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

reply to post by RSF77


Its a declaration of war as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

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.

1) I can't help what the rest of the world thinks. I've said, repeatedly, that they are welcome to their own definitions - in THEIR politics. They are not, however, welcome to impose their definitions on US politics. We ARE still discussing US politics, which you seem to be blissfully ignorant of, and so insist on imposing other countries' politics on the US.

I still can't figure out why you have such a hard time wrapping your head around the notion that we are discussing US politics here.

2) I'm afraid I'm going to need some sort of verification on that "hundreds of years" claim in reference to Libertarians, especially the claim of left-wingers (or right-wingers for that matter, although you don't specifically mention them) a few hundred years ago. Trying to find an "anti-capitalist" that long ago would be a plus.

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

Again, if you say so, boss-man. If that works for you over there, then that's great for ya. It doesn't fly here.

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.

Well... if it's not up for debate, why bother discussing it? You do seem to have a hard time differntiating between the English words "Liberal" and "Libertarian".

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.

You seem to have mistaken me for a Ron Paul supporter. I am not. So far, I've found NO candidate worth supporting, and I don't honestly expect to. Being against Romney does not automatically force one to be FOR Paul or Obama.

I think we're about done here. All this is doing is derailing the thread with your spurious definitions of "Libertarian", and your spurious claims of Libertarians "a few hundred years ago". I'm not here to help you derail anything.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Thanks Mittens.
Now go check your accounts and stop bothering the grown-ups.

reply to post by nenothtu


What he meant I think is that "Progressives have always been anti-capitalist and anti-free thought". Progressives so hated free thought that they hijacked, then destroyed the Classical Liberal movement(which modern Conservatism is descendant from in a kind of "apple falls from the tree and rolls a slight bit away").

Originally posted by nenothtu

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.

Europeans tend to be egomaniacs, hence why our Ancestors risked life and limb to cross the Atlantic. The concept of "right wing" and "left wing" as told by the media is Euro-Centric.

Look at the KKK and extreme sovereign survivalists. Under the European model both are "Extreme right wing". But there is a big difference between the two. The KKK wants the government to enforce it's views(segregation), while the survivalists want to be left alone, they don't want anyone telling them what to do.

You have to understand that all Europeans are still serfs, slaves and property to their governments in a very reals sense. So the only issues they have are social, cultural and economic; but not political.

That is why for America it is best to use the American political scale and focus on the power of the government(extreme leftism), in comparison to the power of the individual(extreme right wing).

But if you where to do that then: Neo Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Progressives, Communist's and Socialists would all be left wing. As each want to use politics to enforce their world view on others.

The worldwide establishement fights back and keeps spreading ignorance. Another article from french press is presenting only two candidates. Obama and Romney. Still quoting Gingrich and Santorum BUT NOT A SINGLE RON PAUL. Not once! Obama would be alledgelly ahead according to Reuters (:barf

Even overseas the result of Tampa convention is already known and written down in history books.
How wrecked is this world?

link (french)

reply to post by korathin


LOLS at your ridiculous idea that "Europeans tend to be egomaniacs". I'm an American living in Europe and can tell you you're completely full of #.

And btw., the KKK doesn't just want segregation, as shown by the hundreds of black people they've killed.

reply to post by nenothtu


The reason I have brought Europeans political definitions (they were the American one's as well, until a few decades ago) is because you referenced them with your laughable assumption that there's a branch of liberal Us Libertarianism... there's not. The only way to try and understand that absurd assertion is through understanding the European definition. I know it lets you off the hook by ignoring that, repeatedly, but it's the only reason I brought up the most common definition of the term Libertarian.

As for you needing proof of my "claim":

anarchism.pageabode.com...

So there's 150 years of the use of the word, 50 short of 200. That was me doing the math too quickly... so for 150 years it was a left-wing anarchist anti-capatalist term...

In the 1970s, so 40 years ago, some Americans decided to redefine the term...

From that page:

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it! The facts are somewhat different. As Murray Bookchin noted, “libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57] While we discuss this issue in An Anarchist FAQ in a few places (most obviously, section A.1.3) it is useful on the 150th anniversary to discuss the history of anarchist use of the word “libertarian” to describe our ideas.

So yeah, US Libertarians, as defined after the 1970s, coopted and twisted the term... the original definition, the worldwide definition (arising from Euroean anarchism). Those are the only "liberal" Libertarians going.

As for the Nolan Chart, I could only assume, as it's the basis for your ridiculous claim, that you had seen it... I suppose you'd just seen someone else re-purpose it. Fair enough.

So, to wrap it up, YOU (ignorantly) brought up European Libertarianism. Not me.

how can they get away with this its unbelievable.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by nenothtu

 

What he meant I think is that "Progressives have always been anti-capitalist and anti-free thought". Progressives so hated free thought that they hijacked, then destroyed the Classical Liberal movement(which modern Conservatism is descendant from in a kind of "apple falls from the tree and rolls a slight bit away").

Had he specified "Progressives", I would have to agree, but he said "Liberals". Oddly, when the Republican Party emerged just prior to the Civil war, they WERE "liberals", and during their early years, they could be considered "progressives" by modern standards - through the Civil War and in the aftermath known as Reconstruction. In those days, they even boldly referred to themselves as "radicals" while they were radically, "progressively", restructuring (rather than reconstructing as they claimed) America and the Federal Government.

It has always fascinated me how fluid political labels can be, and how the different factions morph and change over time, sometimes "swapping sides". The most glaring recent example was the swapping of the political color scheme around the year 2000 - blue changed to red, and vice versa, all of the sudden, right around that election. It took me a while to figure out what they had done - all my conservative friends were suddenly "reds" where they had always been "blue" before. Prior to that, "Reds" were something else altogether. When i realized there had been a Neocon takeover of the Republicans, and just what Neocons actually are, it all made sense then, and I walked away.

catch the RON PAUL fever - romney should throw his support behind RON PAUL president 2012.

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by nenothtu

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

We are not.

Europeans tend to be egomaniacs, hence why our Ancestors risked life and limb to cross the Atlantic. The concept of "right wing" and "left wing" as told by the media is Euro-Centric.

He's actually an American, who has gone over to the Dark Side, and now lives in a fairly large European city.

Look at the KKK and extreme sovereign survivalists. Under the European model both are "Extreme right wing". But there is a big difference between the two. The KKK wants the government to enforce it's views(segregation), while the survivalists want to be left alone, they don't want anyone telling them what to do.

Yet one (the KKK) is Authoritarian, and the other is Libertarian. Europeans seem to confuse "liberal" with "liberty" That is a function of only having two degrees of freedom - right or left. To be fair, though, a number of Americans also confuse "Liberal" with "Authoritarian", and class all Liberals as such.

You have to understand that all Europeans are still serfs, slaves and property to their governments in a very reals sense. So the only issues they have are social, cultural and economic; but not political.

That is why for America it is best to use the American political scale and focus on the power of the government(extreme leftism), in comparison to the power of the individual(extreme right wing).

That's why I gave up on the Left-Right paradigm. It's not descriptive enough, it doesn't allow for all degrees of freedom of movement. There are too few boxes to categorize political thought into. If I had to put everything along the left-right spectrum, US politics would tilt like a seesaw, because nearly everyone here would be on one end - the "left" one. The burgeoning support for Romney illustrates that - people are jumping on his leftist bandwagon, thinking they can make it tilt right. they won't.

But if you where to do that then: Neo Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Progressives, Communist's and Socialists would all be left wing. As each want to use politics to enforce their world view on others.

Exactly so - which is why the added dimension of "Authoritarian" versus "Libertarian" is now needed here.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

So, to wrap it up, YOU (ignorantly) brought up European Libertarianism. Not me.

No sir, I did not. You brought it up. I have no use for European politics in America. There is no reason for me to have dragged Europe into it. That was all YOU, baby!

Now, if you want to go back and see just which post brought it up, we can do that...

reply to post by nenothtu


My use of the word liberal wasn't random; I was using the most universal, mos accepted, least controversial definition.

Liberal in America is usually about social stuff, moral stuff, unlike say being a supporter of left-wing economic policy. But in Europe and America the basic ideas of "liberalism" are pretty common.. a belief in democracy and a belief in government intervention, in so far as things like a social safety net.

The one main example of "liberal" in a more traditional way is probably Australia... where liberal is socially conservative and adamantly free market... unless there's others I am unaware of...

If you would rather use Progressive, that's fine, the same is still true... if you define left-wing as Progressive, then there are no Progressive US Libertarians...

The only thing close to "Progressive Libertarians" would be Libertarians in the European sense.

So, there's NO left-wing/Progressive/(American-style) Liberal US Libertarians.*

They don't exist.

US Libertarians are a right-wing, extremely right-wing anti-government pro-deregulation, pro-laissez faire capitalism, and delusional group of idiots.

* You might be able to dig up a few very confused Ron Paul voters that claim to be "liberal" and "libertarian," but those folks, if they exist, are massively uninformed about Libertarian policies (like many so called US "Libertarians")... if they agree with the Libertarian party platform they are not Progressives/Liberals/etc.

reply to post by nenothtu


Like I said, if you pay attention, by claiming there's liberal Libertarians you brought it up... Unless you were using some archaic American definition of liberal, welded onto the extremely modern definition of Libertarian?

So liberal, as defined as conservative, and libertarian as defined as conservative... then yes, Libertarianism runs all the way from conservative to ... conservative...

I don't know how many times this has been said, but I know its been said a great deal. In fact, I know people are sick of seeing it but...

If you vote for Obama or Romney, you are not voting for two different people, you are voting for the actions that will take place. It doesn't matter who gets in office. Obama will do the same thing Romney will do, and vice versa.

To make this simpler to understand, there is no difference between the two, its only a illusion of difference.
They will be both paid off by the same bankers, and no one understands that. They follow a universal banker-oriented script, and anyone who becomes president has to follow it, or he/she will never get in office, will hardly be mentioned in the media, newspapers, on the internet; subject to being a victim of fraud, and anything else bad.

Let the trolls come in and generalize RP supporters as whatever, let them dodge questions they know they can't answer because they know their wrong. It makes me not only mad but feel pity for the people who don't know
that the false sense of freedom they have doesn't exist. Its crazy that the reason they even think they have an opinion is because the MSM constructed it for them.

reply to post by Vandettas


This opinion of yours is the product of your paranoia and delusions. There's clear differnences between Romney and Obama, and their policies. Now, Obama is not hugely liberal/progressive and Romney isn't hugely conservative, but you know what, America is neither extremely liberal or conservative.

On top of all of that Paul chooses to remain a Republican, not an independent, and that should tell you something.

As for the idea that everyone but you and a few select people is brainwashed by the "MSM"; poll after poll shows a majority distrust the mainstream media, people are unhappy with almost all politicians and people want legitimate change... So... I'd say that your claim is way off base.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Vandettas

 

This opinion of yours is the product of your paranoia and delusions. There's clear differnences between Romney and Obama, and their policies. Now, Obama is not hugely liberal/progressive and Romney isn't hugely conservative, but you know what, America is neither extremely liberal or conservative.

On top of all of that Paul chooses to remain a Republican, not an independent, and that should tell you something.

As for the idea that everyone but you and a few select people is brainwashed by the "MSM"; poll after poll shows a majority distrust the mainstream media, people are unhappy with almost all politicians and people want legitimate change... So... I'd say that your claim is way off base.

Really? Paranoia and delusions? You come to this illogical conclusion based on what? When did I ever say "everyone" is brainwashed by the MSM except me and few other people? Please show me the "internet polls" & "electric polls" that show a distrust in the media by the people. One that you know hasn't been manipulated or tampered with with a 100% certainty. Oh thats right, you can't...But instead of getting into a arguement which will turn into a you-have-no-proof-I-have-no-proof type thing, its best to just show you WHO PAYS OFF THESE PEOPLE.

And to show you that if telling the truth means I suffer from paranoia and delusions, then so be it.

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Vandettas

 

This opinion of yours is the product of your paranoia and delusions. There's clear differnences between Romney and Obama, and their policies. Now, Obama is not hugely liberal/progressive and Romney isn't hugely conservative, but you know what, America is neither extremely liberal or conservative.

On top of all of that Paul chooses to remain a Republican, not an independent, and that should tell you something.

As for the idea that everyone but you and a few select people is brainwashed by the "MSM"; poll after poll shows a majority distrust the mainstream media, people are unhappy with almost all politicians and people want legitimate change... So... I'd say that your claim is way off base.

Really? Paranoia and delusions? You come to this illogical conclusion based on what? When did I ever say "everyone" is brainwashed by the MSM except me and few other people? Please show me the "internet polls" & "electric polls" that show a distrust in the media by the people. One that you know hasn't been manipulated or tampered with with a 100% certainty. Oh thats right, you can't...But instead of getting into a arguement which will turn into a you-have-no-proof-I-have-no-proof type thing, its best to just show you WHO PAYS OFF THESE PEOPLE.

And to show you that if telling the truth means I suffer from paranoia and delusions, then so be it.

Yes, Paranoia and delusions.

Distrust in Media polls:

2003-2008
newsbusters.org...

2010
www.gallup.com...

2011
www.mediaite.com...

Trust in politicians at all time low:

Washington (CNN) - The public's trust in the federal government has dropped to an all-time low, according to a new national survey. A CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday morning indicates that only 15 percent of Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what's right just about always or most of the time. Last September that figure was at 25 percent. Seventy-seven percent of people questioned say they trust the federal government only some of the time, and an additional eight percent volunteer that they never trust the government to do what's right.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

People turning off TV for news coverage:

According to a new survey by the PEW Center for the People and the Press, 44 percent of Americans get their news from the Internet with a little less than one-fifth of those questioned admitting that it is their main source. The web has become the second most popular place for world and local information, up 17 points from 2007. This survey marks the first time where people under 30 prefer rely on websites more than watching news television programs, with eighteen to 29-year-olds who use the Internet as their main news source doubling. There is also growth in Web news as a main source for those 30 to 49, and that group is expected to join their younger counterparts in relying on the Internet for their information in 2011. TV news still is more popular among those who are less educated, while college graduates are split almost evenly between TV news programs and reading and watching on their computers.

techland.time.com...

I will quote you, and bold the things you have no proof of and are figments of your paranoid delusions:

They will be both paid off by the same bankers, and no one understands that. They follow a universal banker-oriented script, and anyone who becomes president has to follow it, or he/she will never get in office, will hardly be mentioned in the media, newspapers, on the internet; subject to being a victim of fraud, and anything else bad.

So pretty much every single thing in there is paranoid, in that you believe forces are controlling things against you... and delusional, as you don't think it's a guess, but fact. You posted a link showing that politicians take money from banks... that is NOT proof of anything you think it is.. and would only be considered such if you were paranoid and delusional.

You then go on to claim that all polls are probably manipulated or tampered with, again with no proof, but a paranoid fear of a cabal united against you.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Well then I could say the same thing. Your links prove nothing at all, so your delusional. All your doing is assuming. In fact, you went from assuming to thinking you actually know something that you don't. And again, you still didn't answer my questions from the last post, and on top of that your still claiming I said things that I didn't. Good job, your really SMART.