Perhaps if your twists weren't so obviously ridiculous I would manage to grasp your logic. But then again I don't see any logical flow in those points so I can understand your frustration.
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Perhaps if your twists weren't so obviously ridiculous I would manage to grasp your logic. But then again I don't see any logical flow in those points so I can understand your frustration.
Perhaps if your twists weren't so obviously ridiculous I would manage to grasp your logic. But then again I don't see any logical flow in those points so I can understand your frustration.
What twists?
Nothing I have said has changed - you just haven't understood what I said in the first place.
You're still operating under the delusions of right wing rhetoric.
You're still operating under the delusion that when I talk of democratic process, I neccessarily mean mob rule.
You're still operating under the delusion that a pure system of one extreme or the other is neccessarily preferable.
You can't see my argument for your own delusions. Perhaps if you took some time to step back and actually think, we might make some progress.
The question is...? And please be clear in it.
That is your assumption.
Your 'democratic process' is under the context of the Fedgov which IS mob rule.
Not really. 'Property Rights' breaks down when it comes to the States. I know that
If you stepped back and thought about 'rights' at various levels of government you'd see all your points are just stupid if there are any. Property Rights at different level of governments are different.
An assumption that I believe to be supported by the emperical evidence available in this thread - for example, your assertion that any federal givernment agency must neccessarily grow to un-manageable proportions.
I'm quite sure you believe that, but that manifestly fails to account for what I have actually said in this thread.
Now you're just being absurd (amon other things).
You haven't understood my points, and because you haven't been able to understand them, you make ridiculous assumptions and assertions about them. You're too busy letting your prejudices think for you to actually understand them.
Fair enough. So a 50 state jury, one with the power to enforce the national standards they come up with; if something could not be decided upon, it would be left up to the local towns/states. To be fair there would have to be a means for each of the 50 states to decide who was on it.
Fortunately we have one of those already - the US Congress.
The obvious point
Oh, well, that's obvious. Drop the point entirely and agree with everything he says, taking care to reinforce at least once every five minutes that you could never be so smart and good a person without him to show you the way.
These are people who are upset that their right to wantonly decide who gets rights has been so rudely interrupted.
That's the true meaning of libertarianism, it seems. Why do you think that every time one details an argument, there is no substantial response?
I mean, consider Ron Paul's anti-choice argument about abortion. I've tried to point out just how much that would insert government into our lives, and it's not even that new; I didn't just invent the question for the New Pauline Evangelism. (In truth, while I can't find the post right now, I think I might have asked the question about the legal implications of life-at-conception eight years ago. My general point, though, is that nobody has a substantive answer for the conundrum. As such, it seems especially problematic to be claiming libertarianism while prescribing an outcome that puts government squarely inside a woman's uterus.)
Similarly, you'll note that not even those "libertarians" who oppose the Civil Rights Act, or support racist politicians who feel that way, have answers to the implications of what they are suggesting.
Abortion is a fairly obvious controversy, but the question of racism seems fairly apparent. How dare the government take away my right to strip other people of their rights? Just how does that work? ("How dare the government take away my equal right to be legally superior"?)
They don't have an answer because the detail is excruciating. The emotional appeal against the guv'mint takin' 'way yer rights is much more gratifying.
Trippy said:
Oh, well, that's obvious. Drop the point entirely and agree with everything he says, taking care to reinforce at least once every five minutes that you could never be so smart and good a person without him to show you the way.
These are people who are upset that their right to wantonly decide who gets rights has been so rudely interrupted.
That's the true meaning of libertarianism, it seems. Why do you think that every time one details an argument, there is no substantial response?
I mean, consider Ron Paul's anti-choice argument about abortion. I've tried to point out just how much that would insert government into our lives, and it's not even that new; I didn't just invent the question for the New Pauline Evangelism. (In truth, while I can't find the post right now, I think I might have asked the question about the legal implications of life-at-conception eight years ago. My general point, though, is that nobody has a substantive answer for the conundrum. As such, it seems especially problematic to be claiming libertarianism while prescribing an outcome that puts government squarely inside a woman's uterus.)
Similarly, you'll note that not even those "libertarians" who oppose the Civil Rights Act, or support racist politicians who feel that way, have answers to the implications of what they are suggesting.
Abortion is a fairly obvious controversy, but the question of racism seems fairly apparent. How dare the government take away my right to strip other people of their rights? Just how does that work? ("How dare the government take away my equal right to be legally superior"?)
They don't have an answer because the detail is excruciating. The emotional appeal against the guv'mint takin' 'way yer rights is much more gratifying.
Whoopi.
He's right, it's not any more important than this was.
Obama Spiritual Mentor: God Damn America
Sorry you don't find that satisfactory. Get over it.
Guilt by association is juvenile.
(Lastly, it should be noted that, The New Republic is a CFR supporting publication, so their accusation of Ron Paul claiming;
Anti-Government Paranoia/Conspiracy Theories/Survivalism
A fundraising letter from Paul’s 1984 Senate campaign in which Paul complains about the “minions of Kissinger and Rockefeller” and “the big New York banks, and their pals in Texas” who “want me silenced.”
Is really just biased B.S., since it IS ostensibly and factually true. The proof. . . look at this smear article, duh???!!! Aren't they trying to silence his campaign? :shrug
I never had a problem with the things Jeremiah Wright said, and in any case, it's different to listen to a sermon vs. publish racist and inflammatory newletters under your name. I do think Ron Paul would be bad for civil rights, since he doesn't think it's the government's business to enforce them. He would eliminate all affirmative action and leave things to the states.
Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?
Ultimately, Paul’s following is closely linked with the peculiar attractions of the libertarian creed that he promotes. Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government—its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry—he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name—isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities: First principles of market economics gain credence over all considerations of social empathy and historical acuity. His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.
But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.
But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.
Cows are dumb animals, it's not surprising when they happily lick the hand of the very same Farmer who is leading them to slaughter - I mean, the Farmer's been 'taking care of' said cow with feed grain and a nice little safe pen to live in. Who wouldn't want to lick such a benevolent hand? Toss in a bit of extra cud and you can get some of the cattle to turn on the other cattle. That's a really nifty trick.
I remember my brother when he was leaving prison. He didn't want to go. I went down to see him a few weeks ahead of time to sort of organize his 'home coming' and he said he didn't want to leave. Prison felt 'good', you know, it's scary being on the outside, here everything's taken care of for me. I told him he'd be fine. He was literally scared when he came out. So frightened of 'breaking the law'. It's was pretty sad TTYTT, the point at which a person can be smashed down to. He self-destructed a decade later and is back in prison.
I've said from the onset, most people actually don't really want 'Change We can Believe In'. Most people just want to complain and whine and bitch. But they WANT to live life in their pen. They want a farmer's hand they can lick. The interesting thing is they'll turn on any of the other cows trying to escape. It's also interesting how once in their pen they EXPECT a Farmer to milk them - even demand it.
When the US government borrows money from China, Japan, etc... just WHAT is promised? I mean, when you boil it down, what's backing up those USD peaces of paper? What is it the Chinese et.al. own? What's being promised in return? It's YOU. Your labor and productivity is being promised. What, do you think that the Chinese like giving away they hard won wealth they've squeezed from their penned in herds just for the fun of it? No way. At the end of the day, they want theirs with interest. When the debt is raised another 1.2 Trillion (which it was) it is YOU and your future labor and that of your children's future labor that is being promised as debt on the loan. I hope you like life as fattened cattle in your small pathetic pen - because you're not going anywhere too soon and neither will your children. You happily sold them out for a few more mouthfuls of grain ... licking the Farmers hand must be such a treat for you.
I remember my brother when he was leaving prison. He didn't want to go. I went down to see him a few weeks ahead of time to sort of organize his 'home coming' and he said he didn't want to leave. Prison felt 'good', you know, it's scary being on the outside, here everything's taken care of for me. I told him he'd be fine. He was literally scared when he came out. So frightened of 'breaking the law'. It's was pretty sad TTYTT, the point at which a person can be smashed down to. He self-destructed a decade later and is back in prison.
I've said from the onset, most people actually don't really want 'Change We can Believe In'. Most people just want to complain and whine and bitch. But they WANT to live life in their pen. They want a farmer's hand they can lick. The interesting thing is they'll turn on any of the other cows trying to escape. It's also interesting how once in their pen they EXPECT a Farmer to milk them - even demand it.
When the US government borrows money from China, Japan, etc... just WHAT is promised? I mean, when you boil it down, what's backing up those USD peaces of paper? What is it the Chinese et.al. own? What's being promised in return? It's YOU. Your labor and productivity is being promised. What, do you think that the Chinese like giving away they hard won wealth they've squeezed from their penned in herds just for the fun of it? No way. At the end of the day, they want theirs with interest. When the debt is raised another 1.2 Trillion (which it was) it is YOU and your future labor and that of your children's future labor that is being promised as debt on the loan. I hope you like life as fattened cattle in your small pathetic pen - because you're not going anywhere too soon and neither will your children. You happily sold them out for a few more mouthfuls of grain ... licking the Farmers hand must be such a treat for you.
Last edited:
I didn't see anything in that link about minorities.
The awesome thing about this, is it puts it in a modern context. What if Paul were tweeting these statements now? It would be shocking. Newletters were the twitter of the past.
I know, because then there'd be no issue as Ron Paul never wrote any of the articles
Follow the CNN link (it's a PDF).
My biggest concern with a Ron Paul POTUS is the economic collapse BillyT and others are predicting is inevitable. I do NOT want the collapse to occur on a Libertarian's watch - - as that would set back the cause for freedom from tyranny and individual liberty. However, if a Republican/Democrat is in office, then I also worry about just how many more individual freedom's they will erode? How much more power will be invested in the POTUS? I'm lucky in the sense that I have about four other countries I can move to and good employment while the shit splatters all over the American psyche.
So, that's really my biggest dilemma. It'd probably be best to let the whole house of cards fall on an Obama presidency and look towards forming a new centrist political party based on Libertarianism over the next 10-15 years. But I can't help but hold out some hope that a Paul presidency might actually usher in the much needed change and once the banks go bust and the debt liquified maybe we will steer our way through this storm! We won WWII in <7 years, less time than two terms - which goes to show you what can be accomplished in a short amount of time.
So, that's really my biggest dilemma. It'd probably be best to let the whole house of cards fall on an Obama presidency and look towards forming a new centrist political party based on Libertarianism over the next 10-15 years. But I can't help but hold out some hope that a Paul presidency might actually usher in the much needed change and once the banks go bust and the debt liquified maybe we will steer our way through this storm! We won WWII in <7 years, less time than two terms - which goes to show you what can be accomplished in a short amount of time.
I know, because then there'd be no issue as Ron Paul never wrote any of the articles
Follow the CNN link (it's a PDF).
Let's be clear, Paul has denied writing the offensive articles. But he has yet to name the person who did. Paul has offered no proof that he did not write the offensive articles, only a denial. He has admitted to writing some of the articles in his news letter. Additionally, the articles/letters were published under Ron Paul's name in the first person as if Paul wrote the offensive articles/letters. And finally, Ron Paul owned the newsletter and profited from the publication of the news letter.
Don't tell me you are really this obtuse? So anyone that starts a Ron Paul twitter speaks for the candidate? Anyone that starts an Obama twitter speaks for Obama? Any organization that does work in Obama's name is representative of Obama?
Let us recall when ACORN was all for hiring prostitutes and drug dealers to do Obama's work? Or when Obama's administration was all for selling lots of arms to drug cartels in Mexico to kill Americans??!! How about that?
Stop being so ignorant. Guilt by association is the most ignorant of all fallacies. No candidate can reign in or be responsible for all evil and ignorance of the people which will support them. I just don't think we need to dignify these stupid nit picking accusations. They aren't about issues at all. They don't really speak to his character. Intelligent people that know who Dr. Paul is know this.
People here are acting like he is some sort of Strom Thurmond. Oliver North is a criminal. Does that mean Ronald Reagan was a Criminal?
Face it, you're the one the wants to make it about race, when it isn't about race. Dr. Paul is the same as Dr. King, color blind, and he just wants the law to be the same way. That is his view. If racist groups are salivating and have a personal agenda and personal reasons for supporting him, that is their business. . . But Dr. Paul has stated repeatedly that one several of his heroes are Dr. Kind and Rosa Parks. Do your own research and listen to his interviews. :bugeye:
The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR!?! WTF IS THAT ABOUT??! WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMERICA?! Dr. Ron Paul is the only one with a moral compass left. He's the only one who has denounced this blockade on Iran. When Iran cuts off the straights of Hormuz b/c of this provocation, what do you think is going to happen? He is the only real American left running for office in the great tradition of American Presidents.
Martin Luther King / Ron Paul [Youtube banned this clip]
Operation Mockingbird is making a mockery of the Republic. . . .
Where are the free thinkers?
I want to avoid war and the end of the world, he is the only one who wants to do that. The elites will be safe, my family won't be, will yours?
Yes, I am quite clear on those facts Joe.
Lets also be clear: Ron Paul supported MLK day a decade prior and gets the most support from minorities who really don't give two shits about some letters he didn't write, disavowed and is himself personally disgusted with.
So, now that that's cleared up, lets move on to real topics like the Economy, the Debt, the endless Wars... and getting someone other than pin-dick sellout Ben Bernanke to oversee the Federal Reserve.