1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

FOR LIBERTY - Ron Paul 2012

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cryptic_Snow, Nov 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CELTICEMPIRE

    CELTICEMPIRE Zulu Conqueror

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,393
    Location:
    Eastern Kentucky
    The only way that those things would be anti-liberty is if you change the definition of Liberty to "get to do whatever you want even at the expense of others"
     
  2. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,727
    Location:
    Scotland
    In what sense is gay people being gay "at the expense of others"? And, more to the point, in what sense is you demanding that they not be gay because you personally find it distasteful not "at the expense of others"?
     
  3. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,053
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    I could grant you that on the abortion issue, but gay marriage? How's that liberty at the expense of others?

    I'm eagerly awaiting for you to twist the meaning of liberty to justify your preconceived moral opinions. I guess it involves the hurt feelings of some evangelical christians or whatever :rolleyes:
     
  4. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,355
    Location:
    US of A

    He's using government to strip people of freedom and liberty for no reason other than the fact that he refuses to allow them freedom and liberty.
     
  5. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    19,101
    I like freedom and liberty too much to vote for Ron Paul.
    Plus, I've never met a single Ron Paul supporter who I like (this is before I learned they had drank the Cool-Aid).
     
  6. CELTICEMPIRE

    CELTICEMPIRE Zulu Conqueror

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,393
    Location:
    Eastern Kentucky
    Marriage is as old as any institution, and it has always been between a man and a woman, the government should not have to recognize a new form of "marriage"

    here is a great article on the damaging effects of gay "marriage"

    http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php?articlenum=16
     
  7. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    19,101
    And also between a man and a kitchen condiment.
     
  8. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    Great article? Jesus Christ on a bike. Scaremongering and hate filled bollocks is how I would describe it.
     
  9. Lord of Elves

    Lord of Elves Suede-Denim Secret Police

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    6,922
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    right behind u ;)
    After all, no one knows more about the sanctity of marriage than WASPS.
     
  10. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
  11. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,727
    Location:
    Scotland
    In my time on this forum, I have learned that there are three essential forms of libertarianism. First, there is individualist libertarianism, in which liberty is understood as a personal sphere, extending up to the borders of the neighbouring spheres; "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins". Second, there is social libertarianism, in which individual liberty is understood as consisting in a generalised, cooperative liberty; "The free development of each is the condition for the freedom development of all". Then there is capital-L Libertarianism, in which liberty is understood as consisting in forms of domination and oppression which benefit the dominant elements of society; "The Civil Rights Act of 1964... was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society".

    The first quote is from Zechariah Chafee, the second from Karl Marx. The origin of the third is, I would expect, rather obvious by this point.
     
  12. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,975
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
  13. Atlas14

    Atlas14 "Sophomoric Troll Master"

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Location:
    Maryland
    So far the negatives of Ron Paul that I have gathered from this thread:

    1. Misplaced blame of economic crisis. Obviously a major flaw, and not a good sign for his economic views as a whole if he is unwilling to hold corporations accountable. Yet, still not something that by itself I would stop considering voting for Paul.
    2. May or may not be racist. If he truly is, this is definitely a big issue. As it stands, we have a few posters that will swear by it and produce a few Ron Paul quotes whose validity is somewhere between "completely bogus", "shady but believeable", and "maybe partly true".

    Feel free to add to this list, but this is what I have found to be truly significant in my book.

    Positive:

    1. Best foreign policy beliefs from any politician ever. There is no way you can convince me otherwise. Bottomline is that Paul is spot on with his assessment of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is the only politician I know of to have any understanding of WHY WE ARE BEING ATTACKED, and why other nations can possibly dislike us. He isn't afraid to point out the completely obvious link between "defense" (war) spending and budget issues. He is the only candidate that publicly approaches foreign policy from a moral standpoint. Don't even bother trying to argue this point unless you have evidence of Paul having hypocritical (conflicting) views.

    2. Honest. I realize many of you have attempted to mock this point, trivialize this point, disagree with it, or even point out instances of Paul not being honest. Bottomline is, you know Paul is the most honest candidate, whether he is accurate/completely logical on every stance or not is another issue. NOBODY is voting for him entirely BECAUSE he is honest, but use your little brain...I know every single one of you would rather vote for someone who you know is not going to intentionally say what you want to hear, intentionally deceive you, give you pretty speeches that make you feel good inside for a few days, etc.

    3. Social libertarian. Yes we all know about his stance on LGBT and abortion yadda yadda yadda. Inconsistency is huge, don't get me wrong, regardless of your stance on these issues. I completely disagree with Paul's stance on handling these issues, but in the big scheme of things they really are not dealbreakers to me. It is not as if any other candidate will make swift changes to these inequalities. The positive aspects of Paul's social libertarian views far outweigh his frustrating inconsistencies.

    I realize this is the Ron Paul thread, but please reply to this post with a detailed explanation of a more qualified candidate.
     
  14. Crezth

    Crezth 話說天下大勢分久必合合久必分

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,419
    Location:
    北京皇城
    This is a great post. :goodjob:

    I really hope you realize that 3 is a self-defeating bullet-point moreorless by your own admission, unless you define social libertarian as placing the rights of states above the rights of individuals. I could not feel good voting for a candidate who will happily leave me to the mercy of the majority, even if that majority happens to be a microcosm of the whole localized to my state and/or jurisdiction.

    Trumpeting the rights of states to trample on the rights of their citizens is a major attack on some of the fundamental principles of liberty (that is: protecting the rights of the few against the whims of the many) and the hypocrisy inherent in this thought process, while subtle, is not awfully convincing of Paul's supposed love of liberty.

    Point 2, while definitely a good point, shouldn't really make up for having a trash economic policy. Anybody who thinks that fiat currency is not economically sound and would throw it out for gold-backed currency should not be in charge of a nation.

    I'll give you Point 1 (well... mostly. It reeks of the kind of isolationist mentality that would probably look at, say, Nazi Germany and go "not our problem"). It probably isn't a great idea to universally withdraw from everywhere, though.

    Here's a webpage that presents an issue which I believe to be a flaw in your reasoning. Do you also support polygamy because it's an "ancient" institution? What about slavery?
     
  15. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Hey, you stole my post!
     
  16. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,053
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    You have just proven that you don't care about liberty if it gets in the way of your twisted understanding of morality. So you're simply a run-of-the-mill social conservative Republican who likes to call himself Libertarian because all the cool kids are doing it.

    Haha, that's great :D
     
  17. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,304
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    Of course I seem to recall we had a long discussion on fiftychat about the nature of freedom. You entered this current debate saying freedom is only how you define it, and then demand everyone who argues against you accept your definition as the starting position.

    Most of us recognize maximal freedom as the ideal cross point between freedom from constraints by force and freedom from constraints by necessity, whereas you only accept freedom from constraint by force.
     
  18. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,727
    Location:
    Scotland
    Given that these criticisms are pretty much the same as those which the left has been offering for decades, don't you think it's mildly hyperbolic to present them as some sort of innovation on his part?
     
  19. Ice_Tyrant

    Ice_Tyrant Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    Kentucky
    I do like Ron Paul. He's Honest. I do agree with him on a few things. I have more respect for him than most politicians, but I just disagree with him on to much.

    And yes, seems like that in my experience Ron Paul supporters can be very obnoxious. Mainly just in that the ones I do know never shut up about how great Ron Paul is.
     
  20. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,355
    Location:
    US of A

    Not even that. Only freedom from constraints on government force. Private force is fine.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page