The Consistent Inconsistencies of Libertarians and Ron Paul

Originally posted by Robonakka
You think welfare is necessary? Why? You think the department of education is needed?

Never said anything about welfare or the department of education. But to dismantle them completely in one swipe would be suicide for the economy and the millions of people who DO use these programs!

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

1. How is the Constitution not "the bible ? It is the single most important document ever created in reference to the United States Of America.

2. That your government, was elected by the people, for the people and that it could not force you to do things that you had not agreed to.

3. No, because libertarians would never make a "political" party.

4. As a matter of fact the GOP were the MOST libertarian party of all time prior to Reagan.

5. Please show me how this is true? Please show me how following the constitution, word for word, is somehow changing it and giving "propaganda".

6. You should probably look in the mirror and discover your own ideological bias and mis-representation, before you go about attacking others.

1. We make laws that are outside the realm of the constitution.

2. I don't think anybody "agrees" with the taxes that their state and government makes them pay but they still do it! It's because not following the law has consequences and that consequence is jail time. Nobody wants that so they obey the law even if they don't like it! No matter how legal and constitutional it may be.

3. Libertarians have the Libertarian Party...Not sure what you mean by putting "political" in quotes like that. Use some context next time.

4. But we were still social conservatives. Something Ron Paul is not!

5. Ron Paul uses his own ideology to twist and turn the constitution just like any other politician, and that is what it was meant to be. A document that can be suited for the many opinions of Americans, just like how Madison and Hamilton disagreed. Anybody who doesn't see that every politician does this is blind! Ron Paul does the same thing and interprets it in the same way

6. Why? I know where I stand on the issues. I'm just stating my opinion, but because it's against libertarians it is wrong?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by fourthmeal
LOL. I saw the thread header, and I KNEW it was you, dude.

At least I am consistent.

All right...I'll bite on this little bit since it should be easy to resolve without much back-and-forth.

What (other than the death penalty and immigration) has Paul not been consistent on?

I'll even help you out here with a hand up out of the trap you dug for yourself - Paul still advocates ending the Fed (his book about 3 years back End the Fed should be a big clue there...), but he realizes, as stated on multiple occasions with many clarifications, that you cannot simply end it without more shock to the system than the Fed itself causes. He has not settled for *just* an audit of the Fed - that's merely the starting point to shine light on the creature and educate the people & Congress as to how big an issue it actually is - and why it NEEDS to be ended...safely.

reply to post by Praetorius


all i can say is read the second to last paragraph.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Praetorius

 

all i can say is read the second to last paragraph.

Yeah...I already did, and it doesn't help much.

Especially when End the Fed is also one of the big pages on his official campaign website?:

As President, Ron Paul will work for passage of comprehensive audit legislation, and he will also fight to legalize sound money so Americans will have alternatives to the Fed’s inflated paper money.

Ultimately, he will lead the charge to end the dishonest, immoral, and unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, enabling America to take a giant step toward economic security, financial responsibility, and lasting prosperity.

So...you're going to have to help me out here. You've claimed he's basically fickle and definitely inconsistent - but you can watch videos of him from almost 30 years ago giving the same speeches he does today. He moved away from supporting the death penalty because he realized the system is broken and that the innocent are executed (among other issues) and away from the classical libertarian stance on open borders/free immigration for a range of involved issues currently at play in the US.

I'm not aware of anything else he's changed position on, let alone been inconsistent.

I don't seek to be unkind to you here, and I know you're entitled to your opinion - but there's not much of accurate reality reflected in your thread, my friend.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Praetorius


That just means he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Giving the same speeches for thirty years is a bit boring. He only panders to his selective cult and never tries to think about how other people might see him, or what other voters want.

"He is just spreading his message." That's it!

But I tell you that message is very inconsistent.

Ron Paul has never said the constitution is the bible, he has said many times it is not perfect, but it is the law. Or should be/was until the country become engulfed in corruption.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

1. We make laws that are outside the realm of the constitution.

The states may make as many laws as they wish, provided they do not attempt to make laws that change any of the Constitution. The federal government making any laws that are outside of what is listed withint he Constitution is illegal.

Just because they passed them and nobody has yet to complain and get them struck down, doesn't make them any more lawful.

Remember that any power not afforded to the Federal Government is left to the states.

2. I don't think anybody "agrees" with the taxes that their state and government makes them pay but they still do it! It's because not following the law has consequences and that consequence is jail time. Nobody wants that so they obey the law even if they don't like it! No matter how legal and constitutional it may be.

Everybody "agrees" to pay tax in order to maintain the Union. If the government is for the people by the people then they must contribute to the government's ability to operate. Problem is the government has started spending that money in ways they should not.

There is a difference between lawful and legal. Most laws are "legal" but they are un-lawful in the context of actual Constitutional law. My answer for #1 still applies, just because the law is there, does not make it lawful.

Problem you have is that you don't understand your judicial & legislative systems and how they are suppose to work.

Nor do you seem to know about lawful vs legal. These are things that are VERY important if you are going to attempt to argue against libertarians.

3. Libertarians have the Libertarian Party...Not sure what you mean by putting "political" in quotes like that. Use some context next time.

That party was created as a means to combat the 1 party mentality of the GOP and the DNC. It basically ammounts to nothing considering it plays within the same corrupt realm as the two de-facto parties. It is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

There should be no political parties, only independants, that vote basd on the wants and needs of their constituency, not their friends.

4. But we were still social conservatives. Something Ron Paul is not!

You are not a social conservative. I'm sorry but if you believe that laws should be passed to prevent people from doing things other than violence, theft or mis-guidance ( as in lying in your contracts) then you are not a conservative.

Paul believes abortion is wrong,but doesn't believe the Government has the right to tell you not to get one.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in same sex marriage, however he does believe and support any contracts of voluntary association with the state. Meaning he doesn't believe in it, but same sex couples should be afforded the same rights if they choose to want them.

Your idea of attempting to legislate people's lives, is actually a liberal tenant. Conservatives believe in LIMITING the governments power over you in ALL aspects of life, social, economic etc..

Most self proclaimed conservatives are just dressed up liberals when you actually look and investigate their ideology.

6. Why? I know where I stand on the issues. I'm just stating my opinion, but because it's against libertarians it is wrong?

Here's the problem, you have opinions, yet you claim them as facts. This is biased and intellectually dishonest.

You can't go around acusing a group of spreading propaganda and attacking anybody who doesn't agree with them, or their views and then do the same.

You aren't wrong for not agreeing with libertarians, you're wrong for claiming that your ideas and opinions are "better" than there's, without providing any correlating data proving it.

~Tenth

Originally posted by filosophia
Ron Paul has never said the constitution is the bible, he has said many times it is not perfect, but it is the law. Or should be/was until the country become engulfed in corruption.

I never said Ron Paul said the Constitution is the Bible. I said he acts like it is! When in fact we make laws that are outside the constitution every day.

'they believe gay people don't exist' ??? Is this thread supposed to be sarcasmthat I missed?. Libertarians could very well BE gay, that is their libertarian choice.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Praetorius

 

That just means he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Giving the same speeches for thirty years is a bit boring. He only panders to his selective cult and never tries to think about how other people might see him, or what other voters want.

*scratches head*

How exactly does he not walk the walk? And you might consider 30+ years of consistency boring, but when the opposite is what we've been getting from politicians for who knows how long now, I consider it refreshing, personally.

And I'm not sure you're using the term "panders" quite correctly...and as far as I'm concerned - despite it being a political liability, sadly - not caring how others might see him (imagine if Jesus had!) or what "other" voters want is a good thing. In fact, the latter is simply part of political reality - a candidate has their platform and views, and if they try to hedge on it to please others of differing opinion (instead of merely trying to clarify for and educate people of different views, as does Paul) - then what is their opinion or word worth?

"He is just spreading his message." That's it!

Hmmm - I'm not sure I agree that "that's it" - but shouldn't he...or any other politician trying to enact change...do exactly that?

But I tell you that message is very inconsistent.

It's easy to say things, jjf3rd77 - not quite so easy to substantiate them.

Be blessed.

You said, 'ron Paul and his supporters will have you think the constitution is the bible'.

I am sorry that you think that, but I have never ever implied or tried to make people think the constitution has anything to do with the bible. I apologize over and over if I ever implied that, and I dont think Ron Paul ever implied the two were similar.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

You are not a social conservative. I'm sorry but if you believe that laws should be passed to prevent people from doing things other than violence, theft or mis-guidance ( as in lying in your contracts) then you are not a conservative.

I never said I was a social conservative. I said the party was. Do you know what a social conservative is?

According to Wikipedia most social conservative agree on the following issues.

As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion; oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism, support abstinence-only education, school prayers, gun ownership and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage; support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs; oppose prostitution and brothels, polygamy, gay adoption, premarital sex, and non-marital sex; and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency and promiscuity. Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools, preferring creationism.

That is the social aspect of the conservative movement. Something you libertarians despise! But you can't say social conservatives don't exist because they do and they make up the majority of the GOP, not the anti-war libertarians. Social conservatives are easily attacked by liberals and libertarians because they are willing to level the progressive agenda using government laws and regulations. I think their religious upbringing does shield them from the fact but that's the thing, when conservatives pass laws like that they think they are right! They think it is the moral thing to do. Sometimes its not, but sometimes it is! Same with libertarians.

The only thing Ron Paul agrees on with the social aspect of conservatives is gun laws, and evolution/creationism. Conservatives in general agree with the rest of Ron Paul's economic policy and limited gov't that's not really what I am critiquing here.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Praetorius

 

well i fixed a mistake i made mixed up hamilton and madison because I wrote this from memory! Sorry if its not perfect!!!!! Jeez.

What a guy can't make a mistake anymore?

????????? I am confused with this statement. I am still waiting for you not to make a mistake. I read your stuff and I get confused about who you are talking about and what you are saying other than you don't like Ron Paul and his supporters so you make up all kinds of crazy things and make really long posts trying to make sense of ridiculous and clownish accusations that make sense only to you.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

4. But we were still social conservatives. Something Ron Paul is not!

This is a direct quote from you. Kind of hard to lie when you posted this. YOU said you were a social conservative.

Do not attempt to obfuscate the facts.

That is the social aspect of the conservative movement. Something you libertarians despise!

Libertarians despise any form of legislation that limits freedom in the name of morality or some other ridiculous made up notion put forth by liberals or "social conservatives".

But you can't say social conservatives don't exist because they do and they make up the majority of the GOP, not the anti-war libertarians.

Of course they exist, they just aren't conservatives. You can provide wikipedia articles until you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that they DIRECTLY to against what the definition of a conservative is.

Social conservatives are easily attacked by liberals and libertarians because they are willing to level the progressive agenda using government laws and regulations.

Again, that's the problem, is that you think that you have the right to legislate people's lives. This makes you, a liberal, not a conservative.

I think their religious upbringing does shield them from the fact but that's the thing, when conservatives pass laws like that they think they are right! They think it is the moral thing to do. Sometimes its not, but sometimes it is! Same with libertarians.

See, that ambiguous morality shows it's face again. YOU do not have the right, to make the rules for me, because YOU think you have moral high ground. The united states was built to make sure that this would NEVER happen.

It's amazing, that you really believe you are a conservative, yet think you have the right to legislate people's lives and tell them what they can and cannot do, based on your beliefs and morals.

At least if you claimed to be a liberal ( as your ideology falls in line with) I'd understand.

Conservatives in general agree with the rest of Ron Paul's economic policy and limited gov't that's not really what I am critiquing here.

That is EXACTLY what you are critiquing. All of Ron's social policy, is based around not having the government make that decision for you, but having your state in conjunction with your own person, make that decision for you.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I read his blog in his sign off. I am beginning to believe he is one big, living breathing red herring. I doubt he is a romney supporter but actually is an obamanite seeking to obscure facts and truths to serve a liberal agenda. I think he says he supports romney because he knows romney is a tool and gets easily beaten by Obama. If he really was pro-Romney and feels he is right about RP as being a non issue he would spend more effort selling Romney yet he spends all his time offering RP polemics attacking anything and anyone that isn't romney/obama.
His pro romney and anti-obama args are always so weak I have to doubt his surface agenda as hidden motives.

It's all trolling as he rarely addresses real facts and cherry picks to cast more troll bait.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Thanks I really appreciate your OP. It is sad that the bigger tyhe mouth the most ignorance is produced regarding politics. America has NO tradition of libertarianism unlike say Italy or Spain so various Tea Party idiots just keep on yaking without a grain of substance. Fair comment being anti Governement or anti Big governement but theat does not make the Tea party Libertarian.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

1. YOU said you were a social conservative.

2. Libertarians despise any form of legislation that limits freedom in the name of morality or some other ridiculous made up notion put forth by liberals or "social conservatives".

3. Of course they exist, they just aren't conservatives.

4. It's amazing, that you really believe you are a conservative

5. That is EXACTLY what you are critiquing. All of Ron's social policy, is based around not having the government make that decision for you, but having your state in conjunction with your own person, make that decision for you.

1. I'm a republican, but that doesn't mean I have to follow the social conservative part of the republican party. Never claimed I was a conservative.

2. I once had a conversation with a libertarian who didn't like Jessica's law or any law infringing upon the rights of pedophiles. I believe when you get caught even touching children in a non-moral way, you should get all your rights taken away from you and your ball sac cut off! Funny how its the most liberal states in the country who still do not recognize Jessica's law. Luckily NJ will soon sign off on it. The guy I talked to actually looked like a pedophile, so I wasn't surprised he was advocating for the rights of disgusting creatures such as those. And Yes, 95% of society agrees with me!

3. So now I am going to call you a liberal for not wanting to be friends with Israel and wanting laws passed making marijuana available!

4. Never said I was conservative.

5. see number 2.

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Thanks I really appreciate your OP. It is sad that the bigger tyhe mouth the most ignorance is produced regarding politics. America has NO tradition of libertarianism unlike say Italy or Spain so various Tea Party idiots just keep on yaking without a grain of substance. Fair comment being anti Governement or anti Big governement but theat does not make the Tea party Libertarian.

You are the only one who kept an open mind reading this thread thank you!

reply to post by jjf3rd77

1. I'm a republican, but that doesn't mean I have to follow the social conservative part of the republican party. Never claimed I was a conservative.

Ok, so if you are going to LIE to me, why are we having this conversation?

YOU directly stated, that you were a social conservative. I don't know why you are trying to lie about it, I have the proof, in the post I linked in my previous post.

Why the lies?

2. I once had a conversation with a libertarian who didn't like Jessica's law or any law infringing upon the rights of pedophiles. I believe when you get caught even touching children in a non-moral way, you should get all your rights taken away from you and your ball sac cut off! Funny how its the most liberal states in the country who still do not recognize Jessica's law. Luckily NJ will soon sign off on it..

That's a straw man argument.

Libertarians believe only in laws that limit the freedom of those who set out to harm other people. Pedophiles don't deserve freedom, because they assault and abuse others.

Please do not confuse the two.

3. So now I am going to call you a liberal for not wanting to be friends with Israel and wanting laws passed making marijuana available!

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

Wow, you are just full of deflections and straw mans aren't you?

As for Israel, I support countries who don't carry on a genocide of other people.

As for the last part of your post, it is against the T&C to have discussions regarding illicit substances, but I will say that you are again confused about the judicial system.

You don't need to "pass" a law to make some legal. You strike down the law that made it illegal in the first place.

You really need to learn how things work in your country sir. I'm Canadian and seem to know more about the US and it's political/judicial/legislative bodies than you do.

And no, I'm a conservative, of the most hardcore kind my friend. I don't hide behind legislation and liberal ideology though like you do.

4. Never said I was conservative.

Yes you did, I can prove it, it's here in the thread, stop lying.

5. see number 2.

Why? It doesn't apply, since it's a straw man and non sensical.

You should [probably, again educate yourself on how your country works and then attempt to have an argument with a Libertarian over what's what.

You've shown me, in this thread and others you simply tow the party line, have no real opinions of your own, just talking points.

~Tenth