Mitt Romney desperate and in panic, spends a million dollars to stop Ron Paul *tricks inside*

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by twoandthree
I think Ron Paul adds some important elements to the political discourse, forcing all the candidates to at least superficially address subjects that would typically and conveniently be swept aside. By having Ron Paul continue in the race, all the candidates have to up the ante and give some kind of lip service to these issues.

I donated a couple hundred bucks to Ron Paul for this presidential campaign because he helps make all the other candidates get to the deeper stuff than standard mudslinging, but I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he wants to make massive overhauls or reforms to the country. It's just too much too fast. Healthy, ongoing changes are most often successful when implemented gradually and carefully. Ron just puts too much at hazard, almost as much as having a communist president whose inner circle aim is to bring down the system within a very Saul Alinsky strategy.

Excellent post.

"but I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he wants to make massive overhauls or reforms to the country.

It's just too much too fast.

Healthy, ongoing changes are most often successful when implemented gradually and carefully.

Ron just puts too much at hazard, almost as much as having a communist president whose inner circle aim is to bring down the system within a very Saul Alinsky strategy."

edit on 6-5-2012 by AuranVector because: (no reason given)

There is no possible way he can get everything going all at once. It will take time. He will be the catalyst for everything to follow. It will be long after he is out of office before everything can be implemented. But it has to start somewhere. Why not let it begin with him.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner , folks! I've said this a lot. Obama is meant for a second term. That is why no REAL contender was presented to the masses. Thats why the only one NOT presented to the masses was hidden from them. There is NOTHING Oama is doing that isnt in lock step with THEIR agenda. Why fix something that isnt broken (to them). That is why RP scares the crap out of them. Obama will have to put up a real fight.

Originally posted by Propulsion
There is no possible way he can get everything going all at once. It will take time. He will be the catalyst for everything to follow. It will be long after he is out of office before everything can be implemented. But it has to start somewhere. Why not let it begin with him.

You know that same exact excuse is used by Obama supporters, right?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yeah, but considering there's two completely opposing definitions of Libertarian it's not as easy as looking at an infographic and drawing broad conclusions.

Put another way, European Libertarians would have nothing to do with the US libertarian party.

So...

edit on 7-5-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

I'm not in Europe. They can define it any way they like, in whichever language they like, for themselves. Their definitions and spelling patterns obtain there, not here. Bringing European definitions into a discussion of American politics is like trying to apply American football rules to European soccer games.

Originally posted by Propulsion
There is no possible way he can get everything going all at once. It will take time. He will be the catalyst for everything to follow. It will be long after he is out of office before everything can be implemented. But it has to start somewhere. Why not let it begin with him.

It seems that priority number one, should he take the field, ought properly to be to chock the door open, then, so that they can't slam it shut behind him when he leaves. No matter what he does, if the way is not clear for successors to continue that work, it's all for nought.

reply to post by nenothtu


You'd have a point if the European of Libertarianism wasn't hundreds of years older than the US one, and if the US definition hadn't been the European one, until very recently, and if you knew for a fact which version the infographics you based your beliefs one, were themselves based on...

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You'd have a point if the European of Libertarianism wasn't hundreds of years older than the US one, and if the US definition hadn't been the European one, until very recently, and if you knew for a fact which version the infographics you based your beliefs one, were themselves based on...

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

edit on 8-5-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

You would have a point if we were discussing European politics.

We are not.

reply to post by nenothtu


Sorry, but the only way Libertarian runs to Liberal is if you include the European definition.

Let's see that infographic of yours, that you base your knowledge of politics on...

en.wikipedia.org...

he original school of left-libertarianism is libertarian socialism. Noam Chomsky, a noted left-libertarian of the libertarian socialist school. Libertarian socialism is the anti-state tradition of socialism. In a broad sense, people who may share with "traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state" might sometimes be described as “left-libertarians.”[6] More narrowly, some social anarchists and libertarian socialists, including Murray Bookchin,[7] are sometimes characterized as “left-libertarian.”,[8] and Noam Chomsky, who identifies as a “libertarian socialist,” applies the “left-libertarian” label to himself.[9] Most left-libertarians in this sense are anarchists, and frequently claim to reject the concept of self-ownership, at least when it is understood to underwrite capitalism,[10] along with private ownership of the means of production and absentee ownership of private property, in favor of alternate rights of possession and stewardship which are understood as protecting personal autonomy while rejecting putative rights which they see as permitting the economic elite to control the lives of others. They support rights to personal property and the rights of occupancy over one’s dwelling, but reject commercial propertarianism and some do not consider the re-appropriation of such wealth to be an act of theft but rather an act of liberation (see individual reclamation). Many reject arrangements that allow for hierarchy, kyriarchy, or begrudgingly consensual subordination. Similarly, some reject the non-aggression principle to the extent that it is used by right-libertarians to treat assaults on private property as assaults on individual liberty.

That's the traditional definition of "Liberal Libertarianism"

So, rejecting capitalism, rejecting private ownership, if it underwrites capitalism, etc.

Those people would flatly reject the completely absurd concept of Libertarian that US Libertarians espouse...

There is in fact NO "liberal" US Libertarians, at least any sane ones, and by "liberal" I mean believe in government intervention, because US Libertarians believe in close to minanarchism; imagine a Mad Max style world where Wal-Mart is the largest predator and you'll be close.

The only way you could make a very weak argument for your case if if you just say very vague things like, "liberals believe in liberty".

And if that is the foundation for your beliefs, it's weak.

EDIT:

I just realised you've probably based your beliefs on that stupid Nolan Chart. Jesus. OF course the founder of US Libertarianism, so one who co-opted the name and reversed the definition, would want people to believe there's some fantasy version of "left-wing" that is anti-government, but is also pro-capitalism... there is not. Left-Anarchy, and Left-Liberalism are both anti-Capitalism, and as such don't neatly dovetail into US Libertarianism...

Libertarians are liberal socially and conservative economically...

that is all...

reply to post by TheJourney


US Libertarians are not REALLY liberal socially, they just believe the state shouldn't intervene in society... to the socially conservative that non-interventionist bent makes them appear to be "socially liberal," but they are in fact, not. Ron Paul is a Christian conservative. He is "strongly pro-life". He may not want the state to intervene, but calling those beliefs liberal is incorrect.

There's a great many that would not consider them to be fiscally conservative either, but radicals.

They are liberal socially in the role they want government to play. So they may PERSONALLY be very conservative, and be against things such as drugs and prostitution, but they do not believe it to be the government's right/job to make these sorts of decisions for people. Ron Paul most specifically in his stances on policy as a politician is that of a constitutionalist, and a believer in state's rights, as he believes many things should be removed from federal jurisdiction and revert to the states, as intended in the constitution. As a philosophy, though, libertarianism believes government does not have the right to make social-moral decisions law, and this is what we call 'socially liberal.' It does not imply the individual necessarily believes the thing the government is not making illegal is good, or even ok.

It's possible that this entire debate is over semantics, having read a bit of the previous posting...if that's the case nothing can really be accomplished...but yea...

reply to post by TheJourney


I think you don't know what social liberalism means

Here's an article from RedState to help clear it up:

www.redstate.com... -future/

Another way to put it is this:

A Libertarian might believe in non-intervention in Iran, even if he disagrees with Sharia law and a religious dictator, a liberal on the other hand might also disagree with intervention, but because he thinks it's right for societies to live by Sharia law, if that's what they choose, in other words, they don't make a value judgement on the nations policies.

The outcome is the same, at least temporarily, but that doesn't mean they believe the same thing.

reply to post by TheJourney


It's NOT semantics. You can't have a conversation if you define words differently.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Sorry, but the only way Libertarian runs to Liberal is if you include the European definition.

If you say so, boss-man.

So, rejecting capitalism, rejecting private ownership, if it underwrites capitalism, etc.

Those people would flatly reject the completely absurd concept of Libertarian that US Libertarians espouse...

You, and your wikireference, seem hell bent on equating "Libertarian" with "Socialist". That's fine by me - whatever floats yer boat in Europe is OK by me. I don't have to deal with it, that's all yours. What we are discussing here is AMERICAN politics, not European politics. I'm not quite sure why you are incapable of comprehending that. it seems simple enough.

There is in fact NO "liberal" US Libertarians, at least any sane ones, and by "liberal" I mean believe in government intervention, because US Libertarians believe in close to minanarchism; imagine a Mad Max style world where Wal-Mart is the largest predator and you'll be close.

See, here is where we get into splitting semantic hairs. You define "liberal" as proponent of big government and government intervention. Therefore, you lock yourself into that definition, because you reject the idea that there is Authoritarianism to cover that base. Since you equate "liberal" with "government intervention", yopu leave no room for Libertarianism as a counterpoint to Authoritarianism. Your politics are unidimensional, can only move "left" or "right", not mutlidimensional - they cannot move "up" or "down". Unfortunately, that notion also leave no room for authoritarian left wing regimes AND authoritarian right-wing regimes.

Simply put, your political conception cannot conceive of libertarian vs Authoritarian, because your view of Libertarian does not provide for that contrast. Frankly, I can't find any Liberty in your notion of Libertarian.

The only way you could make a very weak argument for your case if if you just say very vague things like, "liberals believe in liberty".

No. SOME liberals believe in liberty, others believe in overbearing authority. "Liberal" does not equate to "libertarian".

EDIT:

I just realised you've probably based your beliefs on that stupid Nolan Chart. Jesus. OF course the founder of US Libertarianism, so one who co-opted the name and reversed the definition, would want people to believe there's some fantasy version of "left-wing" that is anti-government, but is also pro-capitalism... there is not. Left-Anarchy, and Left-Liberalism are both anti-Capitalism, and as such don't neatly dovetail into US Libertarianism...

I've no idea what a "Nolan Chart" is, nor do I care. I've never run into a left-winger that is pro capitalism, but I've met several who are anti-government. You seem to be confusing economic systems with governmental systems. All in all, though, your last sentence here (which I bolded) is the strongest argument I've seen yet for keeping European concepts out of a discussion of American politics, which is what I've argued all along. Thanks for the confirmation!

So how long till this happens??? When will RP get the GOP nomination, if this doesn't happen can we Hoax this thread, since thats what happens to other "prophecy" type threads

THIS IS JUST AS BAD AS PEOPLE MAKING FAKE UFO VIDEOS AND PUTTING THEM ON YOUTUBE

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Sorry, but the only way Libertarian runs to Liberal is if you include the European definition.

If you say so, boss-man.

So, rejecting capitalism, rejecting private ownership, if it underwrites capitalism, etc.

Those people would flatly reject the completely absurd concept of Libertarian that US Libertarians espouse...

You, and your wikireference, seem hell bent on equating "Libertarian" with "Socialist". That's fine by me - whatever floats yer boat in Europe is OK by me. I don't have to deal with it, that's all yours. What we are discussing here is AMERICAN politics, not European politics. I'm not quite sure why you are incapable of comprehending that. it seems simple enough.

There is in fact NO "liberal" US Libertarians, at least any sane ones, and by "liberal" I mean believe in government intervention, because US Libertarians believe in close to minanarchism; imagine a Mad Max style world where Wal-Mart is the largest predator and you'll be close.

See, here is where we get into splitting semantic hairs. You define "liberal" as proponent of big government and government intervention. Therefore, you lock yourself into that definition, because you reject the idea that there is Authoritarianism to cover that base. Since you equate "liberal" with "government intervention", yopu leave no room for Libertarianism as a counterpoint to Authoritarianism. Your politics are unidimensional, can only move "left" or "right", not mutlidimensional - they cannot move "up" or "down". Unfortunately, that notion also leave no room for authoritarian left wing regimes AND authoritarian right-wing regimes.

Simply put, your political conception cannot conceive of libertarian vs Authoritarian, because your view of Libertarian does not provide for that contrast. Frankly, I can't find any Liberty in your notion of Libertarian.

The only way you could make a very weak argument for your case if if you just say very vague things like, "liberals believe in liberty".

No. SOME liberals believe in liberty, others believe in overbearing authority. "Liberal" does not equate to "libertarian".

EDIT:

I just realised you've probably based your beliefs on that stupid Nolan Chart. Jesus. OF course the founder of US Libertarianism, so one who co-opted the name and reversed the definition, would want people to believe there's some fantasy version of "left-wing" that is anti-government, but is also pro-capitalism... there is not. Left-Anarchy, and Left-Liberalism are both anti-Capitalism, and as such don't neatly dovetail into US Libertarianism...

I've no idea what a "Nolan Chart" is, nor do I care. I've never run into a left-winger that is pro capitalism, but I've met several who are anti-government. You seem to be confusing economic systems with governmental systems. All in all, though, your last sentence here (which I bolded) is the strongest argument I've seen yet for keeping European concepts out of a discussion of American politics, which is what I've argued all along. Thanks for the confirmation!

Here's the problem:

Libertarianism has meant one thing, a very leftwing and anti-Capatalism thing, for a few hundreds years, all over the world, including in the US. It was re-defined, randomly, in the US, a few decades ago.

In order to generate a left-wing libertarian you HAVE to include the primary definition of Libertarian, which is left-wing.

There is no left-wing anti-government intervention pro-capitalism version of Libertarian.

Liberals as defined by the whole world, except by you, believe in government intervention. That's not up for debate. You can deny that, but it's just a baseless denial.

As for your ignorance of Nolan and his laughable chart, well, again, it's not surprising. Ron Paul fanatics seem to get all of their (mis)information from Ron Paul forums and conspiracy forums, which lead to huge gaps in knowledge and ideologically, not factually based ideas about politics, history and the law.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

That piece of paper should be seen as a threat to every American.

These are the people you trust to govern over you.

reply to post by eLPresidente


The Ron Paul revolution is only beginning!
Soon the masses will awaken, especially when the economy collapses.

And then they will see that Ron Paul was right....again!!