Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Trotskyites, the lot of them. It's why the Republican party is in such bad shape nowadays.

Lol at showing a picture of Karl Marx when Trotsky is mentioned.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of a neocon trotskyist. They want to promote capitalism throughout the world in order to ignite the revolution?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol at showing a picture of Karl Marx when Trotsky is mentioned.

He was a Marxist, just not a Stalinist.

Remember Trotsky? He's back! In pog form, err, I mean, as right-wing insult for everyone that disagrees with them.

Brainy Smurf was a depiction of Trotsky, back when the Smurfs were a pro-communist cartoon made to indoctrinate American children into the joys of Communism.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/BrainySmurf.jpg

Soviet
Men
Under
Red
Father.

Basically, a bunch of Trostkyites moved over to the right in the '80s because they were pissed at Stalin. They put on a veneer of conservative thought (free market capitalism, limited government, etc.) but support all forms of state intervention in the market (subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare), a large government (military-industrial complex, Patriot Act, Drug War, War on Terror), and the welfare state (Medicare, Social Security).

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, a bunch of Trostkyites moved over to the right in the '80s because they were pissed at Stalin. They put on a veneer of conservative thought (free market capitalism, limited government, etc.) but support all forms of state intervention in the market (subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare), a large government (military-industrial complex, Patriot Act, Drug War, War on Terror), and the welfare state (Medicare, Social Security).

Have you ever noticed that no matter what the topic is your conclusions always boil down to "there's a secret Jewish conspiracy"?

I don't know, man, to be honest good old fashioned corruption seems to occam's razor the shit out of the Trotskyite conspiracy theory....

It's...it's not a conspiracy. It literally happened. You can literally read about it on this whole "Wikipedia" thing.

zeal... using wiki as a reference?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, a bunch of Trostkyites moved over to the right in the '80s because they were pissed at Stalin. They put on a veneer of conservative thought (free market capitalism, limited government, etc.) but support all forms of state intervention in the market (subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare), a large government (military-industrial complex, Patriot Act, Drug War, War on Terror), and the welfare state (Medicare, Social Security).
Medicare and Social Security predate the '80s, so, what kind of sense does that make? Stalin was not even alive in the eighties. You are all messed up.

I realize you're a leftist, but try to keep up.

1. Republicans support Medicare/Social Security. Both programs met strong conservative oppositions (and rightly so). As Trotskyites are comfortable with a welfare state, they are comfortable with Medicare/Social Security.

2. Stalinism. Trotskyites disagreed with it and got pissed at the USSR.

You sound like a Republican. For shame.

Originally posted by inimalist
zeal... using wiki as a reference?
Why? What's wrong with Wikipedia?

It's not exactly accurate, but it is the most accurate online encyclopedia.

If you have any doubts with the information given by Wikipedia, you can always try to trace the references used, or edit the article itself.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It's...it's not a conspiracy. It literally happened. You can literally read about it on this whole "Wikipedia" thing.

I can, and what it says there is that there's a conspiracy theory that it happened, not evidence. Just that three guys Michael Lind, Alan Wald and Bill King allege it at times.

Again, I feel like the logical inconsistencies in Neoconservative work and speech can be much better explained by them having absolutely no convictions and just being corrupt politicians (bought by corporations, still having to please enough people to get voted in).

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Why? What's wrong with Wikipedia?

It's not exactly accurate, but it is the most accurate online encyclopedia.

If you have any doubts with the information given by Wikipedia, you can always try to trace the references used, or edit the article itself.

face-in-palm

Originally posted by inimalist
face-in-palm

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aWflL2jDpWU/ScmtkOpvLCI/AAAAAAAAE3E/WtXAi2g1_ZU/s800/totemtree.jpg

?

shockingly accurate....

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I realize you're a leftist, but try to keep up.

1. Republicans support Medicare/Social Security. Both programs met strong conservative oppositions (and rightly so). As Trotskyites are comfortable with a welfare state, they are comfortable with Medicare/Social Security.

2. Stalinism. Trotskyites disagreed with it and got pissed at the USSR.
And both of those were in force long before the 80s. What do the 80s have to do with any of that? Destalinization policies had already been enacted by the 1980s in the USSR. You can not even get your dates right and you are ironically telling me to "keep up".

Let's start with some excerpts.

These were all the marks of leftism. A large government imposing egalitarian policies onto the nation. Whereas conservatives rightfully saw a the federal government intruding into the matters that belonged in the hands of the individual states, the neoconservatives and liberals were perfectly content to quash dissent in favor of their "progressive" policies.

Kirkpatrick, a socialist, turned to the right as part of a campaign against communism. She served in the Reagan administration.



Strauss, a Jewish intellectual, critiqued the New Left as devoid of morality and substance (all true). His writings influenced neoconservatives like Kristol, and we can see these threads today as the neoconservatives wield unprecedented power. The concept of the "axis of evil" in which the Enemy is defined as irredeemably evil plays on this sort of moral reasoning. If the Enemy is evil, is it inherently good to destroy him or change him to goodness. Saddam Huissein, for instance, was an evil man; ergo, it was the moral obligation of a just nation to eliminate him from the world.

We can see this in the Republican party today. They are critical of the welfare state, but they are unwilling to meaningfully change the major welfare programs of Medicare and Social Security. In that, they support the tenants of leftism that brought about such disastrous programs.

You mean that a magazine devoted to liberal causes became a voice for anti-communism? LOL CONSPIRACY.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Trotskyites, the lot of them. It's why the Republican party is in such bad shape nowadays.

excellent video.Theres ole slick willie clinton buddying around with his pal Bush and Obama chumming up with them like the buddies they all are.Love that piece of Bush lighting a flame to the constitution.Him,Obozo and slick willie,none of them believe in it.

V9wzuvdLpFY

we are screwed if Paul does not get in.He is the only one that believes in the constituion.all the others are here to serve wall street and the establishment.Even man of the idiot blacks in chicago have come out and admitted they made a mistake in voting for Obama.They are seeing the obvious that he is here only to serve wall street and has lied about everything he said he would do once he got into office.Its only the die hard blacks who want a black man in office who still want him in.everywhere I go that I see these Obama 2012 stickers on cars,its always a black person driving that car.things will never change if Paul doesnt get in.

You're such a tool.

Tool comments about blacks indeed but hes right about the paul part stoned

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You're such a tool. He is right about ron paul being the only person who believes in the constitution , thoses other guys dont give a shit.

believes in a document that considers blacks to be worth less than whites, allows slavery and doesn't mandate that women should vote...

man, what a wonderful document

Originally posted by inimalist
believes in a document that considers blacks to be worth less than whites, allows slavery and doesn't mandate that women should vote...

man, what a wonderful document

I bet you don't like the Magnacarta. You know, freedom for all men, as long as you are a land owner.

These kind of documents have become more then they were in the beginning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I bet you don't like the Magnacarta. You know, freedom for all men, as long as you are a land owner.

These kind of documents have become more then they were in the beginning.

I'm just not interested in the religification of the documents.

Sure, there are good things in the constitution, but they are good on their own merits, not because they are part of some document. The idea that a constitution written over 200 years in the past would still be a relevant document to base all government practice on is delusional. Ours is, what, 40 years old? and it already is out of date on a few issues.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm just not interested in the religification of the documents.

Sure, there are good things in the constitution, but they are good on their own merits, not because they are part of some document. The idea that a constitution written over 200 years in the past would still be a relevant document to base all government practice on is delusional. Ours is, what, 40 years old? and it already is out of date on a few issues.

I would argue that the Canadian Constitution is not mature.

You must keep in mind that the Constitution of the US does not stand alone. There are also the bill of rights and the amendments. The US Constitution is not stagnant.

Simple sound bites from politicians are not good enough information to base a opinion about the US Constitution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would argue that the Canadian Constitution is not mature.

You must keep in mind that the Constitution of the US does not stand alone. There are also the bill of rights and the amendments. The US Constitution is not stagnant.

Simple sound bites from politicians are not good enough information to base a opinion about the US Constitution.

there is a difference to looking at amending the document and worshiping it the way some on the right seem to

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a difference to looking at amending the document and worshiping it the way some on the right seem to

Some people are stupid. This basic idea is not restricted to political sides.

I didnt claim it was, the idiot leftists who clamour for Paul because they want a strict constitutional interpretation are equally misguided. I don't think you could argue that this rhetoric isn't more common on the right however, the tea party has people dress up in cos play of Jefferson and washington

Originally posted by inimalist
I didnt claim it was, the idiot leftists who clamour for Paul because they think returning to a strict constitutional interpretation are equally misguided. I don't think you could argue that this rhetoric isn't more common on the right however, the tea party has people dress up in cos play of Jefferson and washington

I think that some of that is reactionary.

However, how many people believe that Washington could not tell a lie. The truth, he was a master at deception.

Originally posted by inimalist
believes in a document that considers blacks to be worth less than whites, allows slavery and doesn't mandate that women should vote...

man, what a wonderful document

Amendment 16 should be repealed

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think that some of that is reactionary.

However, how many people believe that Washington could not tell a lie. The truth, he was a master at deception.

sure, it may be, you still have elected representatives from that group saying things like "we need to return to the magna carta!", though they have no idea what information is contained in the document, they just know it is a "foundation of western society" and want to seem the most extreme in "going back"

whatever motivates it, it still is a lunatic position.

Originally posted by Mairuzu


no, I can totally see its appeal

you see some value in devoting oneself to an unchanging religious text?

Whats wrong with the amendments?



edit: You're aware of those right?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm just not interested in the religification of the documents.

Sure, there are good things in the constitution, but they are good on their own merits, not because they are part of some document. The idea that a constitution written over 200 years in the past would still be a relevant document to base all government practice on is delusional. Ours is, what, 40 years old? and it already is out of date on a few issues.
I hear you, but we're Americans, we equivocate Americanness with goodness all day long.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Whats wrong with the amendments?



edit: You're aware of those right?

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a difference to looking at amending the document and worshiping it the way some on the right seem to

I'm going to clarify my position a little here. My point isn't that there are no good things in the constitution, but as I said above, these are good independent of the fact they are in the constitution. The constitution has many bad ideas in it too, or failed to express ideas we all essentially take for granted today. That it can be amended is almost my point. Policy needs to be set based on what is pragmatic, and thus, there are ways to change what is contained in the constitution such that it comes in line with, again, what are good ideas independently of the fact they are now included in the constitutional document.

In fact, this idea makes the appeal to the constitution essentially moot. Policy and positions need to be good independently of their inclusion in the constitution, and if they are at odds with what is contained there, the constitution is changed.

The constitution works very well at preserving rights so that citizens can use the judicial branch of government to oppose violations by the state, I don't see any benefit to the whole "constitution" meme that is going around right now. Like, I get the appeal of Paul on a civil rights or certain things about the economy, but this is because he has ideas that I think are good, which is the way it should be. Not because he follows some document that we change when we figure stuff out better anyways.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see any benefit to the whole "constitution" meme that is going around right now.

That isn't a new phenomena. It has been raging for ...almost 200 years. The first big fights over "stick to the constitution" were had between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Since then, arguments have abounded in spades. The first significant "stick to the constitution" argument heard by the Supreme Court was Chisholm v. Georgia. Someone (I forget the family name...but it wasn't Chisholm) was trying to sue the state for money spent on the American Revolutionary War. It was article 3*, iirc, that the SC justices used in their ruling on the case in favor of "Chisholm" (the plaintiff). The backlash of this "stick to the constitution" was the 11th amendment.



The problem is obviously things like "White, Land Owning, Males are the voters". Constitutionalists/Strict Constructionists have been around for ages since the beginning and in spades. I cannot remember a single election, since the 1988 when George Bush won, that did not have some sort of "appeal to the constitution". My parents say that Reagan pushed it when he ran. My grandparents say Nixon pushed it when he ran.



*Looked it up and I was right. It is Article 3, section 2:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html



Originally posted by inimalist
Like, I get the appeal of Paul on a civil rights or certain things about the economy, but this is because he has ideas that I think are good, which is the way it should be. Not because he follows some document that we change when we figure stuff out better anyways.

But some of his ideas are good BECAUSE they come from that constitution he practically "bible thumps". We have gotten carried away with interpreting the law: "Original Intent" my *ss. He also wants to repeal a couple (or more?) amendments.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm going to clarify my position a little here. My point isn't that there are no good things in the constitution, but as I said above, these are good independent of the fact they are in the constitution. The constitution has many bad ideas in it too, or failed to express ideas we all essentially take for granted today. That it can be amended is almost my point. Policy needs to be set based on what is pragmatic, and thus, there are ways to change what is contained in the constitution such that it comes in line with, again, what are good ideas independently of the fact they are now included in the constitutional document.

In fact, this idea makes the appeal to the constitution essentially moot. Policy and positions need to be good independently of their inclusion in the constitution, and if they are at odds with what is contained there, the constitution is changed.

The constitution works very well at preserving rights so that citizens can use the judicial branch of government to oppose violations by the state, I don't see any benefit to the whole "constitution" meme that is going around right now. Like, I get the appeal of Paul on a civil rights or certain things about the economy, but this is because he has ideas that I think are good, which is the way it should be. Not because he follows some document that we change when we figure stuff out better anyways.

I hope you are not saying that the concept of constitution is of no value. I for one do not want anarchy. We must agree, and then hold that agreement up high. Just because we write it on paper, and then hold that paper up high, does not mean we have fallen in love with the paper.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hope you are not saying that the concept of constitution is of no value. I for one do not want anarchy. We must agree, and then hold that agreement up high. Just because we write it on paper, and then hold that paper up high, does not mean we have fallen in love with the paper.
I agree with ini, the Constitution is nothing more than a historically important piece of paper that outlines the basic ideas of our modern system of government.

What do you mean by "hold it up high"? Because it sounds like you're making a semantic argument to me.

And what's this anarchy BS?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I agree with ini, the Constitution is nothing more than a historically important piece of paper that outlines the basic ideas of our modern system of government.

What do you mean by "hold it up high"? Because it sounds like you're making a semantic argument to me.

And what's this anarchy BS?

Respect it, or honor it, or ...

It may not be important to you, but I think it is important to society, as an American.

I think what inimalistis is implying is that people worship it, and no one is doing that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Respect it, or honor it, or ...

It may not be important to you, but I think it is important to society, as an American.

I think what inimalistis is implying is that people worship it, and no one is doing that.
I would disagree.

You don't need to suppose something has magical powers to worship it. Just show inordinate devotion to it. Which is what Constitutionalists do

And back to the anarchy thing. Substantiate that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But some of his ideas are good BECAUSE they come from that constitution

That's an absolutely horrifying mentality and it's a large part of the reason why I don't vote for Ron Paul and am completely opposed to the American Libertarian movement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an absolutely horrifying mentality



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
and it's a large part of the reason why I don't vote for Ron Paul and am completely opposed to the American Libertarian movement.

What is truly horrifying is you have the right to vote*. Luckily, it doesn't mean anything.


*I can assume you're all for suppressing the rights of women, homosexuals, and minorities if you're completely opposed to the "American" libertarian movement.

Originally posted by dadudemon




What is truly horrifying is you have the right to vote*. Luckily, it doesn't mean anything.


*I can assume you're all for suppressing the rights of women, homosexuals, and minorities if you're completely opposed to the "American" libertarian movement.
I hate to Godwin this but...

...I can understand you're against roads and fixing the economy if you're completely opposed to the National Socialist movement.

there, Godwined.

I don't think he's against all the principles that Libertarians at least sometimes advocate (I've known Libertarians who really only advocate these things on principle but personally don't give a damn, which I don't see as a good thing because I'm Aristotelian in that way) just against the movement as a whole.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would disagree.

You don't need to suppose something has magical powers to worship it. Just show inordinate devotion to it. Which is what Constitutionalists do

And back to the anarchy thing. Substantiate that.

No one is showing inordinate devotion.

Substantiate what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one is showing inordinate devotion.

Substantiate what?
That not "holding high" the Constitution leads to anarchy.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That not "holding high" the Constitution leads to anarchy.

Anarchy is the back drop. If we do not agree, or we do not honer our agreement, then that layer of society vanishes. It's not that society is replaced by anarchy, but anarchy is always there. Society is what lifts us out of that, and society is based on the agreements that we honer.

I have a gut feeling that you don't understand when people like Ron Paul talk about the Constitution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anarchy is the back drop. If we do not agree, or we do not honer our agreement, then that layer of society vanishes. It's not that society is replaced by anarchy, but anarchy is always there. Society is what lifts us out of that, and society is based on the agreements that we honer.

I have a gut feeling that you don't understand when people like Ron Paul talk about the Constitution.
So essentially a social contract isn't enough, we need to have a sacred piece of paper.

I have a gut feeling you don't understand a lot of things.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So essentially a social contract isn't enough, we need to have a sacred piece of paper...

So, you are still focused on the paper? Now I see why you don't get it. It is the agreement. Paper has nothing to do with it. I said that earlier... but maybe you didn't read it.

The constitution is the social contract.

So, let me make this clear; when people say we should return to the constitution, they are not saying we should go back to a piece of paper. What they are saying is we need to return to the original social agreement.

It is commits like above that reinforce my belief that you don't understand. Perhaps you don't want to understand. I guess that is ok.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you are still focused on the paper? Now I see why you don't get it. It is the agreement. Paper has nothing to do with it. I said that earlier... but maybe you didn't read it.

The constitution is the social contract.

So, let me make this clear; when people say we should return to the constitution, they are not saying we should go back to a piece of paper. What they are saying is we need to return to the original social agreement.

It is commits like above that reinforce my belief that you don't understand. Perhaps you don't want to understand. I guess that is ok.
Returning to the original social agreement and the original paper is the same thing...

"Commits"?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Returning to the original social agreement and the original paper is the same thing...

"Commits"?

What about stone? Or computer files? Or some other medium that hasn't been invented yet?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about stone? Or computer files? Or some other medium that hasn't been invented yet?
You're missing my point.

It's not the physical object itself that's in question, it's the idea that the concept of the constitution needs to be worshiped that I find objectionable. The piece of paper and the original contract are the same thing. I would want a constantly evolving contract to match a constantly evolving world.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're missing my point.

It's not the physical object itself that's in question, it's the idea that the concept of the constitution needs to be worshiped that I find objectionable. The piece of paper and the original contract are the same thing. I would want a constantly evolving contract to match a constantly evolving world.

No one is worshiping the constitution (ok there are a few nuts in the world who do, but we are not talking about them), and holding up high is NOT worship. It is a poetic way to express an idea. Do you have reverence for your mother? If you do, then do you worship your mother?

So, you are focusing on the physical object? You need to stop that. The constitution is an agreement that is held in the minds of people. The physical object is just a reminder.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I hate to Godwin this but...

...I can understand you're against roads and fixing the economy if you're completely opposed to the National Socialist movement.

there, Godwined.

I don't think he's against all the principles that Libertarians at least sometimes advocate (I've known Libertarians who really only advocate these things on principle but personally don't give a damn, which I don't see as a good thing because I'm Aristotelian in that way) just against the movement as a whole.

He did not mince any words, at all. He specifically said "completely" against the "American" libertarian movement. One of the major commonalities among multiple groups of libertarians is...liberty of the individual: equality in marriage, equality for the minorities, etc. That's fairly central to what it means to be "libertarian." Sure, they approach those topics differently, but he is explicitly against the movement, completely. Consider how complex the movement is and covers so much type of governing that he is left with..what?...Fascism? That should be scary as **** for any reasonable person.

if you aren't a libertarian you are a fascist?

Originally posted by inimalist
if you aren't a libertarian you are a fascist?

That's what the whole rhetoric of the movement is built to convince followers of. They're taught that non-Libertarians are fundamentally evil.

Consider "The Harm Principle" which is supposed to be the basis of Libertarian ethics (lol). In reality such a principle is at the center of all ethics and we recognize that people disagree about what is harmful. By calling their system just "The Harm Principle" they're teaching new recruits to believe that other people are arbitrarily malicious. There's a reason American Libertarianism breeds nothing but frothing at the mouth fanatics.

Originally posted by inimalist
if you aren't a libertarian you are a fascist?

That's definitely a non sequitur question and also an implicit strawman.

The direct answer to your question is in fact this post:

Originally posted by dadudemon
He did not mince any words, at all. He specifically said "completely" against the "American" libertarian movement. One of the major commonalities among multiple groups of libertarians is...liberty of the individual: equality in marriage, equality for the minorities, etc. That's fairly central to what it means to be "libertarian." Sure, they approach those topics differently, but he is explicitly against the movement, completely. Consider how complex the movement is and covers so much type of governing that he is left with..what?...Fascism? That should be scary as **** for any reasonable person.


If you don't understand how your question is directly answered by all of that post, feel free to ask with a more specific inquiry.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's what the whole rhetoric of the movement is built to convince followers of. They're taught that non-Libertarians are fundamentally evil.

That's a strawman to the point I actually made.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Consider "The Harm Principle" which is supposed to be the basis of Libertarian ethics (lol). In reality such a principle is at the center of all ethics and we recognize that people disagree about what is harmful. By calling their system just "The Harm Principle" they're teaching new recruits to believe that other people are arbitrarily malicious. There's a reason American Libertarianism breeds nothing but frothing at the mouth fanatics.

Consider that everything you typed here is also a strawman to the points I presented.

You goofed up with an absurd sweeping statement; that's all there is to this. It happens: move on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a strawman to the point I actually made.

Consider that everything you typed here is also a strawman to the points I presented.

Wow, you just love typing the word strawman. I very literally cannot strawman your argument when I make no reference to your argument whatsoever. Chill out and get over yourself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wow, you just love typing the word strawman.

Sure, when it applies. (Which is a majority of the time, as of late, whenever you quote anything I have typed.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I very literally cannot strawman your argument when I make no reference to your argument whatsoever. Chill out and get over yourself.

1. Calm down.

2. When you quote a person that is direclty addressing what I said and then proceed to address the content of both of our posts, you then proceed to address me.

3. There's more than one way to apply "strawman" to your post so even here, you fail.

Nice try? But not really. You know what you're doing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Calm down.

Take a chill pill shit sucker.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. When you quote a person that is direclty addressing what I said and then proceed to address the content of both of our posts, you then proceed to address me.

Except that I literally was not referring to your post in any way so no I wasn't addressing you (unless you consider yourself to be the entire Libertarian movement, which would, of course, be hilarious).

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. There's more than one way to apply "strawman" to your post

Even if there is you still got it wrong and then utterly failed to provide an argument.

Go troll someone else, ******

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Take a chill pill shit sucker.



Except that I literally was not referring to your post in any way so no I wasn't addressing you (unless you consider yourself to be the entire Libertarian movement, which would, of course, be hilarious).



Even if there is you still got it wrong and then utterly failed to provide an argument.

Go troll someone else, ******



Dude, you made a sweeping statement that had obvious problems. No need to go this far.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Take a chill pill

Please take your own advice here. We've been at this too long on KMC to devolve into this for any reason, and I really don't want to have to pull a mod card. Just stop with the name-calling and leave the thread or address other posters if you feel trolled or can't keep things civil. Thanks.

Not to fan the flames or anything, but did Sym really just call someone a "******"?

Holy shit, dude.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not to fan the flames or anything, but did Sym really just call someone a "******"?

Holy shit, dude. Quiet, c*cksucker.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not to fan the flames or anything, but did Sym really just call someone a "******"?

Holy shit, dude.

Don't worry, Libertarians are fine with it and we wouldn't want to go around suggesting their beliefs are somehow less than perfect.

Hahah nice rage bro.


Ron Paul 2012

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Hahah nice rage bro.


Ron Paul 2012

No rage, I just think its fundamentally disgusting that people like you are allowed to live.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No rage, I just think its fundamentally disgusting that people like you are allowed to live.

Is that a quote from Hitler?

No, I'm paraphrasing Ron Paul (and suggesting public policy).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No rage, I just think its fundamentally disgusting that people like you are allowed to live.


Lol rage on bro stoned

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I'm paraphrasing Ron Paul (and suggesting public policy).

I don't think quoting a misrepresented quote counts as a quote.

I like the new Sym. He can be our new Zeal Ex..

Replace a brain with a foot?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I like the new Sym. He can be our new Zeal Ex..

Not going balls-deep for the "Ron Paul savior of America" rhetoric is no where near being like Zeal's "Liberals are a cancer, Conservatives lost their spine. Jews cause all the problems. Kill the Jews!"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think quoting a misrepresented quote counts as a quote.

You're right, that quote was about American citizens Ron Paul believes should die. He did, however, say that stopping the Holocaust would have been wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not going balls-deep for the "Ron Paul savior of America" rhetoric is no where near being like Zeal's "Liberals are a cancer, Conservatives lost their spine. Jews cause all the problems. Kill the Jews!" Saying "It's disgusting that X type of people are allowed to live" is very much a Zeal statement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's definitely a non sequitur question and also an implicit strawman.

The direct answer to your question is in fact this post:




If you don't understand how your question is directly answered by all of that post, feel free to ask with a more specific inquiry.

let me try and put it this way. You basically say, "look at how diverse libertarian ideology is, it covers everything but fascism":

Originally posted by dadudemon
Consider how complex the movement is and covers so much type of governing that he is left with..what?...Fascism? That should be scary as **** for any reasonable person.

1) as an anarchist this is kind of funny. Libertarians, sure, have some diversity in their political ideology, but ultimately, they have a very limited view on government policy that centers around individual rights rather than the idea of a social contract. Sure, you can make individual rights policy arguments for or against some issues (public health care, education, etc), but the idea that they represent this massively heterogeneous group of individuals, idk, I disagree to say the least.

2) that does sort of imply that you think the only type of ideology that is counter to libertarian ideology is a form of fascism, as if a libertarian could believe anything that isn't fascism. This is off for a couple of reasons:

a) ideologies that don't center on individual rights can actually come to the same policy conclusions that libertarians do. On health care, for instance, social contract based ideologies can generate either pro or anti healthcare policies based on their interpretation of social rights and norms. unless you are saying the social contract itself is a fascist concept, libertarianism has no exclusive claim to non-fascism.

b) fascism itself can be individual oriented and, in fact, can come to the exact same policy conclusions as libertarianism does for the very same reasons. Fascists and libertarians differ, obviously, with respect to voting rights and a couple of other things, but by definition, there are almost no policies or ideological justifications that are mutually exclusive between fascism and libertarianism.

idk, I certainly don't think you actually believe there are only 2 political positions (fascism vs libertarianism), but that is sort of the most obvious interpretation of what you said.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're right, that quote was about American citizens Ron Paul believes should die. He did, however, say that stopping the Holocaust would have been wrong.

Why do I get the feeling you are not a reliable resource in this matter?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're right, that quote was about American citizens Ron Paul believes should die. He did, however, say that stopping the Holocaust would have been wrong. Lol you're such a tool. What a nice spin of words though. I see how its needed to get a point across. As if we went into WWII to save jews (not to mention the millions of other non jews)


Paul is a non-interventionalist? Whoa no way


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do I get the feeling you are not a reliable resource in this matter?

Epic Buddhist senses.


He really stated that he wouldn't want to risk american lives

So, "crazy mad man starting huge wars and legitimately trying to conquer the globe" does not meet your standard for what might be a valid use of military force?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol you're such a tool. What a nice spin of words though. I see how its needed to get a point across. As if we went into WWII to save jews (not to mention the millions of other non jews)

I never mentioned Jews but Ron Paul wouldn't have saved any of them.

That's a reason Libertarians support him.
That's a reason I think Libertarians are disgusting.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I never mentioned Jews but Ron Paul wouldn't have saved any of them.

That's a reason Libertarians support him.
That's a reason I think Libertarians are disgusting.

But, Libertarians would let you smoke as much pot as you like.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Saying "It's disgusting that X type of people are allowed to live" is very much a Zeal statement.

Context though. But yeah, that was a Zeal-like statement. Still wouldn't compare them as being the same.

Three people were having dinner at a friends house. One was a Democratic, the next was a Republican, and the last was a Libertarian. Next door, a man was murdering his wife. The Democratic picked up his cell phone and called the police. The Republican grabbed his gun and left to kill the man. The Libertarian complained about the noise.

To obtain global domination he would have to attack USA and its allies no?

so, in the case of ww2, hitler had attacked america's allies...

Then when the allies call for assistance we shall intervene.

...

So your position on american involvement in ww2 is the opposite of what you just said and what paul suggests?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
To obtain global domination he would have to attack USA and its allies no?

So Ron Paul would have sat by and watched Japan and Germany conquer the rest of the world just as long as America wasn't attacked or declared war upon.

Sounds utterly moronic and self-defeating.

Originally posted by inimalist
...

So your position on american involvement in ww2 is the opposite of what you just said and what paul suggests?

Americans involvment in WW2 was because we were attacked by Japan. You understand that right?


WE WERE ATTACKED.


Declared war on japan. Germany declares war on us. We declare it on germany as well. Congress has that power.


Originally posted by Robtard
So Ron Paul would have sat by and watched Japan and Germany conquer the rest of the world just as long as America wasn't attacked or declared war upon.

Sounds utterly moronic and self-defeating.

Ron pauls job as pres would be to uphold the constitution. Presidents dont declare war, congress does. When entering world war two the leaders apparently werent aware of the holocaust. Not so sure about that though.



The whole "let him take over the world argument" is so stupid lol.


Your family is having a party and across the street someone is getting robbed by gunpoint. Should the grandfather be allowed to send all the kids over to go attack?

Originally posted by Mairuzu


Ron pauls job as pres would be to uphold the constitution. Presidents dont declare war, congress does. When entering world war two the leaders apparently werent aware of the holocaust. Not so sure about that though.

Obviously yes, but his personal-position would have been "no war until they attack or declare war on us", all the while ignoring that America's allies are being ass-raped and that war will in all likelihood be coming.

Also, once congress declared war, Ron Paul would be the commander in chief of the US military, so by his rational, he would have deployed the military as a wait until they come/defense type strategy.

Sounds moronic and self-defeating.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously yes, but his personal-position would have been "no war until they attack or declare war on us", all the while ignoring that America's allies are being ass-raped and that war will in all likelihood be coming.

Sounds moronic. If americans allies are being ass raped and if they call for aid then of course Ron Paul would aid them. Fool.



Woooosh it goes right over your heads.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
If americans allies are being ass raped and if they call for aid then of course Ron Paul would aid them. Fool.



Woooosh it goes right over your heads.

Not by his rhetoric, son.

Show me which "rhetoric" that is

You said by "his" rhetoric meaning Ron Pauls rhetoric right? Because Ron Paul didn't write any of that lol.


Gtfo troll crylaugh


Woosh in one ear out the other. Its like you guys focus more on trying to be right than to have common sense.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You said by "his" rhetoric meaning Ron Pauls rhetoric right? Because Ron Paul didn't write any of that lol.


Gtfo troll crylaugh


Woosh in one ear out the other. Its like you guys focus more on trying to be right than to have common sense.

So playing the semantics game? Trolololollo?

Clearly that article is of the position of "this is what Ron Paul believes". So the article is incorrect now, and you posted it why?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Americans involvment in WW2 was because we were attacked by Japan. You understand that right?


WE WERE ATTACKED.


Declared war on japan. Germany declares war on us. We declare it on germany as well. Congress has that power.

ok... but remember when you said this:

Originally posted by Mairuzu
To obtain global domination he would have to attack USA and its allies no?

or this:

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Then when the allies call for assistance we shall intervene.

both of those things had happened, years before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...

by your own justification, America held out for too long

Lol well lets see here.

You claim the truth that ron paul wouldnt aid his allies by that "rhetoric" of which I posted. God only knows how you came to that conclusion but instead of making baseless assumptions you should take 30 minutes out your day instead of reading a whole lot of garbo here on this forum to listen to what ron paul has to say himself


stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol well lets see here.

You claim the truth that ron paul wouldnt aid his allies by that "rhetoric" of which I posted. God only knows how you came to that conclusion but instead of making baseless assumptions you should take 30 minutes out your day instead of reading a whole lot of garbo here on this forum to listen to what ron paul has to say himself


stoned

Originally posted by Robtard
So playing the semantics game? Trolololollo?

Clearly that article is of the position of "this is what Ron Paul believes". So the article is incorrect now, and you posted it why?

lol you're useless rob. Its a summary of certain policies of ron paul and his stance on the holocaust. What in the article has made you think ron paul wouldn't aid his allies?




Originally posted by inimalist
ok... but remember when you said this:



or this:



both of those things had happened, years before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...

by your own justification, America held out for too long


Which allies have begged for american assistance and didnt recieve it? Looks to me like congress wasn't going a good job. As always.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
...
Which allies have begged for american assistance and didnt recieve it? Looks to me like congress wasn't going a good job. As always.

Britain for one. The Democratic president of the US, would have nothing to do with that European problem.

I figured it would mainly be the great ol britain. Presidents don't declare war though. Unless you're obushma.

but otherwise you would suggest Paul supported American involvement in ww2 before the Pearl Harbor attacks?

Originally posted by inimalist
but otherwise you would suggest Paul supported American involvement in ww2 before the Pearl Harbor attacks?

It might have been a better choice.

I have no problem with a diminished US global presence so long as its still there.

My issue with the notion of total non-intervention as a means of avoiding meddling/policing the globe (which is the approach Paul and his supporters take to varying degrees) is that it ignores that there's often a reasonable means of determining whether its proper or not to intervene.

To put it in an example: imagine if you hear and see your neighbor beating his wife savagely, to put it in clearer terms, you know for a fact that he's beating his wife. You know for a fact no one else sees/hears this or that no one else is in a position to stop it (maybe the only other witnesses are kids and old folks). Do you conclude that since it's not happening in your house it's alright, indeed morally commendable to do nothing?

My biggest issue with this part of the Libertarian message is that it suggests that there's no reasonable way to go about playing an active role in the world.

I'd contrast Libya (for the most part, there were some less than commendable moments there) with Iraq as examples of the right way and wrong way to intervene.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Britain for one. The Democratic president of the US, would have nothing to do with that European problem.
FDR was very much interested with "that European problem", he only kept out of the war as long as he did because he worried about reelection and going to war would mean he'd lose the support of moderates and the Anti-War Republicans would gain ground.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
lol you're useless rob. Its a summary of certain policies of ron paul and his stance on the holocaust. What in the article has made you think ron paul wouldn't aid his allies?


That "summary" you posted as being Ron Paul's views and not being Ron Paul's views, depending on which way you're flippity-flopping. That's what.

""Paul believes the military should be used solely for the defense of this nation. I understand the desire by some people to intervene all around the world in an attempt to prevent atrocities, but we'll never be able to stop all of them, and the question then becomes how we choose when to intervene and when not to intervene.

And in the case of WWII, the more important question is whether it was justified to conscript people into the military and force them to go fight in another country."

America didn't go to war in WW2 because of the holocaust, so it's irrelevant what Ron Paul views and doesn't view according to that article in terms of the holocaust in this "if Ron Paul had been President during WW2" hypothetical.

Originally posted by Robtard
That "summary" you posted as being Ron Paul's views and not being Ron Paul's views, depending on which way you're flippity-flopping. That.


What the hell are you saying now?

I was replying to Sym and his twist of words about Ron Pauls stance on the holocaust question he recieved. And yes the question itself is irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up for me. stoned


Originally posted by Robtard
America didn't go to war in WW2 because of the holocaust, so it's irrelevant what Ron Paul views and doesn't view according to that article in terms of the holocaust in this "if Ron Paul had been President during WW2" hypothetical.


Glad we agree. But like I said, I was replying to Sym. I don't even know where you came from out of all this lol.



Are you alright haermm

Originally posted by Omega Vision
...
FDR was very much interested with "that European problem", he only kept out of the war as long as he did because he worried about reelection and going to war would mean he'd lose the support of moderates and the Anti-War Republicans would gain ground.

So, Republicans are against war? I get it...

From all the criticism that one can put forth against Ron Paul you are really going for "he would have let the Holocaust happen"?

That doesn't strike anyone as a bit ridiculous?

Well, we're not German. So we consider ignoring the holocaust to be bad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
From all the criticism that one can put forth against Ron Paul you are really going for "he would have let the Holocaust happen"?

That doesn't strike anyone as a bit ridiculous?


Yeah... like racist newletters that never belonged to him haermm

Or the fact that his name consist of two first names. Da fuq is up with that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
From all the criticism that one can put forth against Ron Paul you are really going for "he would have let the Holocaust happen"?

That doesn't strike anyone as a bit ridiculous?

"Soft on Genocide" seems like a good angle. This is the man who felt that it was simply going to far for Congress to pass a bill officially declaring that the Armenian genocide was a bad thing.

I figure the people out there happily choking on Ayn Rand's shrivled cock are fine with most of the things about him I despise.

Easy. You just tend to let things woosh right over your little head.


HYwtPbKPnn4

Please bold for emphasis. That's a lot of text.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Please bold for emphasis. That's a lot of text.

LoL, black-people. Reading.

But should I bold it to make Ron Paul look awesome or like a tool?

Looks good as a whole

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Looks good as a whole

Sure, on the surface it looks great.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yeah... like racist newletters that never belonged to him haermm

Or the fact that his name consist of two first names. Da fuq is up with that?

you... you seriously can't think of a single issue on which you disagree with paul?

Originally posted by inimalist
you... you seriously can't think of a single issue on which you disagree with paul?

That is not a good sign.

Lol why isn't that a good sign? It would sound like a good sign and i agree it could seem fanatic in a way but thats not the case. Sounds to me like we finally found someone who's ****ing real in politics. Who's words hold meaning and not full of rhetoric. I don't see why I need to explain my dislikes when they don't compare at all to the cons. I value life and all I've been seeing lately in this country is life wasted in many ways. I agree his ideas Are extreme and basically blunt as **** but I see it as something needed for the future of this place. The overall plan. The thomas Jefferson revolutions. Ron Paul revolution. Cause **** this shit

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To put it in an example: imagine if you hear and see your neighbor beating his wife savagely, to put it in clearer terms, you know for a fact that he's beating his wife. You know for a fact no one else sees/hears this or that no one else is in a position to stop it (maybe the only other witnesses are kids and old folks). Do you conclude that since it's not happening in your house it's alright, indeed morally commendable to do nothing?


Here's the problem: you're creating a scenario in which an individual acts in a metaphor for the state. That comparison cannot be had because libertarianism is about the liberty of the individual.

I do appreciate what you're trying to do but such an example automatically errs because it is using an individual to make the point.

The answer to your question is: "It's up to the individual to act, not you." That's the libertarian answer.

You could extend that and say the local police force, paid for by the individuals in the community, willingly, like an NPR station, could be called to make a visit to the neighbors.


But I personally take issue with the "willingly paid for police force". For me, there is only a semantically difference between paying for the police with your taxes and paying for the police with an actual check straight to your "capitalist" police department.

In some forms of libertarianism, there wouldn't even be a police force...so this further convolutes the way I'm answering your question.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My biggest issue with this part of the Libertarian message is that it suggests that there's no reasonable way to go about playing an active role in the world.

I disagree. It's that, "the reasonable way to interact with the world is by the individual...most of the time."


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Soft on Genocide" seems like a good angle. This is the man who felt that it was simply going to far for Congress to pass a bill officially declaring that the Armenian genocide was a bad thing.

Since when is legislating "official stances" on history ever a proper use of our elected representatives? Do you know what the point of that resolution is? Cannot the president make a statement and create the same effect? Isn't it a slippery slope to be undertaking those tasks?

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, on the surface it looks great.

The obvious implications or wrongful interpretations from his words would have one conclude that he would not want to right the wrongs the US government wrought upon its own living people (or people in other countries, for that matter). I do not believe his statements are meant to reflect that. But, if that's what you meant above, sure, I'd agree that his statements have crappy implications. Hey, that's what politics are about, right? Adding meaning not covered or clarified in a statement.

Originally posted by inimalist
you... you seriously can't think of a single issue on which you disagree with paul?

If he disagreed in any way then he would have to accept himself as a fascist. Unthinking fanaticism is the only thing Libertarian ideology accepts.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If he disagreed in any way then he would have to accept himself as a fascist. Unthinking fanaticism is the only thing Libertarian ideology accepts.

Well said.

But that's a strawm...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If he disagreed in any way then he would have to accept himself as a fascist. Unthinking fanaticism is the only thing Libertarian ideology accepts.


Lol such a tool. Why you mad tho?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's the problem: you're creating a scenario in which an individual acts in a metaphor for the state. That comparison cannot be had because libertarianism is about the liberty of the individual.

I do appreciate what you're trying to do but such an example automatically errs because it is using an individual to make the point.

The answer to your question is: "It's up to the individual to act, not you." That's the libertarian answer.

You could extend that and say the local police force, paid for by the individuals in the community, willingly, like an NPR station, could be called to make a visit to the neighbors.


But I personally take issue with the "willingly paid for police force". For me, there is only a semantically difference between paying for the police with your taxes and paying for the police with an actual check straight to your "capitalist" police department.

In some forms of libertarianism, there wouldn't even be a police force...so this further convolutes the way I'm answering your question.



I disagree. It's that, "the reasonable way to interact with the world is by the individual...most of the time."




Since when is legislating "official stances" on history ever a proper use of our elected representatives? Do you know what the point of that resolution is? Cannot the president make a statement and create the same effect? Isn't it a slippery slope to be undertaking those tasks?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say...individuals can stop genocide?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not sure what you're trying to say...individuals can stop genocide?

The good Libertarian shouldn't care about genocide since genocide is only destroying a group and groups don't have rights (which is why, for example, they oppose making it illegal to dump toxic waste into people's water supply).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The good Libertarian shouldn't care about genocide since genocide is only destroying a group and groups don't have rights (which is why, for example, they oppose making it illegal to dump toxic waste into people's water supply).
The more I hear Ron Paul and his son speak the more I feel like they're incredibly, incredibly misguided but well-meaning people.

Many of their supporters on the other hand seem ignorant.

Edit: And @ DDD, morality doesn't change whether it's between groups or individuals, get that bullshit out of your mind.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not sure what you're trying to say...individuals can stop genocide?

I'm saying that your comparison has a fundamental flaw because: "You're creating a scenario in which an individual acts in a metaphor for the state. That comparison cannot be had because libertarianism is about the liberty of the individual."

Then I digress because of the many versions of libertarianism. And, yes, individuals can stop genocide. But that wasn't my point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Edit: And @ DDD, morality doesn't change whether it's between groups or individuals, get that bullshit out of your mind.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, here. What relevancy is this statement this to what little conversation we had?

And, yes, morality does change where it is between individuals or groups. People literally think and do differently (at times) as part of a group than they do as an individual. Sure, there is some equity but it isn't completely the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm saying that your comparison has a fundamental flaw because: "You're creating a scenario in which an individual acts in a metaphor for the state. That comparison cannot be had because libertarianism is about the liberty of the individual."

Then I digress because of the many versions of libertarianism. And, yes, individuals can stop genocide. But that wasn't my point.



I'm not sure what you're talking about, here. What relevancy is this statement this to what little conversation we had?

And, yes, morality does change where it is between individuals or groups. People literally think and do differently (at times) as part of a group than they do as an individual. Sure, there is some equity but it isn't completely the same.
I fail to see how libertarianism's stance on individuals refutes my metaphor...

The way people think is irrelevant to morality unless you're talking subjective morality. I don't take you for a subjectivist.

The group vs individuals thing always make me laugh. When it's people they dislike (taxes) individuals are getting hurt when it's something they like (mass murder) suddenly only a group is getting hurt so they don't have to care. As if, somehow, you can harm the group without harming the constituent parts (at a minimum by preventing them from working together).

Shoot one person in a crowd. This is immoral because it hurts an individual.
Kill the whole crowd. This is morally neutral because it only harmed a group.

What a very sane and consistent system of morality (and before someone cries strawman I've had this debate with Libertarians before and been told that bombing an inhabited city or releasing life threatening pollution is morally neutral for exactly that reason). I like to call it Timothy McVeigh morality.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I fail to see how libertarianism's stance on individuals refutes my metaphor...

That's because you're looking in my post for something to refute it when that was never my purpose or point.

Just because a comparison is bad doesn't mean your actual point is lost. Unlike half of the GDF-ers around here, I don't pretend like your point was actually wrong just to argue semantics.

To make it even more clear: I understood what you were trying to convey with your metaphor, but you should definitely not use a symbolic individual as representative (in the metaphor) for how a state should act when trying to point out a flaw in some forms of libertarianism...specially "Paulian libertarianism."



Originally posted by Omega Vision
The way people think is irrelevant to morality unless you're talking subjective morality. I don't take you for a subjectivist.

I am a huge moral relativist. There is a limit to how relative morals can get, imo, but to test my theory we would have to conduct extremely unethical studies. So, sure, I believe there is a limit but morals are fairly relative. If you think about it, any Mormon should come to the same conclusion as I have since we are strongly "urged" to teach proper morals to our families else they develop poor morals. If that's not a "god" argument for moral relativism, I don't know what is (as far as christian teachings go).


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The group vs individuals thing always make me laugh. When it's people they dislike (taxes) individuals are getting hurt when it's something they like (mass murder) suddenly only a group is getting hurt so they don't have to care. As if, somehow, you can harm the group without harming the constituent parts (at a minimum by preventing them from working together).

Shoot one person in a crowd. This is immoral because it hurts an individual.
Kill the whole crowd. This is morally neutral because it only harmed a group.

What a very sane and consistent system of morality (and before someone cries strawman I've had this debate with Libertarians before and been told that bombing an inhabited city or releasing life threatening pollution is morally neutral for exactly that reason). I like to call it Timothy McVeigh morality.

There's a fundemental flaw with your reasoning: the individuals make the group. Harm the group, you harm the individual. The individual's freedom is then restricted. So that's wrong.

Harm the individual, your harm the individual. So that's a restriction of the individual's freedom. So that's wrong, too.


So if they are both wrong from a bland libertarian perspective, how can you conclude that the "group" is magically some other entity with no individuals?

To keep the thread on topic, we should direct it to Paul's particular brand of libertarianism. He's about the individual maximizing freedom without harming others: do drugs in your own home, own land with proper but not excessive regulations, allow the states to vote on abortion (but ban the federal government from enacting a law on it), and so forth.

Now paying for your own police in a city rather than paying taxes and then the government pays the police? Paul is for the former. Do we have a system like that in the US and does it work? I don't know. How does that relate to group versus individual? Simple: you have shifted the group's freedom from the municipal government more directly into the hands of the people and the people get to vote directly who they want policing them with their money. Corruption screams at me in that type of system...but it would literally be the same type of corruption we already have in place.

Does that make more sense or do you want me to explain groups and individuals, more? I can but I feel like I'm going on and on at this point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Soft on Genocide" seems like a good angle. This is the man who felt that it was simply going to far for Congress to pass a bill officially declaring that the Armenian genocide was a bad thing.

I figure the people out there happily choking on Ayn Rand's shrivled cock are fine with most of the things about him I despise.

But it's completely taken out of context, possibly even completely wrong. There's so much better things to dislike Ron Paul for, a faulty appeal to the Holocaust just seems silly and disingenuous.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The more I hear Ron Paul and his son speak the more I feel like they're incredibly, incredibly misguided but well-meaning people.

Many of their supporters on the other hand seem ignorant.

Edit: And @ DDD, morality doesn't change whether it's between groups or individuals, get that bullshit out of your mind.


Stopping unwinable wars, sound money, constitution.


Those are misguided? Lmao. Maybe its you? stoned


Originally posted by Bardock42
But it's completely taken out of context, possibly even completely wrong. There's so much better things to dislike Ron Paul for, a faulty appeal to the Holocaust just seems silly and disingenuous.

Shoot it already, bro









edit: Btw. DDM's patience with you all is beyond my comprehension. Its like you don't even bother reading what he has to say. Afraid of the ownage.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But it's completely taken out of context, possibly even completely wrong. There's so much better things to dislike Ron Paul for, a faulty appeal to the Holocaust just seems silly and disingenuous.

Do do you take: "I would not have risked American lives to end the Holocaust." out of context? He's an non-interventionist. This is very consistent with his positions on the use of the military. His supporters laud him for saying that kind of thing.

I'm just helping to get the facts out. People who have a problem with genocide might wish to think twice about Ron Paul.

Helping get the facts out haermm to who?


People have problems with genocide? shocklaugh


I think you need to think. Period.






You can go out and stop genocide. He wouldn't stop you from doing so just as much as he wouldnt force you. If you feel you need to save all the disasters in the world like a Superman then contact your fellow citizens to help the cause. Contact your congressman together because if there is enough of them that truely care then there is enough of them to do something about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do do you take: "I would not have risked American lives to end the Holocaust." out of context? He's an non-interventionist. This is very consistent with his positions on the use of the military. His supporters laud him for saying that kind of thing.

I'm just helping to get the facts out. People who have a problem with genocide might wish to think twice about Ron Paul.

How do you interpret him saying "It would have been hard to stay out of World War 2"? Nothing indicates he would have done anything differently. Him saying "I would not have risked American lives to save people from the Holocaust" is only different in that it is openly stated. No country in WW2 fought to end the Holocaust, all of them fought because the Axis were a threat to them. Why do you think Ron Paul would have acted differently than the US did at the time? It seems to be solely based on the false premise that the US somehow went to war with Nazi Germany to end the Holocaust. Disingenuous.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Stopping unwinable wars, sound money, constitution.


Those are misguided? Lmao. Maybe its you? stoned


.
Jon Stewart articulated it well. He said that every time he hears Paul say something he's behind him for the first 3/4 and then Paul says something that just completely loses Stewart.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You can go out and stop genocide. He wouldn't stop you from doing so just as much as he wouldnt force you. If you feel you need to save all the disasters in the world like a Superman then contact your fellow citizens to help the cause. Contact your congressman together because if there is enough of them that truely care then there is enough of them to do something about it.

unless your congressman has the initials RP