ABC debate a joke

[lehighguy]

A big part of the libertarian philosophy is that it doesn't make statements about what is right or wrong culturally or for society of ever. For instance, Ron Paul might want to legalize drugs, but on a personal level think they are horrible and go door to door trying to convince people to reject drugs.

This is essentially why libertarianism can be accepted by everyone. Regardless or your believes, no mater what they are, you can still understand and appreciate the concept of not letting anyone or any group dictate thier believes through government force. I don't know what Ron Paul's personal stance on the bible is, only that he doesn't feel the need to impose his will through force.

[Scary_Tiger]

Ron Paul segment on Fox News in a little bit.

[Scary_Tiger]

lol Fox News.

1. Was 9/11 staged? zomg, but you said we were in danger of blah blah blah.

2. We're going to commercial, but when we come back you're going to tell us why you associate with the crazy truther.

[kidpokeher]

Mike Huckabee believes canadians live in igloos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mjZR8-vw0&NR=1

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
A big part of the libertarian philosophy is that it doesn't make statements about what is right or wrong culturally or for society of ever. For instance, Ron Paul might want to legalize drugs, but on a personal level think they are horrible and go door to door trying to convince people to reject drugs.

This is essentially why libertarianism can be accepted by everyone. Regardless or your believes, no mater what they are, you can still understand and appreciate the concept of not letting anyone or any group dictate thier believes through government force. I don't know what Ron Paul's personal stance on the bible is, only that he doesn't feel the need to impose his will through force.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. However, I think a president of the USA (or any other country) however libertarian will fall to the temptation of corruption, greed and impose on peoples liberty -especially if there is an underlying personal conviction to see people have something forced upon them such as compulsory bible study for children.

Also, Ron Paul and his administration will have to "impose his will through force" or atleast the will of the state. Just as any other leader be it a libertarian, socialist, republican etc.

"The professors of the School and the functionaries of the State will call themselves republicans; but they will be none the less tutors, shepherds, and the people will remain what they have been hitherto from all eternity, a flock. Beware of shearers, for where there is a flock there necessarily must be shepherds also to shear and devour it.

The people, in this system, will be the perpetual scholar and pupil. In spite of its sovereignty, wholly fictitious, it will continue to serve as the instrument of thoughts, wills, and consequently interests not its own. Between this situation and what we call liberty, the only real liberty, there is an abyss. It will be the old oppression and old slavery under new forms; and where there is slavery there is misery, brutishness, real social materialism, among the privileged classes as well as among the masses."

Bakunin

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]


I agree with this. However, I think a president of the USA (or any other country) however libertarian will fall to the temptation of corruption, greed and impose on peoples liberty -especially if there is an underlying personal conviction to see people have something forced upon them such as compulsory bible study for children.

Also, Ron Paul and his administration will have to "impose his will through force" or atleast the will of the state. Just as any other leader be it a libertarian, socialist, republican etc.

"The professors of the School and the functionaries of the State will call themselves republicans; but they will be none the less tutors, shepherds, and the people will remain what they have been hitherto from all eternity, a flock. Beware of shearers, for where there is a flock there necessarily must be shepherds also to shear and devour it.

The people, in this system, will be the perpetual scholar and pupil. In spite of its sovereignty, wholly fictitious, it will continue to serve as the instrument of thoughts, wills, and consequently interests not its own. Between this situation and what we call liberty, the only real liberty, there is an abyss. It will be the old oppression and old slavery under new forms; and where there is slavery there is misery, brutishness, real social materialism, among the privileged classes as well as among the masses."

Bakunin

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I don't understand. You imply the Ron Paul would succumb to the same problems and vices as other presidents before him, most notably our current president. Yet, you fail to take into account that he has decades under his belt as a representative, and he has been a rock through out. You will struggle to find a SINGLE TIME he has voted against the constitution, but you still lump him in with any other candidate, and presume he will fail to remain a steadfast constitutionalist.

You can't do this. You can't completely throw his years of proving himself out of the window, and 'go with your gut'.

He HAS proven himself. Have you?

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I agree with this. However, I think a president of the USA (or any other country) however libertarian will fall to the temptation of corruption, greed and impose on peoples liberty -especially if there is an underlying personal conviction to see people have something forced upon them such as compulsory bible study for children.

Also, Ron Paul and his administration will have to "impose his will through force" or atleast the will of the state. Just as any other leader be it a libertarian, socialist, republican etc.

"The professors of the School and the functionaries of the State will call themselves republicans; but they will be none the less tutors, shepherds, and the people will remain what they have been hitherto from all eternity, a flock. Beware of shearers, for where there is a flock there necessarily must be shepherds also to shear and devour it.

The people, in this system, will be the perpetual scholar and pupil. In spite of its sovereignty, wholly fictitious, it will continue to serve as the instrument of thoughts, wills, and consequently interests not its own. Between this situation and what we call liberty, the only real liberty, there is an abyss. It will be the old oppression and old slavery under new forms; and where there is slavery there is misery, brutishness, real social materialism, among the privileged classes as well as among the masses."

Bakunin

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I don't understand. You imply the Ron Paul would succumb to the same problems and vices as other presidents before him, most notably our current president. Yet, you fail to take into account that he has decades under his belt as a representative, and he has been a rock through out. You will struggle to find a SINGLE TIME he has voted against the constitution, but you still lump him in with any other candidate, and presume he will fail to remain a steadfast constitutionalist.

You can't do this. You can't completely throw his years of proving himself out of the window, and 'go with your gut'.

He HAS proven himself. Have you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not- not everyone is for the constitution. Some of us are not in favour of small government and free markets either. Some are not in favour of any state whatsoever. I never said I was opposed to Ron Paul per se. I merely stated that he was a "joke" if the misinformation I heard on him was true.

Note: freedom of expression, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", The Right to Travel, slavery etc. are NOT directly mentioned in the constitution. My personal philosophy is that no leader even if elected through universal suffrage can provide liberty, freedom and equality- as by the very defintion of state and power it is opposed to these virtues of life which I hold dear. This is why I could never put hope in Ron Paul.

link

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal philosophy is that no leader even if elected through universal suffrage can provide liberty, freedom and equality- as by the very defintion of state and power it is opposed to these virtues of life which I hold dear. This is why I could never put hope in Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense to me. Obviously, things like freedom, liberty, and equality are a continuum. They aren't binary -- you have it all or you have none. So, folks like RP who try to slide the scale towards more freedom and liberty are at least helping more than others who are pulling it the other way. If you want to wait for the Messiah to come down and run on a platform of abolishing the state and win, well, enjoy your wait. And no, I don't believe the lesser of evils is a good thing. But IMO RP is a different animal because he's actually moving the OTHER way rather than just trying to slow the slide towards less freedom. That's unique in Presidential races in my lifetime.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I agree with this. However, I think a president of the USA (or any other country) however libertarian will fall to the temptation of corruption, greed and impose on peoples liberty -especially if there is an underlying personal conviction to see people have something forced upon them such as compulsory bible study for children.

Also, Ron Paul and his administration will have to "impose his will through force" or atleast the will of the state. Just as any other leader be it a libertarian, socialist, republican etc.

"The professors of the School and the functionaries of the State will call themselves republicans; but they will be none the less tutors, shepherds, and the people will remain what they have been hitherto from all eternity, a flock. Beware of shearers, for where there is a flock there necessarily must be shepherds also to shear and devour it.

The people, in this system, will be the perpetual scholar and pupil. In spite of its sovereignty, wholly fictitious, it will continue to serve as the instrument of thoughts, wills, and consequently interests not its own. Between this situation and what we call liberty, the only real liberty, there is an abyss. It will be the old oppression and old slavery under new forms; and where there is slavery there is misery, brutishness, real social materialism, among the privileged classes as well as among the masses."

Bakunin

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I don't understand. You imply the Ron Paul would succumb to the same problems and vices as other presidents before him, most notably our current president. Yet, you fail to take into account that he has decades under his belt as a representative, and he has been a rock through out. You will struggle to find a SINGLE TIME he has voted against the constitution, but you still lump him in with any other candidate, and presume he will fail to remain a steadfast constitutionalist.

You can't do this. You can't completely throw his years of proving himself out of the window, and 'go with your gut'.

He HAS proven himself. Have you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not- not everyone is for the constitution. Some of us are not in favour of small government and free markets either. Some are not in favour of any state whatsoever. I never said I was opposed to Ron Paul per se. I merely stated that he was a "joke" if the misinformation I heard on him was true.

Note: freedom of expression, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", The Right to Travel, slavery etc. are NOT directly mentioned in the constitution. My personal philosophy is that no leader even if elected through universal suffrage can provide liberty, freedom and equality- as by the very defintion of state and power it is opposed to these virtues of life which I hold dear. This is why I could never put hope in Ron Paul.

link

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not in favor of Ron Paul, you're not in favor of the Constitution, you ARE in favor of bigger government, and you're not a fan of the free market.

Based on the above, you would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to effectively communicate with, so I bid you farewell.

And good luck with ALLLLLLL that.....

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
Republican viewers have the right to learn more about the credible candidates for the nomination of their party. To waste time on incredible candidates like Ron Paul is an assault on the rights of the viewers.

The joke here, as it was also in the Democratic debate, is the inclusion of any old minor candidate in debates.

[/ QUOTE ]


FYP