give up some of the money you earned as long as there is someone, somewhere who does not have that minimum, for whatever reason

That is why there are charitable organizations, where we can rely on the generosity of strangers, instead of the massive corruption and inefficiency that comes along with big government.

* people like yourself are quick to point out that people who make/have a lot of money usually create a lot of employment, give a lot to charity, ... and in general contribute to the greater good of a society. While this may be true, the same can be said from keeping a part of the population from falling off the map completely, where they end up begging in the streets, commiting crimes and don't stand a chance of ever contributing to the economy again. Wouldn't that be a bigger burden on the community (not only economically speaking, but in general)?

But we have many government run programs now, and those problems still have not gone away.


What i'm trying to say is, in the extreme, we are all wrong. It's worth debating what the best balancing point is, and it's certainly worth discussing whether the governement is doing a good job at managing this, but there are many good arguments for a more socialist approach, even economic ones.

I think we've tried the socialist approach, and it has not worked. History proves this again and again.

[Jubelum]

Two points:
[QUOTE]* it's not about all having the same, it's about all having a certain minimum. And yes, the consequence is that you give up some of the money you earned as long as there is someone, somewhere who does not have that minimum, for whatever reason

I have never advocated doing away with the social safety net altogether. If you CHOOSE to not have the minimum when you can attain it yourself, and then expect others to pay, that is wrong. I have said, for the third time now, that the elderly, sick, and insane should have resources if they are below the poverty line. NOT the able-bodied who have the choice to contribute, and do not. Those people do not deserve anything. Nothing at all.


* people like yourself are quick to point out that people who make/have a lot of money usually create a lot of employment, give a lot to charity, ... and in general contribute to the greater good of a society. While this may be true, the same can be said from keeping a part of the population from falling off the map completely, where they end up begging in the streets, commiting crimes and don't stand a chance of ever contributing to the economy again. Wouldn't that be a bigger burden on the community (not only economically speaking, but in general)?

Restatement of earlier point, see response above.

but there are many good arguments for a more socialist approach, even economic ones.

Taken with enough idealism, anything can be a "good idea." We have an obligation to help those who absolutely cannot help themselves. The rest of those who just do not want to be bothered with that "work" thing have no right to anything. Not even lunch. Sorry. Socialism punishes achievement and rewards loafing. Does it do some "good" for certain people in certain situations? I'd say yes. But as a policy, it damages the givers in the short term and the receivers in the long term.

[midwinter]

NON-PARTY LINE THINKING MUST BE STOPPED!
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
GET IN THE BOX!

Fine.

ARBEIT MACHT FREI!

AND WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS NAZI REFERENCE DOING IN THERE? Here. Wanna see how fun this is? Watch: how dare you use the deaths of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of soldiers to score a cheap personal attack in an online forum. See? Isn't that fun?

<throws stethoscope around neck> <sigh> I was afraid of this. You seem to have a chronic case of the 2D-World Syndrome. For treatment, keep listening to Fellowship, and mehbee even me on occassion.

Well, I'll wager that I've been listening and chatting with Fellows for a lot longer than you have. Years, at this point. And not that you care, but I chat with Trumptman about as often as I chat with ShawnJ. So don't go assuming that because I argue with you, or take issue with your political ideology, I don't listen. And if you'd take about 10 seconds to stop acting like a condescending ass in every other post with me and engage the substance of the thing rather than suggesting I'm a NAZI or that I'm somehow intellectually limited, then, maybe, you and I can have profitable discussions.

If you go back through the archives of Fellows's posts, you'll see that my complaint is not that he's advancing a nuanced political position; it's that every election it's something different. At one point he acts like a flag-waving neo-con. At another he acts like a howl-at-the-moon liberal. Now he's a libertarian. It's not nucance. It's floundering. And I hate writing that, because I like Fellows a great deal and think he's a really good guy.

I respect the idea that he's trying to work through his own personal political maze. I respect the idea that you have and are an avowed libertarian. I disagree with you, but I respect the idea that you've chosen your box and have settled in it. You seem, of course, to think that my "box" is not nuanced (and yet I don't know why); you see, of course, to think that your box is not a box (ain't that the way it always is?).

But I'd appreciate it if you would stop basing your responses on your assumptions about me and, instead, base them on what I write.

For instance:

Your trite "a pox on both their houses" is directly indicative of your new status in 2D world.

See? You've created some metaphor that you think defines me, and yet it's not based on anything I've actually said. I won't even bother with the metaphor.

<hands you badge, "wear it proudly"> There are those out there, midwinter, that do not give a shit, REALLY DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about donkeys and elephants.

OK. You do realize that I generally don't care for donkeys and elephants, either, right? You do get that the Democrats drive me utterly insane?

I know that is hard for the trained partisan mind to comprehend- hell, I used to be there. Then one day, I woke up (like many are) and said, "hey wait a minute, no matter who gets elected, our government and power elites are screwing us out of our rights, freedoms, and money to boot. This is not about politics, it's about control." And then I promptly left the party of Elephants and started to fight for what really matters- living as a free people, with the government and corporations not able to run every aspect of our lives as they are attempting to do now.

Congratulations on leaving the cave. Or whatever. But I'd appreciate it if you would avoid talking about what is difficult for my "trained partisan mind to comprehend." If you can't discuss issues without resorting to ad hominems, then please feel free to take it to PMs, where I will by no stretch of the imagination be as restrained as I am now.

I do not have an issue with your ideas because they are popularly defined as "liberal" or "democratic" - but because they are policies that are contrary to freedom via smaller government.

The fact that you think I do not understand that is a problem at the heart of all of our discussions.

My enemies are not going to one party convention only- they are all of those that want to control my life, and yours. From a tax office or a pulpit. From Gonzo to Bush to Clinton and Soros. Got me?

See above.

Saying Fellows "needs to stop vacillating" means that you, midwinter, need him to stop "vacillating" for the sake of your own house of cards.

Again, I'd appreciate it you wouldn't waste your time doing some ham-fisted "analysis" of my needs. I want Fellows to stop vacillating. I want him to stop flailing and floundering and settle on what his core values are and make his political decisions from there.

Seems he's overloading your system.

Again. This is not about me, and yet you seem unable to discuss issues without making it about me. If you want to make it about me, then take it to PM.

I know that you have the intellectual chops (at least in my appraisal) to see his points. The cognitive miser theory is alive and well.

Yeah. Thanks. I appreciate it. Now I'm not paying enough attention and so I'm missing the real heart of the discussion. I say again, if you want to make this about me, my intellectual capacities, my level of attention to these discussion, or whatever, take it to PMs. Otherwise, please discuss what I have written, not how you think what I've said reveals great character flaws in me.

[Jubelum]

AND WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS NAZI REFERENCE DOING IN THERE?
Oh, sorry. Let me defer to "you are either with us or against us." ;)

Well, I'll wager that I've been listening and chatting with Fellows for a lot longer than you have. Years, at this point. And not that you care, but I chat with Trumptman about as often as I chat with ShawnJ. So don't go assuming that because I argue with you, or take issue with your political ideology, I don't listen. And if you'd take about 10 seconds to stop acting like a condescending ass in every other post with me and engage the substance of the thing rather than suggesting I'm a NAZI or that I'm somehow intellectually limited, then, maybe, you and I can have profitable discussions.

I like you, midwinter. Though you and I have serious disagreements on things, I'd say you are one of the smarter people here. And you often make compelling arguments. I'm fed up completely with the "make up your mind already" thing. You just got to be the lightning rod for that, though you deserved some of it. My apologies if I took it to you a little *too* directly.
You are not a Nazi nor intellectually limited. Quite the contrary in both cases.

If you go back through the archives of Fellows's posts, you'll see that my complaint is not that he's advancing a nuanced political position; it's that every election it's something different. At one point he acts like a flag-waving neo-con. At another he acts like a howl-at-the-moon liberal. Now he's a libertarian. It's not nucance. It's floundering. And I hate writing that, because I like Fellows a great deal and think he's a really good guy.

I'll defer to your own position... that you want Fellows to get into a place where you can predict him. Just like so many around here want to do with me, SDW, etc. We get throw into the "winger" bin for simply daring the question the CW dogma, and it is really old.

I respect the idea that he's trying to work through his own personal political maze. I respect the idea that you have and are an avowed libertarian. I disagree with you, but I respect the idea that you've chosen your box and have settled in it. You seem, of course, to think that my "box" is not nuanced (and yet I don't know why); you see, of course, to think that your box is not a box (ain't that the way it always is?).

My box is a one-trick pony: people having their money, their privacy, and the right to be left alone. Things that are now contrary to both parties.

I have no doubt that you have nuanced positions. And I would like to think that you are finding your way through the maze as well as we all are, as information and situations continue to evolve.

See? You've created some metaphor that you think defines me, and yet it's not based on anything I've actually said. I won't even bother with the metaphor.
Um, here (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1083331&postcount=37) is where you typed exactly that. Twice. in all caps.


OK. You do realize that I generally don't care for donkeys and elephants, either, right? You do get that the Democrats drive me utterly insane?

As I said, you are a thinking person. I get that. But my response was in direct reference to your plea to Fellows to "make up his mind." It came across as if he needed to make some decision as to allow you to figure out friend and foe... cause the wingers get it harsh and the lefties get the cheers, or vice versa.

But I'd appreciate it if you would avoid talking about what is difficult for my "trained partisan mind to comprehend." If you can't discuss issues without resorting to ad hominems, then please feel free to take it to PMs, where I will by no stretch of the imagination be as restrained as I am now.

As for all the "take it to PM" chest thumping, go ahead. Write whatever you want. You made some personal asspraisals of Fellows and his positions, so I made some observations of yours. Though shit. I did give you props in my post for having the intellectual capacity to see my point, though it seemed as though you did not get in when I posted it the 10 times before.


The fact that you think I do not understand that is a problem at the heart of all of our discussions.
Then why is it that my posts in advancing my position are met with the knee-jerk response as if I am Karl Rove himself? I continually get the impression, like many others here, that it MUST turn into a partisan thing, when I could give a shit about party. I do not have time or energy to fight silly partisan battles on a fscking message board. The issue is dying freedoms. If you recognize that it is about freedom, rather than "fuck you, winger," then indicate that in some way. To date, I have not gotten that from you.


I want Fellows to stop vacillating. I want him to stop flailing and floundering and settle on what his core values are and make his political decisions from there.

Well, maybe Fellows is a moderate. That glorious moniker that allows endless redefinition of the problems and solutions.

Yeah. Thanks. I appreciate it. Now I'm not paying enough attention and so I'm missing the real heart of the discussion. I say again, if you want to make this about me, my intellectual capacities, my level of attention to these discussion, or whatever, take it to PMs. Otherwise, please discuss what I have written, not how you think what I've said reveals great character flaws in me.

Again, my apologies if my post came off as *too* personal.. it is just the last nerve I have here. I am tired of constantly being confronted with partisan talking points, because some intellectually lazy jackass thinks they have me or anyone else pegged as their partisan opposition. And you made a post that embodied that argument. Bad timing for you, hot button for me. Perhaps I took it wrong, but it did convey an intolerance for people who do not fit in neat little categories.

Now, let me buy you a beer and we can both continue to benefit from your sizable noodle. :D

[midwinter]

Oh, sorry. Let me defer to "you are either with us or against us." ;)

You can put that little smiley at the end of the sentence, but it neither makes your point nor makes you look like you didn't suggest I was a NAZI.

I like you, midwinter.

You have an odd way of showing it.

Though you and I have serious disagreements on things, I'd say you are one of the smarter people here. And you often make compelling arguments.

Thank you. Seriously.

I'm fed up completely with the "make up your mind already" thing. You just got to be the lightning rod for that, though you deserved some of it. My apologies if I took it to you a little *too* directly.
You are not a Nazi nor intellectually limited. Quite the contrary in both cases.

Thank you. Seriously.

I'll defer to your own position... that you want Fellows to get into a place where you can predict him. Just like so many around here want to do with me, SDW, etc. We get throw into the "winger" bin for simply daring the question the CW dogma, and it is really old.

No. You *think* I want Fellows in a place where I can predict him. Again, please address what I have written. And you are hardly questioning the CW dogma. You are an adherent to one of the core elements of the GOP coalition. But that's irrelevant. You could be standing on the road with a sandwich board and I'd still say that your notions of political economy conveniently ignore the entire 19th century. Because they do. I have tried to articulate this point in almost every post I've made in response to you: your political theory advocates a return to the policies/ideals of the late 18th century. This, as I have argued, is utter insanity. It was tried and it didn't work. At all. The only thing that saved the western world from such ideologies was the birth of the modern left in the mid-19th century.

Here's a simple question that ought to get to the heart of this:

can I force my 6 year old son to work as a chimney sweep for no wages?

My box is a one-trick pony: people having their money, their privacy, and the right to be left alone. Things that are now contrary to both parties.

money, privacy, and voluntary isolation are three remarkably separate issues. I am particularly interested in privacy at the moment and would LOOOOOOVE a thread on it (I started one a while back and it died, alas). Seriously. You want to talk about privacy? I'm all up in that with a bag of chips.

I have no doubt that you have nuanced positions. And I would like to think that you are finding your way through the maze as well as we all are, as information and situations continue to evolve.

Indeed. Thank you.

Um, here (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1083331&postcount=37) is where you typed exactly that.

That's a whole post. Where, precisely, in that post did I do this?

As I said, you are a thinking person. I get that. But my response was in direct reference to your plea to Fellows to "make up his mind." It came across as if he needed to make some decision as to allow you to figure out friend and foe... cause the wingers get it harsh and the lefties get the cheers, or vice versa.

It came across to you. I asked Fellows to stop vacillating because I've been watching him do it for years now. In retrospect, I probably should have simply left that out, but hey, it was 1:30 in the morning and I'd had a long day installing a toilet in a 75 year old house.

As for all the "take it to PM" chest thumping, go ahead. Write whatever you want.

I don't think you understand my point. I'm telling YOU that if you are unable to respond to me without offering some kind of ad hominem, then send it via PM. I'm not going to PM you a response because I'm capable of responding to the things you write without suggesting you're a NAZI or offering some kind of psychoanalysis of you.

You made some personal asspraisals of Fellows and his positions, so I made some observations of yours.

I have an historical appraisal of Fellows's position, not a personal one. You leapt in, feet-first.

Though shit.

Indeed.

I did give you props in my post for having the intellectual capacity to see my point,

Thank you, massah!

though it seemed as though you did not get in when I posted it the 10 times before.

I assure you: when I don't get something, I'll ask.

Then why is it that my posts in advancing my position are met with the knee-jerk response as if I am Karl Rove himself?

I have no idea.

I continually get the impression,

You get these a lot.

like many others here,

Who?

that it MUST turn into a partisan thing, when I could give a shit about party.

It's really only a party think with a couple of posters.

I do not have time or energy to fight silly partisan battles on a fscking message board.

And yet, here you are!

The issue is dying freedoms. If you recognize that it is about freedom, rather than "fuck you, winger," then indicate that in some way. To date, I have not gotten that from you.

OK. Here's a question for you:

Please list for me the freedoms you have lost, citing three examples for each.

Well, maybe Fellows is a moderate. That glorious moniker that allows endless redefinition of the problems and solutions.

I suspect that, in the end, Fellows is some kind of true Xian centrist on most issues. I don't know. I'd have to ask him, though. Maybe I will the next time I see him online. The GOP is in an interesting position right now, and the combination of Rudy (who is giving the finger to the base in some ways) and Romney (whose status as a Mormon threatens the already weak coalition that makes up the GOP) doesn't help. I have predicted for some time that the GOP will split between the libertarians and the social conservatives, all because of the NeoCons, who used them both like pawns. We'll see.

Again, my apologies if my post came off as *too* personal.. it is just the last nerve I have here.

I promise you, Jube, you have other nerves.

I am tired of constantly being confronted with partisan talking points, because some intellectually lazy jackass thinks they have me or anyone else pegged as their partisan opposition. And you made a post that embodied that argument. Bad timing for you, hot button for me. Perhaps I took it wrong, but it did convey an intolerance for people who do not fit in neat little categories.

I'll say this, Jube: I think you're a libertarian. I think your political philosophy was earnestly tried, for a long, long time, and didn't work. I think the worship of the free market is utterly insane. I think your political philosophy sounds great on paper and sucks major ass in the real world, just like Communism. I think all libertarians should read Dickens's Hard Times. I think all libertarians should read Marx's Capital. I think all libertarians should read Arnold's Culture and Anarchy. I think they should all read Ruskin's The Two Paths. I think all libertarians should read about working conditions in the 18th and 19th centuries. I think the reason the West did not collapse entirely in the mid-19th century is because the modern left emerged. I think the potato famine is the perfect example of what happens when libertarian philosophies are ascendant. I think that the way forward is through a series of successive negotiations between the hard right (you) and the hard left. Somewhere in there, somehow, we bring the best of both parts in and work towards something good. I'm saying that while I disagree with you, through the negotiation between our competing philosophies, good will emerge.

Now, let me buy you a beer and we can both continue to benefit from your sizable noodle. :D

No. I have never understood the redneck capacity to beat the shit out of one another and then go in for a group hug. And I don't particularly appreciate the way you have essentially said "let's make up, but you're still an ass."

And I'm not much of a beer drinker. You buy me a jack and coke, well, that's another story....

[Jubelum]

No. I have never understood the redneck capacity to beat the shit out of one another and then go in for a group hug. And I don't particularly appreciate the way you have essentially said "let's make up, but you're still an ass."

And I'm not much of a beer drinker. You buy me a jack and coke, well, that's another story....

Redneck? Was that a shot? <insert faux outrage here> ;)

Jack and coke it is. I've offered a overkill of Mea Culpa in misdirecting my frustration and misunderestimating your post, though I still believe there is a shred of the "box" thing in there somewhere. No matter...

I'm trying to cut us both some slack and offer an olive branch. Take it.
:smokey:

[SDW2001]

take cover!

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/579/flamesrq2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Fellowship]

What i'm trying to say is, in the extreme, we are all wrong. It's worth debating what the best balancing point is, and it's certainly worth discussing whether the governement is doing a good job at managing this, but there are many good arguments for a more socialist approach, even economic ones.

Well reasoned thought out post if I ever saw one!

I quite agree with you.

For example I believe the US needs a health care system where everyone is covered. Some will use the system more than others but that is not unlike roads and bridges. Some do not drive much and some do it for a living. However we all pay in for the "socialized" system of roads and bridges. Would we really want a system where by we had private roads and had to pay each owner for the drive over it each and every time we drive over it?

Some things just make more sense to socialize. Even republicans will hop on to this socialized notion with the subject of national defense.

If there is one sticky point with libertarian platforms which I have a time reasoning it is the idea of certain socialized aspects of society and how libertarians would address them.

I think America needs a sort of balance of personal freedoms with a generous social policy which promotes health and education. I think most agree welfare is a road to nowhere for most but sure we need it for those in bad spots in life. Imagine if society provided socialized free childcare so that for example a single mother can work if she so chooses instead of sitting at home getting welfare. Some would argue which is better for the child but I say give the mother the "CHOICE" If she wanted to work she could and she would have the support to do it. That way instead of remaining in a futile situation of sitting at home collecting public assistance she can be more productive and remain in the workforce and develope her skills while her child can interact with other children instead of growing up learning by example that mom simply collects a check and sits at home all day. Again I know some may feel childcare is not good for a child compared to the mother watching the child but this is again why I mention the key point of giving the mother the "Choice" to decide her fate. Things like this could break the endless cycle of poverty and welfare we see so often in some cases generation after generation. Some need a door out of the box of poverty. If we never "help" these peole in the box we do not serve the society we live in very well at all.

I believe the same can be argued regarding healthcare for all Americans and Education.

We need to stand up for protecting our personal liberties as well as protecting society at large. We will all benefit if we can learn to stand up for our standards of western values in a social democracy. If we do nothing we run the risk of handing over everything to corporate control as corporations continue to assume more control over our government representatives. I would argue this is an option we do not want and can not afford to allow.

Your thoughts?

Fellows

[trumptman]

Well, I'll wager that I've been listening and chatting with Fellows for a lot longer than you have. Years, at this point. And not that you care, but I chat with Trumptman about as often as I chat with ShawnJ. So don't go assuming that because I argue with you, or take issue with your political ideology, I don't listen. And if you'd take about 10 seconds to stop acting like a condescending ass in every other post with me and engage the substance of the thing rather than suggesting I'm a NAZI or that I'm somehow intellectually limited, then, maybe, you and I can have profitable discussions.


Mid, you miserable slut. You told me I was the only one for you.

Nick

[dmz]

I think we all need to be careful of the everpresent messianic promise of the 'magic politician' that is going to 'muck out the stables' -- save us from these 'scoundrels in D.C.' There is entirely too much entrenched bureaucracy from the Federal level on down, for any one person to change things. In the end, we are our own problems.


That said:


I'd actually vote for RP. I'd take someone with one or two bats in his belfry of ideas over what seems to be endless pragmatism. He seems like someone, for better or worse, who would go to the wall for his ideals. Not unlike John Adams, who would rather be right, than be president.

Could be downright didactic for the population.

[Fellowship]

Mid, you miserable slut. You told me I was the only one for you.

Nick

LOL :lol:

[midwinter]

Redneck? Was that a shot? <insert faux outrage here> ;)

Jack and coke it is. I've offered a overkill of Mea Culpa in misdirecting my frustration and misunderestimating your post, though I still believe there is a shred of the "box" thing in there somewhere. No matter...

I'm trying to cut us both some slack and offer an olive branch. Take it.
:smokey:


It's not an olive branch when you say "mea culpa...but I still think you're ______."

But anyway. No worries.

[midwinter]

Mid, you miserable slut. You told me I was the only one for you.

Nick

I'm a swinger, Nick. You knew that up front. ;)

[Northgate]

Arbeit Macht Frei?

Dude. The Nazi speak is getting a little old. I know you guys think you're the purveyors of "responsible political discourse" and all that.

But give it a rest. Okay?

[Jubelum]

But give it a rest. Okay?

No. :p

[tonton]

That is why there are charitable organizations, where we can rely on the generosity of strangers, instead of the massive corruption and inefficiency that comes along with big government.

But the serious and ovverwhelming problem with depending on charitible organizations is that there is absolutely no macromanagement of distribution. Everybody gives to the "Cute Little Kids With Cancer Fund" and no one gives to the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program". Do you really think the "Cute Little Kids With Cancer Fund" is going to say, "Oh, here's our surplus donations... go help create jobs for reformed criminals with this?"

We absolutely need government management of social programs.

And when no one gives to the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program", we need taxes to pay for it.

[SpamSandwich]

But the serious and ovverwhelming problem with depending on charitible organizations is that there is absolutely no macromanagement of distribution. Everybody gives to the "Cute Little Kids With Cancer Fund" and no one gives to the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program". Do you really think the "Cute Little Kids With Cancer Fund" is going to say, "Oh, here's our surplus donations... go help create jobs for reformed criminals with this?"

We absolutely need government management of social programs.

And when no one gives to the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program", we need taxes to pay for it.

Most people tend to agree that privately run businesses and organizations are more efficient than government-run ones. Politics becomes more important than efficiency to guarantee continued funding in the gov't run programs.

I'll take a non-profit organization run by concerned volunteers, or a for-profit concern that must provide results, be responsible when things don't work, and create satisfied 'customers' in order to stay in business.

[tonton]

Most people tend to agree that privately run businesses and organizations are more efficient than government-run ones. Politics becomes more important than efficiency to guarantee continued funding in the gov't run programs.

I'll take a non-profit organization run by concerned volunteers, or a for-profit concern that must provide results, be responsible when things don't work, and create satisfied 'customers' in order to stay in business.

That's all fine and dandy, but you didn't address my point at all.

How do we fund the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program" without the government?

[spindler]

Exactly Tonton, you mentioned a specific instance that the free market doesn't do well, and then SpamSandwich just mentioned a generality about the free market that doesn't solve this particular problem. I lean towards the free market as much as possible, but obviously markets are based on what people want to do, which doesn't always line up with what needs to be done.

[SpamSandwich]

That's all fine and dandy, but you didn't address my point at all.

How do we fund the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program" without the government?

Are you talking about the felon in jail for drug possession? The "War on Drugs" would end under a Libertarian system. It's ineffective and a represents a gigantic intrusion in the lives of Americans.

"Ex-felon" is another glib remark that is meaningless.

[midwinter]

But the serious and ovverwhelming problem with depending on charitible organizations is that there is absolutely no macromanagement of distribution. Everybody gives to the "Cute Little Kids With Cancer Fund" and no one gives to the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program". Do you really think the "Cute Little Kids With Cancer Fund" is going to say, "Oh, here's our surplus donations... go help create jobs for reformed criminals with this?"

We absolutely need government management of social programs.

And when no one gives to the "Ex-felon Vocational Retraining Program", we need taxes to pay for it.

Exactly. It's more than just money, as you rightly point out (I believe I made the same point upthread). Who will teach the courses? How much will they be paid? Do they need to have any qualifications? Who will decide what those are? Where will the classes be taught? Schools? Churches? Will the schools and churches be compensated? How will the courses be scheduled? Who will decide when and where they're offered? Will they be publicized? How? Who will pay for it?

[drm]

Exactly. It's more than just money, as you rightly point out (I believe I made the same point upthread). Who will teach the courses? How much will they be paid? Do they need to have any qualifications? Who will decide what those are? Where will the classes be taught? Schools? Churches? Will the schools and churches be compensated? How will the courses be scheduled? Who will decide when and where they're offered? Will they be publicized? How? Who will pay for it?

I think the government should take care of all that.

[Jubelum]

This (http://www.wmu.com/VolunteerConnection/CWJC/) program is doing wonders in my community. I have taught Photoshop and InDesign to a few people in the men's program. People who, with other training, are now gainfully employed and no longer wards of the state. Not a total solution, but if this type of program was common in other faiths, churches, and civic organizations, we could made a huge difference. We are graduating 20-30 twice a year.

BTW- over 50% of the current class either have criminal and/or substance abuse histories.
It is refreshing to see Christians "walking the walk" when it comes to being a spiritual hospital, not just a house of judgement.

[SpamSandwich]

This (http://www.wmu.com/VolunteerConnection/CWJC/) program is doing wonders in my community. I have taught Photoshop and InDesign to a few people in the men's program. People who, with other training, are now gainfully employed and no longer wards of the state. Not a total solution, but if this type of program was common in other faiths, churches, and civic organizations, we could made a huge difference. We are graduating 20-30 twice a year.

BTW- over 50% of the current class either have criminal and/or substance abuse histories.
It is refreshing to see Christians "walking the walk" when it comes to being a spiritual hospital, not just a house of judgement.

A wonderful example of volunteerism.

[giant]

Fallacy of many questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions)

[midwinter]

Fallacy of many questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions)

Nerd!

[drm]

This guy would get my vote:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html

To answer the question posed by this thread...I don't know if he is "too intelligent" to be President, but he appears to be too honest to be President. He is the only one that seems to be speaking truthfully in any significant way (on either side). He is also the only one that appears to have any understand and respect for freedom.

Finally, I think the Republican yahoos have a real problem on their hands with this guy. They can't really dismiss him as a nut or crazy. He is clearly not and is clearly very well-spoken and very intelligent. I think this guy is starting to connect with people (who actually hear him and not the misrepresentations by the press and his Republican enemies) because there is something about truth that resonates with people. It cuts through the BS and smoke and mirrors and misdirection and everything else.

[SpamSandwich]

This guy would get my vote:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html

To answer the question posed by this thread...I don't know if he is "too intelligent" to be President, but he appears to be too honest to be President. He is the only one that seems to be speaking truthfully in any significant way (on either side). He is also the only one that appears to have any understand and respect for freedom.

Finally, I think the Republican yahoos have a real problem on their hands with this guy. They can't really dismiss him as a nut or crazy. He is clearly not and is clearly very well-spoken and very intelligent. I think this guy is starting to connect with people (who actually hear him and not the misrepresentations by the press and his Republican enemies) because there is something about truth that resonates with people. It cuts through the BS and smoke and mirrors and misdirection and everything else.

The "too intelligent" headline was a bit of a jab at the type of person who tends to want and win the presidency. I've never met Ron Paul personally, but I look forward to it, given the chance.

What specific questions would you (or anyone else reading this) like to ask Ron Paul, and what would be your most likely reservation that would keep you from voting for him?

Some people are 'uncomfortable' with Libertarian philosophy (irrationally so, in my opinion, as it is the most rational of all political outlooks), and it is very different from what they are used to hearing. It treats people as intelligent and capable of making decisions for themselves (decisions that may cause benefit or harm, but with responsibility resting on the individual).

[drm]

Some people are 'uncomfortable' with Libertarian philosophy (irrationally so, in my opinion, as it is the most rational of all political outlooks),

It is irrational insofar as you don't truly value freedom. That's the rub. Many people seem to think that they value freedom but, when push comes to shove, they are more than willing to shout "there oughta be a law" that does something that takes freedom away.

Libertarianism is founded on the principles of a core set of "natural rights". These are rights that we have as people naturally and self-evidently. They could be called "Duh" rights as is "Duh, we have those!" And they are not granted by governments, they can only be protected or taken by governments. These are the rights of life (and the corresponding rights of self-preservation, self-protection, self-determination, self-ownership, etc.), liberty (freedom to do with self and your property what you wish so long as you don't infringe ons someone else's rights) and property (i.e., the right to own things, the right to what you are able to produce and create, the right to trade what you own and produce). All of these come with the implicit right to be free from violence, force and coercion by any other person or group (this includes the government).

and it is very different from what they are used to hearing.

Yes it is.

It treats people as intelligent and capable of making decisions for themselves

It does, but here is an important point. Many people accuse libertarians of being "Utopians" in the sense that they assume or expect that people are good and noble. Well, here's the thing, if people are not good and noble, then the libertarian "ideal" is likely the best form of social structure simply because you would want to avoid putting the power of force and coercion and violence into the hands of people through the mechanism of the state. That can only lead to far worse conclusions. If you believe that people are generally and mostly decent and simply want to live their lives and not bother other people, then the libertarian "structure" is also best because it seeks to keep the power of force, coercion and violence out of the few that would seek it and do harm to rest through the mechanism of the state.

If someone is opposed to libertarian thought, they should think very carefully about why they are. It might reveal subtle and subconscious desires for control of others.


P.S. What question would I ask him? Simply, I would ask him: "If elected President, what would you do try try and build coalitions to accomplish your plans so that you don't simply walk out of office 4 or 8 years later just 4 or 8 years older?" Funny thing is on some issues he'll have allies on the left (and enemies on the right) and other issues will be the exact opposite. How can he break that logjam to make serious progress toward greater liberty and a smaller state? That is the million dollar question for me.

[SpamSandwich]

It is irrational insofar as you don't truly value freedom. That's the rub. Many people seem to think that they value freedom but, when push comes to shove, they are more than willing to shout "there oughta be a law" that does something that takes freedom away.

Libertarianism is founded on the principles of a core set of "natural rights". These are rights that we have as people naturally and self-evidently. They could be called "Duh" rights as is "Duh, we have those!" And they are not granted by governments, they can only be protected or taken by governments. These are the rights of life (and the corresponding rights of self-preservation, self-protection, self-determination, self-ownership, etc.), liberty (freedom to do with self and your property what you wish so long as you don't infringe ons someone else's rights) and property (i.e., the right to own things, the right to what you are able to produce and create, the right to trade what you own and produce). All of these come with the implicit right to be free from violence, force and coercion by any other person or group (this includes the government).



Yes it is.



It does, but here is an important point. Many people accuse libertarians of being "Utopians" in the sense that they assume or expect that people are good and noble. Well, here's the thing, if people are not good and noble, then the libertarian "ideal" is likely the best form of social structure simply because you would want to avoid putting the power of force and coercion and violence into the hands of people through the mechanism of the state. That can only lead to far worse conclusions. If you believe that people are generally and mostly decent and simply want to live their lives and not bother other people, then the libertarian "structure" is also best because it seeks to keep the power of force, coercion and violence out of the few that would seek it and do harm to rest through the mechanism of the state.

If someone is opposed to libertarian thought, they should think very carefully about why they are. It might reveal subtle and subconscious desires for control of others.

Amen!!! :D

[Jubelum]

If someone is opposed to libertarian thought, they should think very carefully about why they are. It might reveal subtle and subconscious desires for control of others.


Spot on. :smokey: