Topic: Do you believe that Ron Paul will make a good president in 2012 if he wins?
protip !!pMmAiEwOm started this discussion 15 years ago #11,323
grey !C.MxxuCiTo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #203,505
Not watching the video, but I'd vote for simply because he is against regulation and monitoring of the net. I don't care about anything else he stands for.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,512
I know this thread wasn't meant for serious responses, but fuck it.
I don't agree with Ron Paul on a few major issues, but man I'll still vote for him.I don't even care if he'd fuck up really, I just want to see someone in Washington do more than take away our rights and our moneys. I'm so sick of politics its not even funny.
I don't agree with Ron Paul on a few major issues, but man I'll still vote for him.I don't even care if he'd fuck up really, I just want to see someone in Washington do more than take away our rights and our moneys. I'm so sick of politics its not even funny.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,513
Fuck no. I can't think of a single thing we need less than less governmental regulation of business. Whatever good he'd do socially would be completely and utterly negated by every other shitstorm he'd cause.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,517
Yes.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,521
@203,513 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
The vast majority of regulation is never enforced, or if it is, it never does much good. Regulation at this point (for the most part) is only hurting the little guys.
The vast majority of regulation is never enforced, or if it is, it never does much good. Regulation at this point (for the most part) is only hurting the little guys.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,523
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Then we need a president that will reform/enforce it, not a president that'll throw his arms in the air and say "fuck it all."
Then we need a president that will reform/enforce it, not a president that'll throw his arms in the air and say "fuck it all."
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,528
vote ninjj '12
he just wants four walls and adobe slabs
he just wants four walls and adobe slabs
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,529
@203,523 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
A president is not a one man army bro... The issues are so deep it may actually be better to say fuck it lol. Its really just that bad.
A president is not a one man army bro... The issues are so deep it may actually be better to say fuck it lol. Its really just that bad.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,530
@203,512 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> I know this thread wasn't meant for serious responses, but fuck it.
I am insulted.
> I know this thread wasn't meant for serious responses, but fuck it.
I am insulted.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,534
@203,529 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
The issues are deep, and the political system the United States runs on is archaic, but there's practically no chance of it getting changed in the near future. As far as the 2012 election goes, one less nutcase in the government will be a good thing.
The issues are deep, and the political system the United States runs on is archaic, but there's practically no chance of it getting changed in the near future. As far as the 2012 election goes, one less nutcase in the government will be a good thing.
StatistSocialist3000 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,537
Yes! Ignore statist oppressors who claim to be libertarian (latestdude)
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,539
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,541
@203,534 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
More of the same old shit will only make things worse, or just continue the trend if you will. It really doesn't matter anyway, the Republifucks will never give RP the nomination.
More of the same old shit will only make things worse, or just continue the trend if you will. It really doesn't matter anyway, the Republifucks will never give RP the nomination.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,547
@203,537 (StatistSocialist3000)I am socially libertarian. I am not economically libertarian. On the left are results from a quiz made by "true" libertarians; the percentages count towards how libertarian you are in social and economic issues. Even your own party disagrees with you.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,550
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,563
@203,541 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Oh, sorry. Missed your post. I agree with you fundamentally, but a (sane) Democrat getting in will still do more to help the country than... any Republican running at the moment. It's not an utterly helpless cause. We might even get actual governmental reform if enough progressives get into Congress.
Oh, sorry. Missed your post. I agree with you fundamentally, but a (sane) Democrat getting in will still do more to help the country than... any Republican running at the moment. It's not an utterly helpless cause. We might even get actual governmental reform if enough progressives get into Congress.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #203,583
I've been asked this question before, except about British PMs. I'm never right. :-/
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #203,586
protip !!pMmAiEwOm (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #203,593
@previous (H)
The guy on the left is funny to watch. He goes from a stoic look to holding back a shit-eating grin.
The guy on the left is funny to watch. He goes from a stoic look to holding back a shit-eating grin.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #203,598
> pass law to raise the federal minimum wage> federal reserve pumps out more currency to compensate
> the rich get richer; the poor get poorer
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #203,605
I believe he would be a very unpopular president, and that he would veto pretty much everything and force congress to do pretty much the bare minimum, which would make him even more unpopular, which would force this country through the budget cuts and growing pains that it needs to go through, which will make everyone hate him.
In other words, he would be like the next Ronald Reagan, I love him, and he's exactly what this country needs.
In other words, he would be like the next Ronald Reagan, I love him, and he's exactly what this country needs.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #203,607
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #203,637
protip !!pMmAiEwOm (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #203,639
@previous (H)
Thank you, child. Only few MCers understand correlation and causation as well as Walter.
Thank you, child. Only few MCers understand correlation and causation as well as Walter.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #203,640
I'm voting for Ron Paul for teh lulz.
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #203,923
@203,505 (grey !C.MxxuCiTo)
> Not watching the video, but I'd vote for simply because he is against regulation and monitoring of the net. I don't care about anything else he stands for.
Why are you against regulation? Do you understand what happens? Shit gets abused and people suffer. It's not theory. We know from when things have become de-regulated.
Remember California's energy crisis?
> Not watching the video, but I'd vote for simply because he is against regulation and monitoring of the net. I don't care about anything else he stands for.
Why are you against regulation? Do you understand what happens? Shit gets abused and people suffer. It's not theory. We know from when things have become de-regulated.
Remember California's energy crisis?
Wade Wilson !IOdbnXsKDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #203,964
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,025
@203,547 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Yep, there are reasons that the Libertarian party has been distancing themselves from Ron Paul since the 80s and nominates other candidates each election.
Personally, I think Ron Paul is too libertarian economically and not libertarian enough socially. Going into the presidency with a the radical slate of government reforms that he has proposed probably wouldn't result in much more than problems, stalled democracy, and a crippling of the checks and balances that were written into US government.
I also get the feeling that his grandiose talk and 'also ran' status in past election bids have put the office of president out of his reach, so I don't take the possibility of his election too seriously. He does have some good ideas though, and I would count his voice in Congress as an overall good thing.
Yep, there are reasons that the Libertarian party has been distancing themselves from Ron Paul since the 80s and nominates other candidates each election.
Personally, I think Ron Paul is too libertarian economically and not libertarian enough socially. Going into the presidency with a the radical slate of government reforms that he has proposed probably wouldn't result in much more than problems, stalled democracy, and a crippling of the checks and balances that were written into US government.
I also get the feeling that his grandiose talk and 'also ran' status in past election bids have put the office of president out of his reach, so I don't take the possibility of his election too seriously. He does have some good ideas though, and I would count his voice in Congress as an overall good thing.
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,097
@203,547 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
The concepts of economic and social liberty are arbitrary - there is only liberty. You would restrict liberty via the state: you are not libertarian; you are statist.
The concepts of economic and social liberty are arbitrary - there is only liberty. You would restrict liberty via the state: you are not libertarian; you are statist.
StatistSocialist3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,100
StatistSocialist3000 triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,102
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,106
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,109
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,111
!VoCaLoNunI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,114
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
This is news to us how?
MM, you're a pretty cool guy, but Jesus fuck, think past your political and religious beliefs for once.
This is news to us how?
MM, you're a pretty cool guy, but Jesus fuck, think past your political and religious beliefs for once.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,115
@204,111 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Actually, he brings up a good point. You keep saying you're a "leftist libertarian" or that you're "socially libertarian" but what you should say is that you're "socially liberal" and "economically liberal", which just makes you liberal. Many people, myself and the above poster included, do not believe you can be economically liberal (by American standards, I know economically liberal means different things in different countries) and call yourself a libertarian. I do not believe there is such thing as leftist libertarian. I believe he's correct in saying that the top quadrant of that chart is the only libertarian part of that chart.
Actually, he brings up a good point. You keep saying you're a "leftist libertarian" or that you're "socially libertarian" but what you should say is that you're "socially liberal" and "economically liberal", which just makes you liberal. Many people, myself and the above poster included, do not believe you can be economically liberal (by American standards, I know economically liberal means different things in different countries) and call yourself a libertarian. I do not believe there is such thing as leftist libertarian. I believe he's correct in saying that the top quadrant of that chart is the only libertarian part of that chart.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,119
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It is a test made, and biased towards, libertarians. Seriously. Click around the site for a bit: http://www.theadvocates.org/
It doesn't even measure things on a remotely equal scale. "Disagree" answers are weighed at 0, "maybe" answers at 10 and "agree" answers at 20. Any fair/unbiased test would make it a -10/0/10 split, and not measured by moving towards being Libertarian. All the questions are proposing exclusively libertarian ideals. They're supported by Ron Paul, SS3k/TB3k's apparent idol. They sell his work, for god's sake: http://theadvocates.org/admin/system/images/2010-01/FullwidthAd.jpg
They're to Libertarians as to what the Tea Party is to Conservatives. They could not possibly be more Libertarian than they already are. THEY separate economic libertarianism and social libertarianism. I don't call myself wholly liberal because I don't think "socially liberal" covers my views. Most social liberals don't believe that all drugs should be legalized/regulated/taxed. Likewise, economic libertarians think it should be legal, but don't believe it should be regulated or taxed. That's just one example to illustrate that my views are not covered by one black-and-white label. The makers of the biggest political test on the internet don't think black-and-white views apply: http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
They specifically attack the inadequacies of ranking your beliefs one way. I don't get what people don't understand about the distinction between economic and social politics.
It is a test made, and biased towards, libertarians. Seriously. Click around the site for a bit: http://www.theadvocates.org/
It doesn't even measure things on a remotely equal scale. "Disagree" answers are weighed at 0, "maybe" answers at 10 and "agree" answers at 20. Any fair/unbiased test would make it a -10/0/10 split, and not measured by moving towards being Libertarian. All the questions are proposing exclusively libertarian ideals. They're supported by Ron Paul, SS3k/TB3k's apparent idol. They sell his work, for god's sake: http://theadvocates.org/admin/system/images/2010-01/FullwidthAd.jpg
They're to Libertarians as to what the Tea Party is to Conservatives. They could not possibly be more Libertarian than they already are. THEY separate economic libertarianism and social libertarianism. I don't call myself wholly liberal because I don't think "socially liberal" covers my views. Most social liberals don't believe that all drugs should be legalized/regulated/taxed. Likewise, economic libertarians think it should be legal, but don't believe it should be regulated or taxed. That's just one example to illustrate that my views are not covered by one black-and-white label. The makers of the biggest political test on the internet don't think black-and-white views apply: http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
They specifically attack the inadequacies of ranking your beliefs one way. I don't get what people don't understand about the distinction between economic and social politics.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,121
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I understand that there is a distinction between economic and social liberties, I just don't believe it is a very strong one. It's a blurry line. In my mind, liberties are liberties, and I have just as much a right to open up a business on my property as I do to do whatever I want in my bedroom. I don't make a strong distinction between "social" and "economic" liberties and sometimes whether a libery is more social or economic is just a matter of opinion.
I also don't think it's fair to say that all libertarians want all drugs completely legal, untaxed, and unregulated. Not all libertarians are extremists. Anyone who is socially liberal but economically conservative is a libertarian IMO.
I understand that there is a distinction between economic and social liberties, I just don't believe it is a very strong one. It's a blurry line. In my mind, liberties are liberties, and I have just as much a right to open up a business on my property as I do to do whatever I want in my bedroom. I don't make a strong distinction between "social" and "economic" liberties and sometimes whether a libery is more social or economic is just a matter of opinion.
I also don't think it's fair to say that all libertarians want all drugs completely legal, untaxed, and unregulated. Not all libertarians are extremists. Anyone who is socially liberal but economically conservative is a libertarian IMO.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,127
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> I have just as much a right to open up a business on my property as I do to do whatever I want in my bedroom.
Yes. You do! Hell, if you want to get started in a cheap way, go open up an Amazon store. Report it on your taxes and the government literally could not care less about you. Want to go start a brick-and-mortar store with a somewhat stable chain of command? Go get registered as an LLC for, literally, like, $99 and buy an old building that you could convert into a store. Don't do stupid things to the environment and don't participate in anti-competitive behavior beyond the threshold of the law and you're golden!
> I also don't think it's fair to say that all libertarians want all drugs completely legal, untaxed, and unregulated.
Maybe, but I would find it hard to believe they could logically justify that. Personal liberty is pretty easily defined. Knowing that prohibition is immoral, counterproductive, illiberal and doesn't work is hardly "extremist" behavior.
> I don't make a strong distinction between "social" and "economic" liberties and sometimes whether a libery is more social or economic is just a matter of opinion.
Not... really. Again, they're pretty well-defined in terms of the law.
> I have just as much a right to open up a business on my property as I do to do whatever I want in my bedroom.
Yes. You do! Hell, if you want to get started in a cheap way, go open up an Amazon store. Report it on your taxes and the government literally could not care less about you. Want to go start a brick-and-mortar store with a somewhat stable chain of command? Go get registered as an LLC for, literally, like, $99 and buy an old building that you could convert into a store. Don't do stupid things to the environment and don't participate in anti-competitive behavior beyond the threshold of the law and you're golden!
> I also don't think it's fair to say that all libertarians want all drugs completely legal, untaxed, and unregulated.
Maybe, but I would find it hard to believe they could logically justify that. Personal liberty is pretty easily defined. Knowing that prohibition is immoral, counterproductive, illiberal and doesn't work is hardly "extremist" behavior.
> I don't make a strong distinction between "social" and "economic" liberties and sometimes whether a libery is more social or economic is just a matter of opinion.
Not... really. Again, they're pretty well-defined in terms of the law.
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,128
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,709
StatistSocialist3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,712
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,714
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,716
@204,709 (StatistSocialist3000)
I think I trust one of the US's biggest Libertarian organizations over... you.
It isn't even so much that you steadfastly refuse to see that you're wrong on the separation of economic and social politics; it's that you seem to literally believe that there are exactly two political beliefs that apply to everyone. You're a Libertarian or a Statist. Case closed.
I think I trust one of the US's biggest Libertarian organizations over... you.
It isn't even so much that you steadfastly refuse to see that you're wrong on the separation of economic and social politics; it's that you seem to literally believe that there are exactly two political beliefs that apply to everyone. You're a Libertarian or a Statist. Case closed.
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,721
@204,119 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> It is a test made, and biased towards, libertarians. Seriously. Click around the site for a bit: http://www.theadvocates.org/
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
> It doesn't even measure things on a remotely equal scale. "Disagree" answers are weighed at 0, "maybe" answers at 10 and "agree" answers at 20. Any fair/unbiased test would make it a -10/0/10 split, and not measured by moving towards being Libertarian. All the questions are proposing exclusively libertarian ideals. They're supported by Ron Paul, SS3k/TB3k's apparent idol. They sell his work, for god's sake: http://theadvocates.org/admin/system/images/2010-01/FullwidthAd.jpg
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
> They're to Libertarians as to what the Tea Party is to Conservatives. They could not possibly be more Libertarian than they already are. THEY separate economic libertarianism and social libertarianism. I don't call myself wholly liberal because I don't think "socially liberal" covers my views. Most social liberals don't believe that all drugs should be legalized/regulated/taxed. Likewise, economic libertarians think it should be legal, but don't believe it should be regulated or taxed. That's just one example to illustrate that my views are not covered by one black-and-white label. The makers of the biggest political test on the internet don't think black-and-white views apply: http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
> They specifically attack the inadequacies of ranking your beliefs one way.
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
Almost your entire post advances no logical points, but rests on an appeal to authority: "person x said this, so you're wrong."
> I don't get what people don't understand about the distinction between economic and social politics.
The distinction is arbitrary. There is no real, natural, fundamental, substantial, intrinsic distinction between "economic liberty" and "social liberty".
> It is a test made, and biased towards, libertarians. Seriously. Click around the site for a bit: http://www.theadvocates.org/
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
> It doesn't even measure things on a remotely equal scale. "Disagree" answers are weighed at 0, "maybe" answers at 10 and "agree" answers at 20. Any fair/unbiased test would make it a -10/0/10 split, and not measured by moving towards being Libertarian. All the questions are proposing exclusively libertarian ideals. They're supported by Ron Paul, SS3k/TB3k's apparent idol. They sell his work, for god's sake: http://theadvocates.org/admin/system/images/2010-01/FullwidthAd.jpg
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
> They're to Libertarians as to what the Tea Party is to Conservatives. They could not possibly be more Libertarian than they already are. THEY separate economic libertarianism and social libertarianism. I don't call myself wholly liberal because I don't think "socially liberal" covers my views. Most social liberals don't believe that all drugs should be legalized/regulated/taxed. Likewise, economic libertarians think it should be legal, but don't believe it should be regulated or taxed. That's just one example to illustrate that my views are not covered by one black-and-white label. The makers of the biggest political test on the internet don't think black-and-white views apply: http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
> They specifically attack the inadequacies of ranking your beliefs one way.
Cool. So what? What does this statement prove? What are you trying to say?
Almost your entire post advances no logical points, but rests on an appeal to authority: "person x said this, so you're wrong."
> I don't get what people don't understand about the distinction between economic and social politics.
The distinction is arbitrary. There is no real, natural, fundamental, substantial, intrinsic distinction between "economic liberty" and "social liberty".
StatistSocialist3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,726
@204,121 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Only in USA does one have to be socially "liberal" yet economically "conservative" to have a consistent political philosophy - an exampleof how twisted much of mainstream thought has become.
Only in USA does one have to be socially "liberal" yet economically "conservative" to have a consistent political philosophy - an exampleof how twisted much of mainstream thought has become.
StatistSocialist3000 triple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,734
@204,127 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> Not... really. Again, they're pretty well-defined in terms of the law.
Yes, really. There is not a "clear distinction", resulting from a comprehensive, consistent philosophy: instead there is a mess of contradictory and inconsistent, arbitrary, isolated rules.
> Not... really. Again, they're pretty well-defined in terms of the law.
Yes, really. There is not a "clear distinction", resulting from a comprehensive, consistent philosophy: instead there is a mess of contradictory and inconsistent, arbitrary, isolated rules.
StatistSocialist3000 quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,745
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,753
@previous (StatistSocialist3000)
> LatestTroll
I can taste the irony. I just love how you've made ad hominem one of your pet terms, but you consistently fail to see how often you engage in well poisoning yourself.
> LatestTroll
I can taste the irony. I just love how you've made ad hominem one of your pet terms, but you consistently fail to see how often you engage in well poisoning yourself.
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,763
@204,716 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> I think I trust one of the US's biggest Libertarian organizations over... you.
Cool appeal to authority bro! You don't have to "trust" us - we are putting our arguments forward for you to examine. No "trust" is needed.
> It isn't even so much that you steadfastly refuse to see that you're wrong on the separation of economic and social politics
lol because you have totally demonstrated this LOL
> it's that you seem to literally believe that there are exactly two political beliefs that apply to everyone. You're a Libertarian or a Statist. Case closed.
ah ok. It seems we get to the heart of the matter. There are infinite political beliefs. These can, however, be categorized as belong to two main groups (I am not saying this is the only way the could be categorized, although I believe it is the most important categorization one can make): statist and libertarian. Statists wish to use the state to achieve their ethic, national, racial, religious, philosophic, economic, artistic &c. goals; libertarians wish to let individuals decide their own goals and work to achieve them.
You are a statist. You wish to use the state to achieve your economic goals, namely: confiscation and reallocation of private property, and prohibition of consensual private contract.
> I think I trust one of the US's biggest Libertarian organizations over... you.
Cool appeal to authority bro! You don't have to "trust" us - we are putting our arguments forward for you to examine. No "trust" is needed.
> It isn't even so much that you steadfastly refuse to see that you're wrong on the separation of economic and social politics
lol because you have totally demonstrated this LOL
> it's that you seem to literally believe that there are exactly two political beliefs that apply to everyone. You're a Libertarian or a Statist. Case closed.
ah ok. It seems we get to the heart of the matter. There are infinite political beliefs. These can, however, be categorized as belong to two main groups (I am not saying this is the only way the could be categorized, although I believe it is the most important categorization one can make): statist and libertarian. Statists wish to use the state to achieve their ethic, national, racial, religious, philosophic, economic, artistic &c. goals; libertarians wish to let individuals decide their own goals and work to achieve them.
You are a statist. You wish to use the state to achieve your economic goals, namely: confiscation and reallocation of private property, and prohibition of consensual private contract.
StatistSocialist3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,765
@204,753 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
its a joke lol... I don't hate you. I'm not mad at you. The funny bit is that you are are serious in this post.
:D
its a joke lol... I don't hate you. I'm not mad at you. The funny bit is that you are are serious in this post.
:D
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,925
> Click on thread
> wade through post after post of MM schtick
> can't find any real discussion
> leave thread
> wade through post after post of MM schtick
> can't find any real discussion
> leave thread
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,926
@previous (N)
Would you like to present your own opinion? I'd like to have a discussion about this with someone who can string together two coherent sentences.
Would you like to present your own opinion? I'd like to have a discussion about this with someone who can string together two coherent sentences.
RiverMutt !Mex505FZAw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,932
Ron Paul would be a fine president. It's not like the economy can get much worse if it's further deregulated.
I like his social policies, and think that a libertarian president who would run the country like a business would be alright.
Obama turned out to be totally full of shit, and I'm voting third party next year, unless Ron Paul or Gary Johnson gets nominated, or unless Bachmann or Perry gets nominated, in which case I'll vote for Obama.
TBH I think Romney will get the nomination. I'm okay with his fiscal policies, but hate his social policies. I don't think we'll be any worse off if Romney is elected over Obama, though. Obama has been the biggest disappointment ever, because he hasn't kept a single promise that he made during his campaign.
This pisses me off so much because I fervently supported him. I went to his rallies, I bombed stencils of his face everywhere, and I donated to his campaign. He turned out to be totally full of shit, so fuck him.
I like his social policies, and think that a libertarian president who would run the country like a business would be alright.
Obama turned out to be totally full of shit, and I'm voting third party next year, unless Ron Paul or Gary Johnson gets nominated, or unless Bachmann or Perry gets nominated, in which case I'll vote for Obama.
TBH I think Romney will get the nomination. I'm okay with his fiscal policies, but hate his social policies. I don't think we'll be any worse off if Romney is elected over Obama, though. Obama has been the biggest disappointment ever, because he hasn't kept a single promise that he made during his campaign.
This pisses me off so much because I fervently supported him. I went to his rallies, I bombed stencils of his face everywhere, and I donated to his campaign. He turned out to be totally full of shit, so fuck him.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,939
RiverMutt !Mex505FZAw replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,946
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Listen, I'm not bashing Obama, but he has compromised on every issue he vowed to take a firm stance on, and that isn't cool in my book. I'm not saying he is a bad president, but he has failed to keep most of his campaign promises, and has caved to the GOP far too many times. That is not cool in my book.
Listen, I'm not bashing Obama, but he has compromised on every issue he vowed to take a firm stance on, and that isn't cool in my book. I'm not saying he is a bad president, but he has failed to keep most of his campaign promises, and has caved to the GOP far too many times. That is not cool in my book.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,947
@204,926 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I've already chimed in on this thread. I don't think he's electable, and if he were elected, I think a lot of his stated goals aren't politically realistic. Some of what he says has merit, but I think he is better suited to being a voice among the legislature rather than head of the executive branch.
I've already chimed in on this thread. I don't think he's electable, and if he were elected, I think a lot of his stated goals aren't politically realistic. Some of what he says has merit, but I think he is better suited to being a voice among the legislature rather than head of the executive branch.
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #204,998
@204,925 (N)
> dismisses my posts as shtick after seriously claiming that Libertarian Party would support a Republican Party member for President if they agreed with him
you can't say stupid things like that and then expect to get taken seriously
> dismisses my posts as shtick after seriously claiming that Libertarian Party would support a Republican Party member for President if they agreed with him
you can't say stupid things like that and then expect to get taken seriously