PDA

View Full Version : A worldwide freedom movement. REAL freedom is on the march...


Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:26 PM
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qBCiF9tPn9I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:27 PM
He might be the most annoying person on the f*cking planet. I'm starting to realize that supporters of this Ron Paul person are really fringe.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 04:30 PM
He might be the most annoying person on the f*cking planet. I'm starting to realize that supporters of this Ron Paul person are really fringe.

Then you must have your head firmly planted up your arse, Cranial Rectal Inversion is the proper term.

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:31 PM
Then you must have your head firmly planted up your arse, Cranial Rectal Inversion is the proper term.

Oh look. Exhibit A.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:31 PM
He might be the most annoying person on the f*cking planet. I'm starting to realize that supporters of this Ron Paul person are really fringe.


*shrug*

Oh noes! Someone thinks that we're crazy! What R we gunna dew!

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:33 PM
*shrug*

Oh noes! Someone thinks that we're crazy! What R we gunna dew!

I didn't say that. I said fringe.

He supports overturning Roe v. Wade, doesn't he? Do you agree with that?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 04:35 PM
I didn't say that. I said fringe.

He supports overturning Roe v. Wade, doesn't he? Do you agree with that?

Yes it is a state issue, do you admit you love killing and torture?

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:43 PM
I didn't say that. I said fringe.

He supports overturning Roe v. Wade, doesn't he? Do you agree with that?



Yes, I do. I believe that abortion should be an issue for the states, not for the courts to create legislation over. I don't believe the supreme court should have taken this issue away from the states. If the citizens of Idaho want to ban abortions in their state, they should be able to. If the citizens of California want to make abortions legal, then that is their perogative.

This is a fringe position how?

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:45 PM
Yes it is a state issue, do you admit you love killing and torture?

What an odd question. But my answer is no. I'm actually fine with overturning it and having each state decide.

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:46 PM
Yes, I do. I believe that abortion should be an issue for the states, not for the courts to create legislation over. I don't believe the supreme court should have taken this issue away from the states. If the citizens of Idaho want to ban abortions in their state, they should be able to. If the citizens of California want to make abortions legal, then that is their perogative.

This is a fringe position how?

You may note that I called his supporters fringe.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 04:48 PM
You may note that I called his supporters fringe.

If fringe=common sense, then yes we are "FRINGE", carry on.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:54 PM
You may note that I called his supporters fringe.



Yeah, it registered that you were pretty much just calling names. We're pretty used to that. It's a tactic that will work on the likes of the Kotters of this world to get them in line. We're a little more independant minded though.

Fringe works for me.

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:55 PM
If fringe=common sense, then yes we are "FRINGE", carry on.

I'd argue that you think his positions are "common sense" because you are, well, fringe.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 04:55 PM
I wonder, why should abortion be a state issue? Why doesn't the right to life fall under equal protection?

It's not as if an about-to-be-aborted baby has an ethically different situation in Missouri as they do in Kansas. Either the kid is alive and the government should protect them or they're a useless bundle of tissue and should be treated as such.

I suppose I don't understand what good the Constitution is at protecting essential liberties that not even the states can be permitted to violate if it doesn't protect your life and limb, without which any other liberties are rendered meaningless?

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:56 PM
Yeah, it registered that you were pretty much just calling names.

No, not really. I suppose I could have said, "His supporters tend to stand behind policies that are not mainstream" but I thought that was a little wordy.

Donger
12-13-2007, 04:57 PM
Fringe works for me.

That was my point, of course. Thanks. There's nothing 'wrong' with it at all.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 05:00 PM
I wonder, why should abortion be a state issue? Why doesn't the right to life fall under equal protection?

It's not as if an about-to-be-aborted baby has an ethically different situation in Missouri as they do in Kansas. Either the kid is alive and the government should protect them or they're a useless bundle of tissue and should be treated as such.

I suppose I don't understand what good the Constitution is at protecting essential liberties that not even the states can be permitted to violate if it doesn't protect your life and limb, without which any other liberties are rendered meaningless?

As far as i'm concerned, baby steps are necessary. ;)

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:02 PM
In this political atmosphere, about the nicest compliment you could pay me is to call me "fringe."

I do sincerely appreciate it.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 05:04 PM
You may note that I called his supporters fringe.
People like former Congressman Bob Barr and Judge Napolitano, who even appears on Fox?

Yeah, that's fringe.
You have nothing to add, so you rely on a generality.
The fringe is in power since 70% of the American people don't agree with their WoT.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:05 PM
In this political atmosphere, about the nicest compliment you could pay me is to call me "fringe."

I do sincerely appreciate it.

You're welcome. I actually like quite a bit of what this Ron Paul person has to say. I don't know how much of it is politically feasible, however.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:06 PM
People like former Congressman Bob Barr and Judge Napolitano, who even appears on Fox?

Yeah, that's fringe.
You have nothing to add, so you rely on a generality.
The fringe is in power since 70% of the American people don't agree with their WoT.

Yes, I'd say that Barr, Buchanan, et al were all fringe, too.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 05:06 PM
I was expecting Enzyte Bob's voice to sound a little lower.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:09 PM
You're welcome. I actually like quite a bit of what this Ron Paul person has to say. I don't know how much of it is politically feasible, however.


Why? It's not like the Democrats have the spine to stop him. And once the Republicans catch the hint, they'll be bending over backwards to save their own skins.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 05:09 PM
Yes, I'd say that Barr, Buchanan, et al were all fringe, too.

If you think that, then you're a Tory at heart, because they are true conservatives in the American tradition. Buchanan has been a party stalwart and respected for years and worked in the Reagan administration. It's NeoCons who don't respect him.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:12 PM
Why? It's not like the Democrats have the spine to stop him. And once the Republicans catch the hint, they'll be bending over backwards to save their own skins.

Oh, I think the Democrats would rally to defeat most of the things he proposes. But, maybe I overestimate their resolve.

It would be fun to watch.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:14 PM
If you think that, then you're a Tory at heart, because they are true conservatives in the American tradition. Buchanan has been a party stalwart and respected for years and worked in the Reagan administration. It's NeoCons who don't respect him.

You seem confused. By fringe, I mean non-mainstream. I don't mean it is an insult.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:15 PM
Oh, I think the Democrats would rally to defeat most of the things he proposes. But, maybe I overestimate their resolve.

It would be fun to watch.



I'd welcome the prospect of a real opposition party.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 05:17 PM
I wonder, why should abortion be a state issue? Why doesn't the right to life fall under equal protection?

It's not as if an about-to-be-aborted baby has an ethically different situation in Missouri as they do in Kansas. Either the kid is alive and the government should protect them or they're a useless bundle of tissue and should be treated as such.

I suppose I don't understand what good the Constitution is at protecting essential liberties that not even the states can be permitted to violate if it doesn't protect your life and limb, without which any other liberties are rendered meaningless?
The left via activists and activist judges have brought more and more cases to the SC that were never intended as the jurisdiction of the Federal govt....they slowly expanded the BoR's to apply to the states using the 14th Amendment, even though those advocating passage of the 14th Amendment promised this
expansion of federal power would never happen. Well it did. Now certain conservatives are merely using the same tactics by trying to get the BoR's protection of life under the the "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"
(and we have those rights in that order) clause applied to the states regarding the right of the unborn to life. However, an originalist construction, would not apply it this way. That's just caving into what the left has done which federalizes more and more areas.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:17 PM
I'd welcome the prospect of a real opposition party.

He ran once as a Libertarian, yes?

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 05:18 PM
You seem confused. By fringe, I mean non-mainstream. I don't mean it is an insult.
I disagree, it's an epithet term.

BTW some of his main issues are his most popular.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 05:18 PM
I'm having a freedom movement tuesday night.

Tuesday night, a friend of mine, whom I'm not sure why I like because she's a raging liberal.....is having an "Obama party". She's the local leader of his fanboi club.

I think I'm going to scoop a paper bag of cowdung and write "Ron Paul's Blimp" on it....and set it on fire on the front porch of their party.

it'll be awesome.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:18 PM
I'd welcome the prospect of a real opposition party.


In fact, I can't think of anything I'd like better than to see the debate between the philosophy of liberty and the philosophy of socialism re-opened in congress. It's exactly what this country needs right now.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:20 PM
I disagree, it's an epithet term.

That sounds like a personal issue to me. Surely you acknowledge that a lot of what Paul proposes is, indeed, fringe with regard to mainstream political thinking, no?

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 05:23 PM
That sounds like a personal issue to me. Surely you acknowledge that a lot of what Paul proposes is, indeed, fringe with regard to mainstream political thinking, no?
I've never denied that some of his issues are not mainstream but that doesn't them looney as some allege. It's just a new idea that's not accepted in certain circles...yet. The status quo usually mocks new ideas. It's cultural lag. At one time socialism and welfare states were considered fringe as well as democracy and independence movements. However, fringe implies a certain looniness or craziness.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:24 PM
However, fringe implies a certain looniness or craziness.

Not for me.

penchief
12-13-2007, 05:24 PM
*shrug*

Oh noes! Someone thinks that we're crazy! What R we gunna dew!

You're not crazy because you're touting "liberty." You're crazy because you can't see reason. Because you wish to impose your ideal of liberty (which is not exactly accurate) based on a whim instead of honest evaluation.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 05:26 PM
Not for me.
Pardon me then.
When you say something like this...it comes across that way.
He might be the most annoying person on the f*cking planet. I'm starting to realize that supporters of this Ron Paul person are really fringe.

Donger
12-13-2007, 05:28 PM
Pardon me then.
When you say something like this...it comes across that way.

Annoying doesn't automatically equal loony.

stevieray
12-13-2007, 05:32 PM
In fact, I can't think of anything I'd like better than to see the debate between the philosophy of liberty and the philosophy of socialism re-opened in congress. It's exactly what this country needs right now.

liberty and socialism? wouldn't that be capitlaism and socialism...?

REAL freedom is on the March...? Would that be like a REAL fan?....excessive drama and insensitive to the CRM, IMO.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:33 PM
You're not crazy because you're touting "liberty." You're crazy because you can't see reason. Because you wish to impose your ideal of liberty (which is not exactly accurate) based on a whim instead of honest evaluation.


I've been arguing libertarian principles for as long as I've been on this board. So not only are you ignorant of what "liberty" actually is, but you are apparently also clueless on the definition of "whim."

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:35 PM
liberty and socialism? wouldn't that be capitlaism and socialism...?


No, it wouldn't. Liberty and socialism are diametrically opposed to eachother. On the other hand, communist China has managed to integrate capitalism into their communist society. Indeed, capitalism is the economic underpinnings of the philosophy of liberty. Just as a centrally managed economy is the underpinnings of the philosophy of socialism. Or as Banyon would put it, "a mixed economy."

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 05:43 PM
Or as Banyon would put it, "a mixed economy."

The mixed economy is also referred to as "Third Way Socialism," which is the current trend. Aka "the middle way." It's just another type of socialism. It's basically a mix of socialism, mercantilism and fascism...with only some free markets. It's not free-enterprise capitalism...it's corporatism. Aka "cartel capitalism." Alexander Hamilton was our first corporatist. ( He favored aristocrats) Socialists fail to see that big business loves socialism as it prevents capital accumulation that can lead to competition which they hate. This way certain corps can use govt to control markets to their liking. Then they feed us peasants crumbs from the govt to shut us up.

Even the lefty publication Rolling Stone talks about how such corps gain from such a set up.

banyon
12-13-2007, 05:46 PM
The mixed economy is also referred to as "Third Way Socialism," which is the current trend. .

I wonder by whom it is referred to that way.



...nevermind, I knew the answer to that question without even asking. :rolleyes:

banyon
12-13-2007, 05:47 PM
No, it wouldn't. Liberty and socialism are diametrically opposed to eachother. On the other hand, communist China has managed to integrate capitalism into their communist society. Indeed, capitalism is the economic underpinnings of the philosophy of liberty. Just as a centrally managed economy is the underpinnings of the philosophy of socialism. Or as Banyon would put it, "a mixed economy."


This is actually pretty close to correct if you just substitute the word "anarchy" for "liberty".

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:54 PM
This is actually pretty close to correct if you just substitute the word "anarchy" for "liberty".


Only if you're a socialist - er, progressive who doesn't understand what liberty actually is, and that it comes with great personal responsibility.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 05:55 PM
The Constitution, the Gold standard, lower taxes, Al Gore shouldn't get a Nobel prize in an election year, fight fight fight.

Got it.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 05:56 PM
The mixed economy is also referred to as "Third Way Socialism," which is the current trend.



Veny interesting... I had not run across this term...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29

banyon
12-13-2007, 05:57 PM
Only if you're a socialist - er, progressive who doesn't understand what liberty actually is, and that it comes with great personal responsibility.

Or someone who doesn't understand basic social contract theory and that governments are created to enhance liberties and not to lessen them.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 05:58 PM
I'm having a freedom movement tuesday night.

Tuesday night, a friend of mine, whom I'm not sure why I like because she's a raging liberal.....is having an "Obama party". She's the local leader of his fanboi club.

I think I'm going to scoop a paper bag of cowdung and write "Ron Paul's Blimp" on it....and set it on fire on the front porch of their party.

it'll be awesome.
So technically, the cow will have a freedom movement earlier in the day?

Taco John
12-13-2007, 06:01 PM
Or someone who doesn't understand basic social contract theory and that governments are created to enhance liberties and not to lessen them.



ROFL We're going to give you more liberty by taking it away. It's called a "social" contract.

Got it. How's that working out for you and Penchief right now? Feeling like it's a huge success?

banyon
12-13-2007, 06:13 PM
ROFL We're going to give you more liberty by taking it away. It's called a "social" contract.

Got it. How's that working out for you and Penchief right now? Feeling like it's a huge success?

Yes it is. I live relatively free in the knowledge that my government is likely to make sure that I am secure in my person and property from the whims of individuals who might want to randomly injure or steal from me.

I would wager that if you wanted to drop yourself in the Middle of the Sudan right now, you might get to really enjoy some "liberty" with no interference. Probably some really low taxes too.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 06:19 PM
haha... I always love that argument... Usually it comes from the right though... "If you don't like it then you can GET out!"

stevieray
12-13-2007, 06:21 PM
The Constitution, the Gold standard, lower taxes, Al Gore shouldn't get a Nobel prize in an election year, fight fight fight.

Got it.

plus dramatic pauses of inspiration forming on his right...

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 06:26 PM
So technically, the cow will have a freedom movement earlier in the day?


Now that I think about it, and considering Obama isn't a Moo-slim, it might make sense for me to use the dung from my pig, bacon(caught this summer in his own freedom movement and freed by me, of the oppression of a confinement facility) and use a bag full of HIS freeDump to fill the bag.

Yeah. Thats more appropriate.

StcChief
12-13-2007, 08:53 PM
Freedum is on the march. right to Socialism.

level the playing field and redistribute the wealth to those who haven't worked for it.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 08:57 PM
Social contract comes from Rousseau, a forerunner to Marxism and communism. The same social contract the French revolution was based on and lead to the reign of terror. Pretty suppressive.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 09:04 PM
Veny interesting... I had not run across this term...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29

I read that halfway because I have to go offline. But I'd say it's pretty accurate. I'm glad they had a picture of Bill Clinton because I almost mentioned that he goes around the world giving speeches on Third Way socialism.

If you google Third Way in Lew Rockwell's search, an interesting array of articles come up about it.

Anyhow, this IS what we're getting and it IS what few are happy with, even banyon it seems.

penchief
12-14-2007, 01:24 PM
I've been arguing libertarian principles for as long as I've been on this board. So not only are you ignorant of what "liberty" actually is, but you are apparently also clueless on the definition of "whim."

I am a liberal and proud of it. Liberals have traditionally stood for individual liberty, privacy, and equal opportunity (not wealth redistribution as many of you reactionaries on the right-wing try to claim, but ONLY equal OPPORTUNITY). That's just the way it is.

Meanwhile, those of you on the right who have previously endorsed the elitist market as the "free market" continue to overlook the fact that a manipulated market is not free at all.

The "whim" I refer to is the willy nilly way in which you go from one conspiracy theory to another in order to satisfy your need for order and/or understanding. I've been there. I understand where you are coming from. You're looking for a savior.

I'm an obsessive-compulsive type-A liberal (the worst fate anyone could imagine). It would be much easier if I were the typical obsessive-compulsive type-A authoritarian. But I'm not so I have to live with it. That's why I'm challenging you to come clean.

I'm challenging you to give me your definition of liberty so that we can start from ground zero in an effort to Socratize the process in a way that will lead to a little bit of "give and take" from both of us. But until you are willing to connect the dots it seems like a futile effort. I'm asking you to forego your political excesses in order to promote reason, that's all.

Liberty is total freedom. You can't have that when you are being oppressed by undue economic influences. Are you capable of understanding that concept? More importantly, are you willing to address my comments without calling me uneducated?

Brock
12-14-2007, 01:27 PM
I am a liberal and proud of it. Liberals have traditionally stood for individual liberty, privacy

Depends on whose and which liberties you're talking about.

banyon
12-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Social contract comes from Rousseau, a forerunner to Marxism and communism. The same social contract the French revolution was based on and lead to the reign of terror. Pretty suppressive.

I always suspected Rousseau was a Marxist.

I suppose Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were as well? :rolleyes:

Your posts are really starting to become caricatures of themselves at this point.

penchief
12-14-2007, 01:36 PM
Depends on whose and which liberties you're talking about.

Explain, please.

Brock
12-14-2007, 01:37 PM
Explain, please.

Liberals don't give a damn about the second amendment and never did.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 01:41 PM
I always suspected Rousseau was a Marxist.

I suppose Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were as well? :rolleyes:

Your posts are really starting to become caricatures of themselves at this point.


Thomas Hobbes, the father of self-interested cooperation... Definitely not a socialist.

banyon
12-14-2007, 01:48 PM
Thomas Hobbes, the father of self-interested cooperation... Definitely not a socialist.

Keep up, Taco! We are calling people we don't like "Marxists" in this thread, not "socialists".

penchief
12-14-2007, 01:50 PM
Liberals don't give a damn about the second amendment and never did.

I'm here to tell you that is not true. I'm a second amendment advocate and a liberal. I don't think liberals are against the second amendment as much as righties try to use the second amendment as a wedge issue.

You will never find a post of mine anywhere that I have ever been in favor of gun control. And I'm as as much a liberal as anyone you will find.

True liberals are the true defenders of liberty. Not the neolibertarians, who are nothing more than an extension of the reactionary right (they are being manipulated in order to cut the new libertarian movement off at the pass). Even though many of the neolibertarian movement's new followers are well intended, they are nothing more than Johnny-come-lately conservatives who really don't understand the concept of universal liberty.

Many neolibertarians (semi-libertarians) are nothing more than tools for the same elitist interests that currently occupy the White House because those forces are hedging their bets so that they can buffer their elitist interests against the will of the people.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 01:53 PM
Hobbes and Locke, no.

Rousseau, particularly his Social Contract, is taught as a philosophical forerunner to socialist thought. It was to me. Just as Plato's Republic is what the Soviet model was based on. Ad hominem it all you want banyon as a cariciature, but that is a not an uncommon academic point made about Rousseau. He also wrote a Discourse on Inequality. He influenced Hegel and Kant.

I just googled wiki...
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, (June 28, 1712 July 2, 1778) was a philosopher and composer of the Enlightenment whose political ideas influenced the French Revolution, the development of both liberal and socialist theory, and the growth of nationalism.

Rousseau was one of the first modern writers to seriously attack the institution of private property, and therefore is sometimes considered a forebear of modern socialism and communism (see Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, though Marx rarely mentions Rousseau in his writings).

According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free.

However, the development of agriculture, metallurgy, private property, and the division of labor led to humans becoming increasingly dependent on one another, and led to inequality. The resulting state of conflict led Rousseau to suggest that the first state was invented as a kind of social contract made at the suggestion of the rich and powerful. [class warfare?]

Taco John
12-14-2007, 01:55 PM
I'm here to tell you that is not true. I'm a second amendment advocate and a liberal. I don't think liberals are against the second amendment as much as righties try to use the second amendment as a wedge issue.

You will never find a post of mine anywhere that I have ever been in favor of gun control. And I'm as as much a liberal as anyone you will find.

True liberals are the true defenders of liberty. Not the neolibertarians, who are nothing more than an extension of the reactionary right who are being manipulated in order to cut true liberty off at the pass. Even though many of the neolibertarian movement's new followers are well intended, they are nothing more than Johnny-come-lately conserveratives who really don't understand the concept of universality of liberty.

They are tools for the same elitist interests that currently occupy the White House because those forces are hedging their bets so that they can buffer their elitist interests against the will of the people.


I agree that neolibertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism) aren't ardent defenders of liberty. I think their ideas of preventive military kind of squashes that idea.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 01:57 PM
In fact, I can't think of anything I'd like better than to see the debate between the philosophy of liberty and the philosophy of socialism re-opened in congress. It's exactly what this country needs right now.

Liberty and socialism aren't diametrically opposed, though I'm sure they are in your mind.

Nor is this country's economic socialist, though I'm sure it is in your mind due to the fact that there are some socialist programs in place.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 02:01 PM
The key to liberty is private property rights. It does not derive from the commons. That is where some liberty must be compromised. Socialism is definitely opposed to liberty in the economic sphere. Liberty is not license: seeking permission to do what you ought not to do.

banyon
12-14-2007, 02:01 PM
Hobbes and Locke, no.

Rousseau, particularly his Social Contract, is taught as a philosophical forerunner to socialist thought. It was to me. Just as Plato's Republic is what the Soviet model was based on. Ad hominem it all you want banyon as a cariciature, but that is a not an uncommon academic point made about Rousseau. He also wrote a Discourse on Inequality. He influenced Hegel and Kant.

I just googled wiki...

Of course Marx had influences. Plato, Hegel, and Adam Smith were also influences. That deosn't make them Marixsts anymore than it makes Ronald Reagan a "ron Paulist" because Reagan is supposedly one of his influences. Again, your claim (exaggerated as usual) was that Rousseau was a Marxist. Saying he influenced Marx isn't the same thing at all. Of course, I've actually read Rousseau and you are probably relying on what you overheard at the nuthouse school, so i understand your confusion.

Social contract comes from Rousseau, a forerunner to Marxism and communism. The same social contract the French revolution was based on and lead to the reign of terror. Pretty suppressive.

Your original point, of course remaining astonishingly incorrect. As you've illustrated because Locke and Hobbes were both social contract theorists who predate Rousseau and of course the idea has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism.

Brock
12-14-2007, 02:01 PM
I'm here to tell you that is not true. I'm a second amendment advocate and a liberal. I don't think liberals are against the second amendment as much as righties try to use the second amendment as a wedge issue.

Then I assume you were outraged by the Brady law? As outraged as you are by the patriot act?

penchief
12-14-2007, 02:02 PM
Then I assume you were outraged by the Brady law? As outraged as you are by the patriot act?

Can you name someone on this board who has been as outspoken as I have against the Patriot Act?

banyon
12-14-2007, 02:02 PM
Liberty and socialism aren't diametrically opposed, though I'm sure they are in your mind.

Nor is this country's economic socialist, though I'm sure it is in your mind due to the fact that there are some socialist programs in place.

Uh oh, now you've gone and done it. :shake:



ROFL

Taco John
12-14-2007, 02:02 PM
Liberty and socialism aren't diametrically opposed, though I'm sure they are in your mind.


They absolutely are. Socialism is impossible without infringement of liberty.

Brock
12-14-2007, 02:03 PM
Can you name someone on this board who has been as outspoken as I have against the Patriot Act?

Is that another way of saying "No"?

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:04 PM
No, it wouldn't. Liberty and socialism are diametrically opposed to eachother. On the other hand, communist China has managed to integrate capitalism into their communist society. Indeed, capitalism is the economic underpinnings of the philosophy of liberty. Just as a centrally managed economy is the underpinnings of the philosophy of socialism. Or as Banyon would put it, "a mixed economy."

*sigh*

Capitalism and communism are diametrically opposed. China is moving away from a centrall managed economy while trying to retain control over the levers of political power. Whether that experiement will succeed only time will tell. Historically, capitalism and dictatorships have never worked in the same place at the same time.

Don't confuse socialism with communism, however. You're treating them as one and the same, and they're not.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 02:05 PM
No I'm not. I see Communism as an extreme form of socialism, where government has complete control of the means of production, but I understand that they're not the same thing.

Socialism is definitely a precursor of communism...

penchief
12-14-2007, 02:07 PM
I agree that neolibertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism) aren't ardent defenders of liberty. I think their ideas of preventive military kind of squashes that idea.

Look, I came up with the term neoliberarians to describe people like yourself who have abandoned the neoconservative/elitist philosophy of the Bush Administration. I did so because the administration's conduct has caused people who used to support the right wing monopoly to abandon the administration without necessarily abandoning the ideology.

That is why I call them "neo"libertarians. Because they are new to the concept of liberty. But if it pleases you I will stop using a label that I developed in my own mind in favor of the more accepted label that somebody else developed in their own mind.

How about if I describe you as a semi-libertarian because you only believe in half of what liberty is all about? I can live with that.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:09 PM
They absolutely are. Socialism is impossible without infringement of liberty.

Only because you're confused as to what liberty means.

penchief
12-14-2007, 02:10 PM
Is that another way of saying "No"?

Nobody was more outraged by the Patriot Act than I was. Is that clear enough for you?

I challenge you to find any post that I have ever submitted where I didn't oppose the Patriot Act. Good luck.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:12 PM
Libertarian, neo-libertarian, conservative, neo-conservative, the Third Way, socialist, Marxist, communist, liberal, elitist, etc ad infinitum.

The trend in this forum (mostly started by BEP IMNSHO) of slapping labels on things and pointing to it and saying "bad" has gotten very tiresome.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 02:15 PM
Nobody was more outraged by the Patriot Act than I was. Is that clear enough for you?

I challenge you to find any post that I have ever submitted where I didn't oppose the Patriot Act. Good luck.

He was asking you if you were outraged by the Brady law as much as you are outraged by the Patriot Act, which appears to be quite a lot. Focus on the Brady law and type out your thoughts.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:15 PM
No I'm not. I see Communism as an extreme form of socialism, where government has complete control of the means of production, but I understand that they're not the same thing.

Socialism is definitely a precursor of communism...

Precursor isn't quite right. Capitalism, socialism and communism are rather three different pionts along a sliding scale regarding private property ownership rights and methods by which the means of production are determined.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:19 PM
He was asking you if you were outraged by the Brady law as much as you are outraged by the Patriot Act, which appears to be quite a lot. Focus on the Brady law and type out your thoughts.

(I'm assuming you're also in Brock's camp on this, though I may be wrong):

why is it that failure to support an absolute and unfettered right to own anything from a handgun to a bazooka indicates lack of support for liberties, while those on the other side fo the coin can argue linguistics regarding abortion rights (or lack thereof), the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, the 4th amendment, etc. etc.

When it's an issue near and dear to the hearts of conservatives, we must haggle over every word of the relevant amendment. If it's the 2nd amendment, then the words don't matter -- free access to guns without any limitation whatsoever is clearly the only interpretation possible by one truly supportive of "liberty".

I disagree.

banyon
12-14-2007, 02:19 PM
Libertarian, neo-libertarian, conservative, neo-conservative, the Third Way, socialist, Marxist, communist, liberal, elitist, etc ad infinitum.

The trend in this forum (mostly started by BEP IMNSHO) of slapping labels on things and pointing to it and saying "bad" has gotten very tiresome.

yep.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:20 PM
The second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 02:20 PM
Libertarian, neo-libertarian, conservative, neo-conservative, the Third Way, socialist, Marxist, communist, liberal, elitist, etc ad infinitum.

The trend in this forum (mostly started by BEP IMNSHO) of slapping labels on things and pointing to it and saying "bad" has gotten very tiresome.
You say that like there's something wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong if the labels are accurate. I won't be insulted if you call me a conservative or a paleo-conservative. All a label does is identify something and put it into some form of classification. Your name is your label, it helps people identify you. The only people that have a problem with it, are those who don't want to confront what they're advocating. It's only bad when the labels are false. And again,you put words in my mouth, I never said whether it was good or bad either.

If you're tired of it, put me on ignore. Because I don't intend to stop.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:21 PM
yep.

Honestly.

I swear, this is basically how a thread goes:

Me: I like ducks

BEP: You're a neo-duckist. It's akin to Communism..

and we're off and running.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 02:22 PM
(I'm assuming you're also in Brock's camp on this, though I may be wrong):

When it's an issue near and dear to the hearts of conservatives, we mus
Well,now look who's using a label.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 02:23 PM
(I'm assuming you're also in Brock's camp on this, though I may be wrong):

why is it that failure to support an absolute and unfettered right to own anything from a handgun to a bazooka indicates lack of support for liberties, while those on the other side fo the coin can argue linguistics regarding abortion rights (or lack thereof), the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, the 4th amendment, etc. etc.

When it's an issue near and dear to the hearts of conservatives, we must haggle over every word of the relevant amendment. If it's the 2nd amendment, then the words don't matter -- free access to guns without any limitation whatsoever is clearly the only interpretation possible by one truly supportive of "liberty".

I disagree.

I'm opposed to the Brady law and I have reservations about the Patriot Act but could support some form of it, particularly if it were still a temporary measure. I don't know whether I'm in Brock's camp or not. I was really just trying to help penchief understand the question Brock was asking.

banyon
12-14-2007, 02:24 PM
Well,now look who's using a label.

:rolleyes: how pathetic. :shake:

patteeu
12-14-2007, 02:26 PM
Libertarian, neo-libertarian, conservative, neo-conservative, the Third Way, socialist, Marxist, communist, liberal, elitist, etc ad infinitum.

The trend in this forum (mostly started by BEP IMNSHO) of slapping labels on things and pointing to it and saying "bad" has gotten very tiresome.

While I can appreciate what you're saying here and largely agree that it's grown out of control, I refuse to quit using "neo-isolationist" until at least after Ron Paul crashes and burns in the Republican primaries. :)

patteeu
12-14-2007, 02:27 PM
You say that like there's something wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong if the labels are accurate. I won't be insulted if you call me a conservative or a paleo-conservative. All a label does is identify something and put it into some form of classification. Your name is your label, it helps people identify you. The only people that have a problem with it, are those who don't want to confront what they're advocating. It's only bad when the labels are false. And again,you put words in my mouth, I never said whether it was good or bad either.

If you're tired of it, put me on ignore. Because I don't intend to stop.

Your use of the "neoconservative" label has never been consistent, much less accurate.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:27 PM
You say that like there's something wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong if the labels are accurate. I won't be insulted if you call me a conservative or a paleo-conservative. All a label does is identify something and put it into some form of classification. Your name is your label, it helps people identify you. The only people that have a problem with it, are those who don't want to confront what they're advocating. It's only bad when the labels are false.

If you're tired of it, put me on ignore. Because I don't intend to stop.
Your methodology lacks argument. You slap a label on every statement, and then say it's similar to communism or marxism or whatever. Your posts are inevitably 3 sentences or so, and provide little insight into why the person is right/wrong, etc.

Maybe it works in your world, where apparently you've categorized and compartmentalized every idea anyone ever had, but it's not a particularly effective means of argument.

By all means, carry on, but IMHO you take it to silly levels. Labels can be useful in situations, and obviously in debate if you can categorize something and then crucify the category that can work, but I don't think the rest of us care all that much about your labels.

3 years from now you'll no doubt have evolved into lengthier, more descriptive labels:

"that's an expression of paleo-communist, reformist-socialist thought, trending towards the faux oligarchial . . . "

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 02:28 PM
Nor will I stop pointing out who hi-jacked the conservative movement by point out they're advocating a new type of conservatism and where the two types are different.

I will never stop pointing out where socialism is being advocated, by who historically and I will never stop pointing out why I don't fit purely into the libertarian camp.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:31 PM
Well,now look who's using a label.

Oy! I didn't say NEVER USE ANY LABEL AT ALL.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 02:31 PM
Your use of the "neoconservative" label has never been consistent, much less accurate.
Of course you say that. But it is accurate and not just per me.
I use it the same as Ron Paul.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:32 PM
While I can appreciate what you're saying here and largely agree that it's grown out of control, I refuse to quit using "neo-isolationist" until at least after Ron Paul crashes and burns in the Republican primaries. :)
Then maybe we need a thread that is nothing but definitions so we know what the **** everything is.

What, pray tell, is a neo-isolationist?

(God help me...)

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:33 PM
Of course you say that. But it is accurate and not just per me.
I use it the same as Ron Paul.

Fine. What is it, in 50 words or less?

The problem with all these new definitions is that nobody seems to agree on what exactly they are/aren't.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:37 PM
Nor will I stop pointing out who hi-jacked the conservative movement by point out they're advocating a new type of conservatism and where the two types are different.

I will never stop pointing out where socialism is being advocated, by who historically and I will never stop pointing out why I don't fit purely into the libertarian camp.

Oh, and socialism, to you, is anything other than gold-standard, absolutely unfettered marketplace determination of everything, with a government that couldn't regulate anything short of fraud, which makes it a bit difficult.

I view the US as a capitalistic society with some socialist programs. You probably view it as quite socialist. That's where I run into problems iwth your definitional structures. You're so far to one end of the spectrum, the labels you put on everything don't often fall into line with how the MAJORITY of people on here view things.

"Conservative" "Liberal", we all know roughly what they mean, within room for items of disagreement. You're so "refined" in your approach, which is specific to YOU, that it's hard to figure out what you mean sometimes, which IMHO makes some of your arguments either confusing or weakened.

That is my problem with this "label it and then kill it" approach you employ.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 02:39 PM
Fine. What is it, in 50 words or less?

The problem with all these new definitions is that nobody seems to agree on what exactly they are/aren't.

A label was needed to encapsulate Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas. The most obvious was isolationist, but they objected to that label based on nuances, so we applied the neo- prefix.

Plus "neo-" has the useful effect of carrying a negative connotation due to "neo-conservative" having been watered down into a generic insult.

banyon
12-14-2007, 02:41 PM
A label was needed to encapsulate Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas. The most obvious was isolationist, but they objected to that label based on nuances, so we applied the neo- prefix.

Plus "neo-" has the useful effect of carrying a negative connotation due to "neo-conservative" having been watered down into a generic insult for anyone.

This is exactly why I created "neo-Plutocrat" from my side of the divide, since much the same had been done with "socialist".

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 02:42 PM
Fine. What is it, in 50 words or less?
Apparently, just because you missed some very lengthy discussions and posts between pat and I on the merits or de-merits of neoConservatism, or even on socialism, does not mean it has not gone down on this BB. I assure you I can do it.

It's just that when it comes up there is no need to dig up long lengthy discussion each time on the so-called merits of certain philosophies, each and every time. So in the interest of brevity a label is used, which is exactly what it's for. So your post here is correct.

Other times, I have done it in jest or to return fire.

The problem with all these new definitions is that nobody seems to agree on what exactly they are/aren't.
That's not always the case with everybody here. It's usually the case for those who are in denial about what they're advocating. Just because everybody may disagree in certain cases, doesn't mean there isn't a workable definition. Then there is propaganda by redefinition of words.

I will say one thing, Hamas is the honest socialist here. He correctly labels himself. Taco and BD do as well.

banyon
12-14-2007, 02:47 PM
LMAO Not only did she fail to provide any semblance of a definition, she managed to call (most) of those who disagree with her dishonest.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 02:47 PM
This is exactly why I created "neo-Plutocrat" from my side of the divide, since much the same had been done with "socialist".

There's this stupid dynamic here that if you don't agree with me on every last item on this 32,000 issue list, you're not a conservative, you're a liberal/socialist/Marxist/neocon/fascist blah blah blah.

It might be called neo-ideological fascism.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 02:49 PM
Then maybe we need a thread that is nothing but definitions so we know what the **** everything is.

What, pray tell, is a neo-isolationist?

(God help me...)

Neo-isolationism is the foreign policy proposed by Ron Paul. He calls it non-interventionism to put a happy face on it. It consists of:

Bringing our troops home not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from virtually every other foreign base we have (Germany, South Korea, England, Philippines, etc.).
Stopping all foreign aid and foreign military sales
Stopping all covert operations that interfere with foreign governments (including those that prop them up). He would apparently continue to support spying on other countries but he'd disband the CIA and retask some other group within the government to do it, probably the military from what the local Ron Paul folks say.
Downsizing the military and re-equiping them as primarily a border defense force. No more need for power projection.
Relying almost exclusively on talk to achieve foreign policy objectives whatever those would be.
Fighting the GWoT with Letters of Marque and Reprisal, diplomacy, and defensive measures here at home.

I add the "neo" prefix because unlike old fashioned, full blown isolationists, Ron Paul would be happy to continue international diplomacy (but only via talk because foreign aid and other carrots are off the table as is the stick of the credible threat of force) and he'd allow US citizens to take part in international trade and travel.

Now some of the Ron Paul supporters might take issue with the "absolute" nature of some of my characterizations and I'll agree that maybe there are exceptions to some of the positions listed above, but I'm pretty confident I'm close to the mark.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:51 PM
There's this stupid dynamic here that if you don't agree with me on every last item on this 32,000 issue list, you're not a conservative, you're a liberal/socialist/Marxist/neocon/fascist blah blah blah.

It might be called neo-ideological fascism.

Quoted for truth, and that's my problem with all this.

It also seems that BEP has spawned some kind of odd feeding frenzy of label/re-label creation.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 02:52 PM
Now some of the Ron Paul supporters might take issue with the "absolute" nature of some of my characterizations and I'll agree that maybe there are exceptions to some of the positions listed above, but I'm pretty confident I'm close to the mark.

Wow...

I've got my own label for that package of ideas: "Stupid"

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 02:55 PM
Oh, and socialism, to you, is anything other than gold-standard, absolutely unfettered marketplace determination of everything, with a government that couldn't regulate anything short of fraud, which makes it a bit difficult.
Now it's my turn to analyze you're personalty and style. You frequently put words in my mouth and change around what I say. You can't duplicate. maybe you need to look up some words yourself. I notice attorney's tend to do this a bit more. I have not advocated a gold standard for one thing. I do not advocate an " absolutely unfettered marketplace" either. I advocate a lot less govt but that can be put on a scale...and it doesn't hit anarchism for me.

I view the US as a capitalistic society with some socialist programs. You probably view it as quite socialist. That's where I run into problems iwth your definitional structures.
Again, changing my words to suit your own antagonism. I view our economy as mixed. I view our govt as way too big. I view liberal dems, mostly of them anyway, as socialists in varying degrees whether they agree with it or not.

I'm anti-socialist and I've studied what it is more than most.

You're so far to one end of the spectrum, the labels you put on everything don't often fall into line with how the MAJORITY of people on here view things.
I am actually in the original center for this country which is to the right of today. See, you haven't followed me at all. You missed huge chunks to put it into perspective. I admit that I am on certain issues removed from the mainstream, a mainstream that is now too far left and in the BiG govt camp today with significant socialism ( mixed third way) that continues to grow.

I don't care about what the majority thinks is correct, that doesn't mean something is correct necessarily.

That is my problem with this "label it and then kill it" approach you employ.
No I just can't see reiterating long posts over and over. As for who has hijacked the conservative movement, that is a meritorious argument since it is a group of ideologues that advocate something different. You are not in my party so you can't understand it.

Now I'm late for a holiday event at my kid's school but I did not want to be found running away from this argument.

BTW I don't see you as a socialist. I do see you as a Hamiltonian though. And I think it's accurate. You're just not as anti-business as some liberals.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:05 PM
Now it's my turn to analyze you're personalty and style. You frequently put words in my mouth and change around what I say. You can't duplicate. maybe you need to look up some words yourself. I notice attorney's tend to do this a bit more. I have not advocated a gold standard for one thing. I do not advocate an " absolutely unfettered marketplace" either. I advocate a lot less govt but that can be put on a scale...and it doesn't hit anarchism for me.

I'll grant you that your particular package of ideas is hard to either memorize or label, because it's rather out there... :D

Again, changing my words to suit your own antagonism. I view our economy as mixed. I view our govt as way too big. I view liberal dems, mostly of them anyway, as socialists in varying degrees whether they agree with it or not.

:shrug: From your poists, it appears you view nearly everyone as socialist, so I'm hardly offended.

I'm anti-socialist and I've studied what it is more than most.

And yet, not much more (if at all) than many that argue on here. I think plenty of us can follow your economics arguments and reject them, and yet you seem to think we're incapable of understanding at a basic level or something.

I am actually in the original center for this country which is to the right of today. See, you haven't followed me at all. You missed huge chunks to put it into perspective. I admit that I am on certain issues removed from the mainstream, a mainstream that is now too far left and in the BiG govt camp today with significant socialism ( mixed third way) that continues to grow.

I'd agree with all this, and would point out that the "original center" doesn't matter much 200+ years later. Your concept that the country should remain ideologically fixed regardless of changing internal and external circumstances I (and most everyone else in the country) reject utterly.

I don't care about what the majority thinks is correct, that doesn't mean something is correct necessarily.

Clearly, and commendable, and yet it doesn't make YOU correct either. In fact, by definition, being in the (extreme IMHO) minority means that your beliefs will not and should not find fruition until and unless you convince a majority of your fellow voters to agree with you.

No I just can't see reiterating long posts over and over. As for who has hijacked the conservative movement, that is a meritorious argument since it is a group of ideologues that advocate something different. You are not in my party so you can't understand it.

This is a fundamental flaw of yours, I think. I'm not religious and yet I can understand it (without the emotional rapture and attachment). I'm not a nazi and yet I know far more about it than most adherents to that cause ever did.

And I understand that you view conservatives as having changed from what they were once upon a time. But if the position of, hypothetically, 90% of conservatives change from X to Y on a given issue, and you're in the 10%, have you left them or have they left you? Perhaps they are not neo-conservative, but rather you are paleo-conservative...

(see, maybe I can understand a simple thought or two)

Now I'm late for a holiday event at my kid's school but I did not want to be found running away from this argument.

It's probably fair to say that nobody would accuse you of that. You've established yourself well enough here I think.

BTW I don't see you as a socialist. I do see you as a Hamiltonian though. And I think it's accurate. You're just not as anti-business as some liberals.

Hamiltonian would probably be accurate, but even though I've read extensively about him, I don't know his views on all issues, especially social ones.

I tend to consider myself an economic conservative / social liberal. Those are definitions that I think are easy to follow. If that makes me a Retro-ProgressiveLiberalCon in someone else's inscrutable dictionary, then I guess so be it.

ClevelandBronco
12-14-2007, 03:06 PM
Nobody was more outraged by the Patriot Act than I was. Is that clear enough for you?

I challenge you to find any post that I have ever submitted where I didn't oppose the Patriot Act. Good luck.

Damn. I have to reload before I can rep you again.

You misread the original question, lunkhead.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 03:06 PM
Look, I came up with the term neoliberarians to describe people like yourself who have abandoned the neoconservative/elitist philosophy of the Bush Administration. I did so because the administration's conduct has caused people who used to support the right wing monopoly to abandon the administration without necessarily abandoning the ideology.

That is why I call them "neo"libertarians. Because they are new to the concept of liberty. But if it pleases you I will stop using a label that I developed in my own mind in favor of the more accepted label that somebody else developed in their own mind.

How about if I describe you as a semi-libertarian because you only believe in half of what liberty is all about? I can live with that.


I wasn't confused about the fact that you're making this stuff up on the fly. Your grasp of the concept of liberty shows that. I love the word that you've coined for yourself... Semi-libertarian. Someone who only semi-understands the philosophy of liberty, but takes great pride in that they came up with it on their own.

You're such a joke.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 03:19 PM
Wow...

I've got my own label for that package of ideas: "Stupid"

Uh oh, Taco Ron and BucEyedPaul aren't going to take kindly to that. :eek: ;)

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:20 PM
I wasn't confused about the fact that you're making this stuff up on the fly. Your grasp of the concept of liberty shows that. I love the word that you've coined for yourself... Semi-libertarian. Someone who only semi-understands the philosophy of liberty, but takes great pride in that they came up with it on their own.

You're such a joke.

As I recall, a few days ago you posted that you knew BEP wsa a "true" libertarian because she called you out for not being one, and that true libertarians are always hyper-protective of the definition.

That isn't exactly an inspiration for your lot. :)

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:20 PM
Uh oh, Taco Ron and BucEyedPaul aren't going to take kindly to that. :eek: ;)

Thanks for opening the door so I can use one of my favorite phrases:

Bring it.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:22 PM
At leats I can see the appeal of Paul to BEP, especially. He reminds me most of Andrew Jackson. IF this was the 1828 election, then Paul might very well be the best candidate for the Presidency.

My calendar, however, suggests otherwise.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 03:33 PM
Bringing our troops home not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from virtually every other foreign base we have (Germany, South Korea, England, Philippines, etc.).

This is a great idea, but it's hardly isolationism. It's simply ending our cold war engagements that are no longer relevant. If I drop my kid off at my neighbor's house, when I go pick him up after the engagement is done, I'm not isolating myself from my neighbor. I'm merely withdrawing my kid back home where he belongs. If the neighbor wants to borrow a cup of sugar, I'll still be happy to oblige.

What you call Neo-Isolationism is more popularly known as The Nixon Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Doctrine) Hmmm... I forget... Wasn't he a Republican?


Stopping all foreign aid and foreign military sales

How is stopping foriegn subsidies isolationist? I would argue that our subsidization of foriegn governments is actually isolating us moreso than withdrawing these subsidies because of the unintended consequences that are derived from these illegal subsidizations. It's no encumbant on the American people to subsidize the world, especially when we have to borrow at the tune of billions a day in order to do it. Slandering us as isolationists for wanting to return our country to a situation where we aren't taking out of American pockets to line the pockets of foriegn dictators is nothing short of agitprop. Also, to my knowledge, Dr. Paul hasn't advocated the stop of military sales. It's my understanding that his position, however, is that they should actually be SALES...



Stopping all covert operations that interfere with foreign governments (including those that prop them up). He would apparently continue to support spying on other countries but he'd disband the CIA and retask some other group within the government to do it, probably the military from what the local Ron Paul folks say.

I don't see how this pertains to isolationism either. Non-intervention does not equal isolationism.



Downsizing the military and re-equiping them as primarily a border defense force. No more need for power projection.

I've never seen Dr. Paul advocate that we don't need a strong national defense that serves as a fierce deterrent against anyone who would attack us.


Relying almost exclusively on talk to achieve foreign policy objectives whatever those would be.

Yeah, the Nixon doctrine. The pursuit of peace through partnership and trade does not equal isolationism, neo- or otherwise.


Fighting the GWoT with Letters of Marque and Reprisal, diplomacy, and defensive measures here at home.

Still not isolationism. Ensuring justice against those who committed the crime as opposed to the culture that they sprung from is not isolationism. It's simply the responsible execution of justice.

I think that your desire to police the world has clouded your objectivity. The opposite of choosing not to be the world's policeman is not isolationism.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:44 PM
I think that your desire to police the world has clouded your objectivity. The opposite of choosing not to be the world's policeman is not isolationism.

I regret that I must agree with you. After all, most of the countries of the world do not maintain military bases in foreign country, or provide the level of economic support that we do. Taht does not make them isolationists. I will therefore take your side in the battle of the labels on this one.

I maintain, however, that the correct label is "stupid".

Do you not understand that the foreign policy leverage and clout gained by these foreign bases and hte carrots and sticks that our military bases and economic assistance is unquestionably of great value to us in ways so numerous that it's incalculable?

The US holds many levers of power, and your boy suggests giving them up for absolutely nothing in return. That's just not smart.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 03:46 PM
I regret that I must agree with you. After all, most of the countries of the world do not maintain military bases in foreign country, or provide the level of economic support that we do. Taht does not make them isolationists. I will therefore take your side in the battle of the labels on this one.

I maintain, however, that the correct label is "stupid".

Do you not understand that the foreign policy leverage and clout gained by these foreign bases and hte carrots and sticks that our military bases and economic assistance is unquestionably of great value to us in ways so numerous that it's incalculable?

The US holds many levers of power, and your boy suggests giving them up for absolutely nothing in return. That's just not smart.

Your assuming we should OWN the world by force in the 1st place, you should realise that is not how things should be handled correct?

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:50 PM
Your assuming we should OWN the world by force in the 1st place, you should realise that is not how things should be handled correct?

We don't own the world, nor do we try to. We do, however, have a vested interest in having the things we want to happen in the world, happen, and the things we don't want to happen, not happen.

It's unqeustionably better for the US and its citizens that we retain control over certain levers of power in the world. Voluntarily surrendering them seems extremely silly to me.

Your statemettn that "that is not how things should be handled" seems idealist to me. I'm far more Machiavellian than that...

Taco John
12-14-2007, 03:51 PM
Do you not understand that the foreign policy leverage and clout gained by these foreign bases and hte carrots and sticks that our military bases and economic assistance is unquestionably of great value to us in ways so numerous that it's incalculable?

The US holds many levers of power, and your boy suggests giving them up for absolutely nothing in return. That's just not smart.


We get plenty back in return. We get our soldiers home, and to keep more of our money. For our seniors, they get to keep medicare and medicade. They also get to keep their social security. As it currently is, they will lose all of that, while we lose our asses in an economic collapse because we can't sustain the worldwide empire we're building.

I think any leverage gained from subsidizing foriegn dictators would be gained tenfold from stopping this practice, and allowing our citizens to freely trade with their citizens. The end effect is a bottom-up revolution of their cultures, as opposed to the top-down method that you are advocating.

You can throw around words like "stupid" if you choose. Having been on your side of many arguments, I'm pretty used to having this word thrown at me from the opposition.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 03:55 PM
We don't own the world, nor do we try to.


This is news to me... As far as I can tell, that's the whole crux of the Bush doctrine.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:56 PM
We get plenty back in return. We get our soldiers home, and to keep more of our money. For our seniors, they get to keep medicare and medicade. They also get to keep their social security. As it currently is, they will lose all of that, while we lose our asses in an economic collapse because we can't sustain the worldwide empire we're building.

To think that the savings from eliminating foreign subsidies and foreign bases would be enough to fund SS, Medicare and Medicaid is absolutely incorrect. It would help, but it wouldn't be nearly enough.

I think any leverage gained from subsidizing foriegn dictators would be gained tenfold from stopping this practice, and allowing our citizens to freely trade with their citizens. The end effect is a bottom-up revolution of their cultures, as opposed to the top-down method that you are advocating.

You can throw around words like "stupid" if you choose. Having been on your side of many arguments, I'm pretty used to having this word thrown at me from the opposition.

:shrug: You have far too much hope in the ability of the free market to overcome dictatorships who don't even care about letting free market practices happen. Dictatorships can survive and thrive with or without our help, depending on a number of other factors.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 03:57 PM
Also, to my knowledge, Dr. Paul hasn't advocated the stop of military sales. It's my understanding that his position, however, is that they should actually be SALES...

Do you think the "blowback" problem we are having with Osama bin Laden will end if we continue to arm the Saudi Government so they can fight al Qaeda or the Israelis so they can fight their Arab antagonists and keep the palestinians in line even if we only do so via arms-length transactions? I'd be shocked if you were able to find ANYTHING that suggests that Ron Paul would support continuing foreign military sales.

And you continue to ignore the other side of the blowback story. You have to understand that there would be significant unintended consequences of such a dramatic policy change as the one Ron Paul suggests. And not all of those unintended consequences would be positive.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 03:57 PM
This is news to me... As far as I can tell, that's the whole crux of the Bush doctrine.

One I don't support, btw. Bush may think so. I don't.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 04:00 PM
You can throw around words like "stupid" if you choose. Having been on your side of many arguments, I'm pretty used to having this word thrown at me from the opposition.

I can remember those bygone days years ago when you were frequently on the side of an argument that made sense. Ah, the memories. :)

Taco John
12-14-2007, 04:02 PM
To think that the savings from eliminating foreign subsidies and foreign bases would be enough to fund SS, Medicare and Medicaid is absolutely incorrect. It would help, but it wouldn't be nearly enough.

I'd love to see your figures on that from which you're basing that conclusion...



:shrug: You have far too much hope in the ability of the free market to overcome dictatorships who don't even care about letting free market practices happen. Dictatorships can survive and thrive with or without our help, depending on a number of other factors.


I never said it would happen overnight. Right now, however, dictatorships survive and thrive THANKS to our help.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 04:10 PM
I'd love to see your figures on that from which you're basing that conclusion...

I'd imagine that he's basing it on the reasonable but probably incorrect assumption that Ron Paul wouldn't gut the military and cancel many, if not most, of the modern weapons systems in the pipeline that would no longer be necessary in the new border defense mission.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 04:12 PM
I'd love to see your figures on that from which you're basing that conclusion...


Mainly, it's impossible to even quantify medicare and medicaid, as they are open and unlimited entitlements. Demographics is destiny, and we can't support an ever-aging population with a replacement rate of new births.



I never said it would happen overnight. Right now, however, dictatorships survive and thrive THANKS to our help.

never been a period at any point in the history of the world that there weren't lots of dictatorships around.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 04:13 PM
I'd imagine that he's basing it on the reasonable but probably incorrect assumption that Ron Paul wouldn't gut the military and cancel many, if not most, of the modern weapons systems in the pipeline that would no longer be necessary in the new border defense mission.

Yes, right, I'm not assuming a dramatic decrease in the overall size of the military. If you're talking about cutting the overall military budget in half, then you're talking about very serious dollars. If you're talking about nothing more than closing foreign bases and a bit of directly related shrinkage, then that won't go nearly as far.

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:17 PM
He was asking you if you were outraged by the Brady law as much as you are outraged by the Patriot Act, which appears to be quite a lot. Focus on the Brady law and type out your thoughts.

My first impulse was to have sympathy for Brady and his family. My second impulse was to admire how much courage he must have had in using the incident as a statement that countered the right-wing tendencies of the administration he served.

But ultimately, I came to my own conclusion that the founding fathers were equally as wise in adopting the second amendment as they were in adopting the first amendment.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 04:18 PM
Per this, upon brief review, it looks like foreign subsidies would be within the 4% of discretionary spending described as "international affairs". Since that pie chart doesn't even include mandatory spending, then it probably works out to being PART OF maybe 1.5-2% of the budget.

That would not include such things as any hidden methods such as the tax relief given to the Seven Sisters to indirectly help fund arab states as was done in the past. Still, it's fairly clear that foreign subsidies are a really, REALLY puny percentage of the overall budget.

If you're talking massive military disarmament -- of a kind that is absolutely politically unacceptalbe, then yes you'd find alot of dollar savings there to fund entitlement programs.

Amnorix
12-14-2007, 04:20 PM
God your sig is horribly depressing TJ. How I wish for a candidate with fiscal responsibility (who doesn't have a bunch of whacky ideas to go along with it. <g>)

Taco John
12-14-2007, 04:23 PM
God your sig is horribly depressing TJ. How I wish for a candidate with fiscal responsibility (who doesn't have a bunch of whacky ideas to go along with it. <g>)


No such thing. If you want to curb spending, you're going to have to have some ideas that some think are radical.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -Ben Franklin

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:26 PM
You say that like there's something wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong if the labels are accurate. I won't be insulted if you call me a conservative or a paleo-conservative. All a label does is identify something and put it into some form of classification. Your name is your label, it helps people identify you. The only people that have a problem with it, are those who don't want to confront what they're advocating. It's only bad when the labels are false. And again,you put words in my mouth, I never said whether it was good or bad either.

If you're tired of it, put me on ignore. Because I don't intend to stop.

The problem exists when those who do the labeling do it for the purpose of pigeon-holing someone else's beliefs in a way that allows them to respond with talking points instead of logic.

IMO, that does a disservice to all concerned.

Adept Havelock
12-14-2007, 04:28 PM
Liberals don't give a damn about the second amendment and never did.

I've been told my social views are very "Liberal", and I think the Second Amendment is a keystone of the Constitution.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 04:31 PM
The problem exists when those who do the labeling do it for the purpose of pigeon-holing someone else's beliefs in a way that allows them to respond with talking points instead of logic.



The problem exists when you think that making stuff up on the fly is the same thing as using logic.

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:31 PM
Your methodology lacks argument. You slap a label on every statement, and then say it's similar to communism or marxism or whatever. Your posts are inevitably 3 sentences or so, and provide little insight into why the person is right/wrong, etc.

Maybe it works in your world, where apparently you've categorized and compartmentalized every idea anyone ever had, but it's not a particularly effective means of argument.

By all means, carry on, but IMHO you take it to silly levels. Labels can be useful in situations, and obviously in debate if you can categorize something and then crucify the category that can work, but I don't think the rest of us care all that much about your labels.

3 years from now you'll no doubt have evolved into lengthier, more descriptive labels:

"that's an expression of paleo-communist, reformist-socialist thought, trending towards the faux oligarchial . . . "

Amen. I couldn't have said it better myself (even though I've tried).

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:35 PM
It also seems that BEP has spawned some kind of odd feeding frenzy of label/re-label creation.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to realize this. Her labeling of everyone who disagrees with her as being either socialist or communist is a bit much.

But of course, the disaffected authoritarian "conservatives" are chomping at the bit to find a new cause in which to oppose progress. So it might as well be "neolibertarianism."

Brock
12-14-2007, 04:36 PM
My first impulse was to have sympathy for Brady and his family. My second impulse was to admire how much courage he must have had in using the incident as a statement that countered the right-wing tendencies of the administration he served.

But ultimately, I came to my own conclusion that the founding fathers were equally as wise in adopting the second amendment as they were in adopting the first amendment.

My first impulse was to be angry about my right to keep and bear arms being infringed upon in direct violation of the constitution. So you see, my claim that it depends on whose and which rights are being violated for liberals to become outraged is correct.

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:41 PM
Damn. I have to reload before I can rep you again.

You misread the original question, lunkhead.

Sorry about that. But you know what? I answered it after patteeu kindly pointed that out.

And while we're at it can I make a request of you?

Here it is. Every time you see fit to respond to my post's privately via the rep system, how about you do it in the thread so that I can respond to you?

I mean, seriously. If you really feel the way that you express to me in private why don't you do it outright for all to see? I'd much rather you do it that way so that I can respond to you. The way you do it so chickenshit and pussified.

I know that you can't be as bad as you seem to be when spewing your hatred. All I ask is that you show your true colors and give me a chance to respond to you in an open forum.

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:43 PM
I wasn't confused about the fact that you're making this stuff up on the fly. Your grasp of the concept of liberty shows that. I love the word that you've coined for yourself... Semi-libertarian. Someone who only semi-understands the philosophy of liberty, but takes great pride in that they came up with it on their own.

This applies to you, not me.

You're such a joke.

Yet you are the one that has not accepted the challenge of defining liberty in your own words.

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:46 PM
The problem exists when you think that making stuff up on the fly is the same thing as using logic.

The problem exists when you accuse people of making stuff up on the fly because it doesn't fit neatly into your bandwagon ideology.

penchief
12-14-2007, 04:47 PM
My first impulse was to be angry about my right to keep and bear arms being infringed upon in direct violation of the constitution. So you see, my claim that it depends on whose and which rights are being violated for liberals to become outraged is correct.

But my position on the second amendment is no different than yours. Right?

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 05:33 PM
A label was needed to encapsulate Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas. The most obvious was isolationist, but they objected to that label based on nuances, so we applied the neo- prefix.
No we objected because he calls himself a "non-interventionist" which is what he is because it refers to how he'd use the military. This is not only inaccurate but used as an epithet. Some of Paul's supporters here, explained why...ya' know all the pros and cons and merits of why it's inaccurate, including who coined the term originally. There were a few very lengthy debates on it. It would behoove you to educate yourself on the facts of what took place.

Plus "neo-" has the useful effect of carrying a negative connotation due to "neo-conservative" having been watered down into a generic insult.
Neo does not always have a negative connotation. It just means "new" and not the exact same as the "older" version of something. But in patteeu's term he seems to means a resurrection of a former with no change to it. NeoConservatism is not an epithet, it is an actual persuasion or ideology. Even Irving Kristol, one of its founders, wrote a book titled "NeoConservativism."

FTR I don't believe any of these terms mean anyone is purely in one camp but they can lean that way. I do see degrees. But I can also see if a particular point comes from a certain camp too. Like Rousseau's Social Contract.

banyon
12-14-2007, 05:41 PM
Neo does not always have a negative connotation. It just means "new" and not the exact same as the "older" version of something. But in patteeu's term he seems to means a resurrection of a former with no change to it. NeoConservatism is not an epithet, it is an actual persuasion or ideology. Even Irving Kristol, one of its founders, wrote a book titled "NeoConservativism."

FTR I don't believe any of these terms mean anyone is purely in one camp but they can lean that way. I do see degrees.


Are you really this obtuse? Cochise wasn't talking about the actual meaning of the prefix "neo", he was referring to its usage here in this forum. Since you aren't interested in the actual meanings of words, it is a way of satirically pointing out the absurdity of someone who insists that everyone defer to her preferred lexicon in every conversation.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 05:41 PM
Did you say something?

banyon
12-14-2007, 05:43 PM
Did you say something?

Yeah, I figured you'd run away at the end when you are pressed. You usually do.

Here we are stage 5 of the BEP posting process:

5) If you are definitively proven wrong, never agree or admit it. Just pretend it didn't happen, put the person on ignore, or go back to step 1 with a new issue.

penchief
12-14-2007, 05:46 PM
Yeah, I figured you'd run away at the end when you are pressed. You usually do.

Here we are stage 5 of the BEP posting process:

That's the neolibertarian way. Taco does it, too.

banyon
12-14-2007, 05:49 PM
That's the neolibertarian way. Taco does it, too.

Not with the consistency that she does. He does sometimes try to back up his points. He also doesn't resort to putting people on ignore unless they are a universal troll like Tom C**H. He also doesn't make the completely out of left field claims and then refuse to back them up to nearly the same extent IMO.

penchief
12-14-2007, 05:57 PM
Not with the consistency that she does. He does sometimes try to back up his points. He also doesn't resort to putting people on ignore unless they are a universal troll like Tom C**H. He also doesn't make the completely out of left field claims and then refuse to back them up to nearly the same extent IMO.

I know. BEP gave up on me a long time ago because I accused her of relying on labels too much. She even decided to stop calling me miseducated. But then Taco picked up her slack and started calling me uneducated.

It's really too bad that they can't even recognize their own unwillingness to address anyone else's opinion head on without resorting to diversionary tactics.

JohnnyV13
12-14-2007, 05:58 PM
If fringe=common sense, then yes we are "FRINGE", carry on.


Does common sense dictate overturning the entire world monetary system by putting the US back on the gold standard?

Does common sense dictate dictate a non-interventionist policy? Does this mean we simply expect terrorists to "play nice" once we announce this intention?

When stuff gets blown up, what exactly does non-interventionism dictate?

When Ron Paul abolishes the income tax, what is his plan for all of the suddenly unemployed tax accountants and tax lawyers? (Of course, any plan to demolish tax exclusions has the same problem). As much as you may not like such individuals, they WILL create an unemployment glut and a serious drop in aggregate demand if they are suddenly thrust out into the market.

When Ron Paul gets rid of the federal reserve, how does he plan to deal with the uncertainty such a move will cause on world currency and banking markets?

THe fact is, Ron Paul's "common sense" will create a massive recession if he can implement even 10% of his rhetoric.

Brock
12-14-2007, 06:01 PM
But my position on the second amendment is no different than yours. Right?

It is if you were not just as outraged by the brady law as you are by the patriot act.

BucEyedPea
12-14-2007, 06:08 PM
Does common sense dictate overturning the entire world monetary system by putting the US back on the gold standard?
Paul is only going to allow a competing currency, he is not going to dictate that anyone have to go on it.

Does common sense dictate dictate a non-interventionist policy? Does this mean we simply expect terrorists to "play nice" once we announce this intention?
Ron Paul is for going after who attacked us. He is not going after nations that had nothing to do with it. Can't you see that? He wants to renew the war on AlQaeda not nation build the entire ME because of a land dispute between other nations.

When stuff gets blown up, what exactly does non-interventionism dictate?
It would help if you told us who's stuff and who blew it up. Certainly, you don't mean our having blown up buildings in Iraq. Paul is for going after the correct target. What is wrong with that?

When Ron Paul abolishes the income tax, what is his plan for all of the suddenly unemployed tax accountants and tax lawyers?
This is funny! Don't you know that many accountants would prefer to handle fiscal work that help make a company successful instead of who much they can get businesses to feel like they screwed Uncle Sam out of a few bucks.

As much as you may not like such individuals, they WILL create an unemployment glut and a serious drop in aggregate demand if they are suddenly thrust out into the market.There's no such thing as aggregate demand here. You're talking here about a market segment only. Who will, no doubt, find other work as new businesses get created when there is more capital to work with.

When Ron Paul gets rid of the federal reserve, how does he plan to deal with the uncertainty such a move will cause on world currency and banking markets?
You act like we have had a Fed Reserve our whole history. Yet, we still experienced exponential economic growth. He plans on introducing a competing currency first. He said these things have to change gradually.

Also, you act like the presidential office can do all these things when there is a congress to deal with. It's called checks & balances.

THe fact is, Ron Paul's "common sense" will create a massive recession if he can implement even 10% of his rhetoric.
No one can say this as a certainty. There will be market corrections for sure.
But inflating money only creates the illusion of economic growth, while savings decline and things cost more. I'd worry about the Euro becoming the world currency more if I were you.

penchief
12-14-2007, 06:24 PM
It is if you were not just as outraged by the brady law as you are by the patriot act.

About as much as I've been outraged by media consolidation. It's not as sexy as opposing the Patriot Act but it's just as important to our democracy. Appearances aren't everything. I've been on the same side of the aisle as memyselfi one time and Big Daddy the next. I despise idiots like Limbaugh and O'Reilly but I also loved the work that Imus did.

Liberals are not the same as conservatives. For the most part, liberals are not lockstep the way conservatives tend to be (as evidenced by the majority of debates that go on here). Liberals are more about cooperating than about demanding. Liberals are more about understanding than about hating. Liberals are more about progress than about preserving the status quo.

It's just the way it is. That's why they call it progress. We don't drag women around by the hair, impale our enemies, or burn witches by the stake anymore. That's just the way it is and it's called progress.

Someday, this administration will be viewed as a setback for human progress, imo.

Brock
12-14-2007, 06:35 PM
About as much as I've been outraged by media consolidation. It's not as sexy as opposing the Patriot Act but it's just as important to our democracy.

So what you're saying is, you get just as pissed off about some television stations merging as you do about a DIRECT VIOLATION of what the constitution says. No dude, we don't have the same view of the second amendment, not by a damn stretch.

Taco John
12-14-2007, 06:37 PM
I don't even think he understand what an actual Liberal is, or what liberalism really means. Like with all these concepts, he's got an idea of what they mean that he's proud he came up with on his own. But it's not actually the real definition.

ClevelandBronco
12-14-2007, 11:43 PM
That's the neolibertarian way. Taco does it, too.

Taco and BEP aren't neolibertarianians, you twerp.

I am.

JohnnyV13
12-15-2007, 12:11 PM
This is funny! Don't you know that many accountants would prefer to handle fiscal work that help make a company successful instead of who much they can get businesses to feel like they screwed Uncle Sam out of a few bucks.




Hello, any complex statutory regime creates jobs for the people who administer it. I don't care how many corporate tax accountants and lawyers WANT to handle matters related to strategic planning rather than grind through tax statutes. If Paul abolishes the tax code, lots of them won't have jobs.

I generally support the idea of getting rid of the complex tax code, because I believe it is a tremendous waste of talented individuals who divert their labor to what is essentially a parasitic economic activity. (Though i believe an income tax with graduated brackets is better, as long as we get rid of all the complex exclusions). But, implementation of this concept will be tremendously difficult.

You dismiss the disruption that this radical change (along with getting rid of the federal reserve) will cause in the short term with the idea that "markets will adjust". Certainly markets will adjust, but will the benefit outweigh the short term deep recession?

Before you blithely answer "yes", consider the John Maynard Keynes quote that "in the long term, we are all dead". Consider also that the deep underlying cause of WW2 was likely the "self regulating market adjustment" from the great depression.

Consider also that messing with the United States' monetary system won't simply have nation-wide consequences, its going to affect the entire world.

As for the idea that Paul can introduce these changes "gradually", are you really suggesting you can dismantle the entire US tax code in one presidential term? Or even two terms?

You really have no idea how pervasive the influence of the tax code is over economic behavior. In 1986 Ronald Reagan revised the tax code. ONe of his changes was to fix the rapid depreciation for commercial property, which would allow businesses to deduct depreciation for empty rental properties from other corporate income.

While certainly this loophole needed to be closed, the rapid change created the S&L collapse in the early 90's and led to the 91 recession (which, among other things, put Bill Clinton in office).

The change Paul suggests is many orders of magnitude greater.

Cochise
12-15-2007, 12:17 PM
I know. BEP gave up on me a long time ago because I accused her of relying on labels too much. She even decided to stop calling me miseducated. But then Taco picked up her slack and started calling me uneducated.

It's really too bad that they can't even recognize their own unwillingness to address anyone else's opinion head on without resorting to diversionary tactics.

I gave up on BEP, all you get is a bunch of name-calling via some invented terminology. CPiggy took care of it.

Baby Lee
12-16-2007, 08:42 AM
Liberals are not the same as conservatives. For the most part, liberals are not lockstep the way conservatives tend to be (as evidenced by the majority of debates that go on here). Liberals are more about cooperating than about demanding. Liberals are more about understanding than about hating. Liberals are more about progress than about preserving the status quo.
Liberals like Elizabeth 'half the United States scares me to death' Edwards?

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 08:59 AM
I gave up on BEP, all you get is a bunch of name-calling via some invented terminology. CPiggy took care of it.
I don't usually name call posters unless they've done it first to me in some way. Such as your own snide digs. You also lied about something I said. You got back what you gave out first as well. Check the record because it's there. Take some responsibility for your own participation in the matter. Conservatives are supposed to be about personal responsibility, right? If you don't like it then don't do it too. Because I assure you, I would not do it if you did not do it as well. I did not do that when I first came here. But I saw a lot of others doing it here then.

I usually don't start this stuff on posters and I don't like to do it when I have to retaliate but I'm not going to be your punching bag when you get personal. Now if it's a public figure, that's fair game. If it's correct categorization of political ideas that's also fair game. If it's a political philosophy or ideology that's also fair game. If it's a certain political group up in DC responsible for the mess we're in, that's also fair game. There is nothing wrong with that in political debate because the different philosophies and ideologies are basically what's being debated.

I gave up on penchief because all he did was flame and accuse of wrongdoing. Yet, projects that only others have done it. So he got what he gave out back too....check the record. There are plenty of other worthy opponents.

Classic projection.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 09:10 AM
Hello, any complex statutory regime creates jobs for the people who administer it. I don't care how many corporate tax accountants and lawyers WANT to handle matters related to strategic planning rather than grind through tax statutes. If Paul abolishes the tax code, lots of them won't have jobs.

I generally support the idea of getting rid of the complex tax code, because I believe it is a tremendous waste of talented individuals who divert their labor to what is essentially a parasitic economic activity. (Though i believe an income tax with graduated brackets is better, as long as we get rid of all the complex exclusions). But, implementation of this concept will be tremendously difficult.

You dismiss the disruption that this radical change (along with getting rid of the federal reserve) will cause in the short term with the idea that "markets will adjust". Certainly markets will adjust, but will the benefit outweigh the short term deep recession?

Before you blithely answer "yes", consider the John Maynard Keynes quote that "in the long term, we are all dead". Consider also that the deep underlying cause of WW2 was likely the "self regulating market adjustment" from the great depression.

Consider also that messing with the United States' monetary system won't simply have nation-wide consequences, its going to affect the entire world.

As for the idea that Paul can introduce these changes "gradually", are you really suggesting you can dismantle the entire US tax code in one presidential term? Or even two terms?

You really have no idea how pervasive the influence of the tax code is over economic behavior. In 1986 Ronald Reagan revised the tax code. ONe of his changes was to fix the rapid depreciation for commercial property, which would allow businesses to deduct depreciation for empty rental properties from other corporate income.

While certainly this loophole needed to be closed, the rapid change created the S&L collapse in the early 90's and led to the 91 recession (which, among other things, put Bill Clinton in office).

The change Paul suggests is many orders of magnitude greater.
Well, if you quote Keyenes then I'd expect you to have this viewpoint. Obvisously, I am not a Keynesian. I am the complete opposite.But you're banking on Paul being able to pull everything off too. Our govt has a congress too. There'd have to be a lot of consensus to get everything he wanted. Maybe, it will lead to more modest reforms more along your lines if a debate opened up on it.

I do know how pervasive the tax code is over economic behavior but I don't think it's a positive one. I certainly do not believe Keyenes is God and that we're all be dead in the long run though. I think that's just nonense. He advocates short term fixes for things that would correct, and should correct on their own. I am aware of what Reagan's reforms did, but I also know that there are a lot of accountants, including several I've had, who'd like to see what we have ditched. I don't see how you can allow creeping inflation to push regular folks into higher tax brackets though and call that good, let alone fair.

Whenever there is any reform, there will be a period of adjustment, even confusion...that's what happens when a new order is put in.

banyon
12-16-2007, 10:36 AM
Classic projection.

Good Grief. :rolleyes: Has anyone in the history of this board ever so consistently misapplied a term? It is not projection; you are accusing him of hypocrisy. The two are not synonyms, which is how you use them. It also couldn't be less "classic" if it tried to be.

Projection involves transposing onto others societally unhealthy and unwanted thoughts and emotions. Penchief's thoughts aren't societally unhealthy (like psychosis, paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. would be) just because you disagree with them politically. Moreover, they aren't "unwanted" as penchief is proud of his ideas and believes in them. The same would apply to your attempt to"label" Cochise that way.

Buy yourself one of these and look it up:

http://www.erowid.org/library/books/images/dsm_iv.jpg

Cochise
12-16-2007, 10:48 AM
The same would apply to your attempt to"label" Cochise that way.


I have her on cpiggy now... but glad to hear I'm still being named-called with words she doesn't know the meaning of LMAO

Baby Lee
12-16-2007, 10:48 AM
Good Grief. :rolleyes: Has anyone in the history of this board ever so consistently misapplied a term? It is not projection; you are accusing him of hypocrisy. The two are not synonyms, which is how you use them. It also couldn't be less "classic" if it tried to be.

Projection involves transposing onto others societally unhealthy and unwanted thoughts and emotions. Penchief's thoughts aren't societally unhealthy (like psychosis, paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. would be) just because you disagree with them politically. Moreover, they aren't "unwanted" as penchief is proud of his ideas and believes in them. The same would apply to your attempt to"label" Cochise that way.

Buy yourself one of these and look it up:

http://www.erowid.org/library/books/images/dsm_iv.jpg
Apparently, words mean what we can imagine them to mean, it's a woman thing. ;)
But actually, I don't think she was accusing penchief of projecting his political opinions on others. She was accusing him of projecting his demonization of opposition through name calling and broad brush denigration onto others.

I'll admit it's not entirely clear what specifically she's referring to, but if I am correct in that reading, I think she's using the right word, unless you don't think those tactics are unhealthy for discourse.

In shorthand, it'd take the form of;

pc: "the only argument those assholes have against me is to call me an asshole."

That's not a quote, but a shorthand of the PROJECTION complained of.

banyon
12-16-2007, 10:57 AM
She didn't limit her "analysis" to penchief, she extended it to Cochise at the end with her huffy "Classic Projection" as well.

Baby Lee
12-16-2007, 11:01 AM
She didn't limit her "analysis" to penchief, she extended it to Cochise at the end with her huffy "Classic Projection" as well.
Well, if her argument is that, in her interaction with Cochise, "all you get [from him] is a bunch of name-calling via some invented terminology." Then calling Cochise's comment about her projection would be accurate, again, unless you don't think namecalling is a negative trait.

banyon
12-16-2007, 11:06 AM
Well, if her argument is that, in her interaction with Cochise, "all you get [from him] is a bunch of name-calling via some invented terminology." Then calling Cochise's comment about her projection would be accurate, again, unless you don't think namecalling is a negative trait.

*edit* After thinking about it, no. Name-calling doesn't rise to the level of being societally unhealthy. That's why it isn't listed among other disorders.

Hydrae
12-16-2007, 11:37 AM
You're welcome. I actually like quite a bit of what this Ron Paul person has to say. I don't know how much of it is politically feasible, however.


Feasible or not, this country is long overdue for some major changes. At the very least, Paul is getting people to talk about issues that have been swept under the rug for too many years. Even if he doesn't get the nomination (I still think he has a strong shot and there will be some surprised people in the next few weeks as the primaries get started), he has gotten the discussion started and it is up to all of us to keep it going.

The biggest arguements I see against Ron Paul on this board are people who like the status quo due to personal successes in this screwed up country or those who are afraid to pop the zit that has been growing on our asses for the last century because it might hurt. Never realizing that if we don't pop it on our terms it will pop on it's own down the road and create even larger issues.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 11:46 AM
Well, if her argument is that, in her interaction with Cochise, "all you get [from him] is a bunch of name-calling via some invented terminology."
I don't consider Cochise a name caller in general, except for his fondness for using "conspiracy theorist" even when it stops short of one. ( We all have one I guess.) He was just being too snide and mean-spirited once too often toward me in a personal way for a period. So I started to point out how he wasn't following his own Christian principles ( like the Decalogue). This po'd him understandly. Anyhow I resented it, hence a similar reponse. So I see it as blowback.

You got the penchief point right though. How many times, can you accuse someone of not answering their questions ( as if it's some sort of wrongdoing or crime) when you indeed have several times so you then know it's not going to change anything so you stop? Yet, the accusation continues. As if BB posters have some "social contract" responsibility to give him a full education.

penchief
12-16-2007, 04:30 PM
So what you're saying is, you get just as pissed off about some television stations merging as you do about a DIRECT VIOLATION of what the constitution says. No dude, we don't have the same view of the second amendment, not by a damn stretch.

I think I'm confusing you and that's probably my fault.

What I was trying to suggest was that the Brady situation was not that much different from the media consolodation issue in this way; both were/are a threat to the preservation of the people's power. The big difference being that the Brady Law really hasn't done much to restrict gun ownership while media consolodation has done a whole lot to restrict the flow of information in a way that threatens our democracy by enabling a monopoly on propaganda.

When we hear only one side of the story we are sure to hear the side of those who are telling the story.

penchief
12-16-2007, 04:35 PM
Taco and BEP aren't neolibertarianians, you twerp.

I am.

If you are a true neolibertarian then maybe you can do something for me that BEP and Taco have been unable to do so far (describe your definition of liberty). Can you do that?

Because I want to know in my own mind what the difference is between a libertarian like myself (Ben Franklin style) and a new libertian (neolibertarian) like yourself and semi-libertarians like BEP and Taco.

Can you help me out with that?

penchief
12-16-2007, 04:44 PM
Liberals like Elizabeth 'half the United States scares me to death' Edwards?

I know that I went overboard with my characterization of the difference between liberals and conservatives. And I know that I deserve the best sarcasm that your sharp tongue can deliver. However, this one went way over my head.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 04:49 PM
If you are a true neolibertarian then maybe you can do something for me that BEP and Taco have been unable to do so far (describe your definition of liberty). Can you do that?

Because I want to know in my own mind what the difference is between a libertarian like myself (Ben Franklin style) and a new libertian (neolibertarian) like yourself and semi-libertarians like BEP and Taco.

Can you help me out with that?



You're such a brainless moron, Comrade penchief...

I even gave you a cartoon so you wouldn't have to read...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/muHg86Mys7I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>


You've made up your own definition anyways, so it doesn't matter if it is clearly defined for you.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 04:50 PM
Also, you're not a libertarian, comrade penchief... You are a socialist, and damn near a communist from what you spew. At the very least, you're an egalitarian, comrade, which is far from a libertarian... not that you are educated enough to know the difference.

It's damned offensive to see you invoke the name Benjamin Franklin, comrade. You share precious few of his views. You might try actually knowing his views before you say that you are a libertarian in his mold.

banyon
12-16-2007, 04:54 PM
I don't consider Cochise a name caller in general, except for his fondness for using "conspiracy theorist" even when it stops short of one. ( We all have one I guess.) He was just being too snide and mean-spirited once too often toward me in a personal way for a period. So I started to point out how he wasn't following his own Christian principles ( like the Decalogue). This po'd him understandly. Anyhow I resented it, hence a similar reponse. So I see it as blowback.

You got the penchief point right though. How many times, can you accuse someone of not answering their questions ( as if it's some sort of wrongdoing or crime) when you indeed have several times so you then know it's not going to change anything so you stop? Yet, the accusation continues. As if BB posters have some "social contract" responsibility to give him a full education.

I think the "contract" is not making a bunch of wild-eyed claims like "Lincoln was a rapist" not substantiating it, and then expecting people to value what you say.

penchief
12-16-2007, 05:02 PM
You're such a brainless moron, Comrade penchief...

I even gave you a cartoon so you wouldn't have to read...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/muHg86Mys7I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>


You've made up your own definition anyways, so it doesn't matter if it is clearly defined for you.

I don't want a cartoon. I want you to speak. Are you incapable?

Taco John, you espouse liberty with so much certainty it would seem that the simplest thing for you to do would be to describe its meaning in your own words. However, it seems like the act of describing liberty is your Achilles Heel. What's the problem?

You know where I stand on liberty and I've gone to great lengths to describe my reasoning. Yet you only label me and criticize my beliefs instead of countering my beliefs or providing your own logic. Why is that?

Baby Lee
12-16-2007, 05:04 PM
I know that I went overboard with my characterization of the difference between liberals and conservatives. And I know that I deserve the best sarcasm that your sharp tongue can deliver. However, this one went way over my head.
Elizabeth was recently quoted on the stump saying Republicans scare her in a lot of ways.

And before the obligatory 'they SHOULD scare all right thinking persons,' my post was in response to your characterization of liberals as those who seek understanding and empathy rather than domination and hate.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 05:10 PM
I don't want a cartoon. I want you to speak. Are you incapable?

Taco John, you espouse liberty with so much certainty it would seem that the simplest thing for you to do would be to describe its meaning in your own words. However, it seems like the act of describing liberty is your Achilles Heal. What's the problem?

You know where I stand on liberty and I've gone to great lengths to describe my reasoning. Yet you only label me and criticize my beliefs instead of countering my beliefs or providing your logic. Why is that?


My biggest problem is that every time I explain something to you, the conversation doesn't change to reflect that you've taken in the new information. So I have chosen to patronize you rather than waste my time.

And you're right - I know exactly where you stand on liberty, comrade: you want to take away as much of it as possible in the name of equality.

You're not worthy of my time penchief. Others here can take new information, and then use that new information to formulate rational discussion, and the conversation moves forward. You lack the basic foundation to be able to maintain a conversation in this forum. I mean, for God's sake, you think that you're a libertarian.

If you really want to know about the philosophy of liberty, I posted that cartoon, which provides an accurate overview of the philosophy. I would be happy to continue the conversation with you once it was clear that you've seen the video and assimilated the new ideas. Otherwise, I'm not prepared to waste any more brainpower on you. I'd rather engage with people who are at least generating some brainpower in return for the exchange.

penchief
12-16-2007, 05:17 PM
Also, you're not a libertarian, comrade penchief... You are a socialist, and damn near a communist from what you spew. At the very least, you're an egalitarian, comrade, which is far from a libertarian... not that you are educated enough to know the difference.

"comrade," "socialist," "communist," "egalitarian," and "nonlibertarian;" that's five labels in one response to me. Thank you for proving how pathetic you are. BEP would be proud of your lability.

It's damned offensive to see you invoke the name Benjamin Franklin, comrade. You share precious few of his views. You might try actually knowing his views before you say that you are a libertarian in his mold.

If you want to really piss me off just question my Ben-Franklinism, you piece of shit. You, ****ing bandwagon libertarian, you. I want you to tell my right here and now how I don't see it the same way Franklin did.

This is exactly where you and I disagree on liberty. Franklin believed that enabling all of society promoted liberty while you believe that economic Darwinism promotes liberty.

Democracy enables the free market, not the other way around. That's what bandwagon libertarians like you don't understand.

JohnnyV13
12-16-2007, 05:30 PM
Well, if you quote Keyenes then I'd expect you to have this viewpoint. Obvisously, I am not a Keynesian. I am the complete opposite.But you're banking on Paul being able to pull everything off too. Our govt has a congress too. There'd have to be a lot of consensus to get everything he wanted. Maybe, it will lead to more modest reforms more along your lines if a debate opened up on it.

I do know how pervasive the tax code is over economic behavior but I don't think it's a positive one. I certainly do not believe Keyenes is God and that we're all be dead in the long run though. I think that's just nonense. He advocates short term fixes for things that would correct, and should correct on their own. I am aware of what Reagan's reforms did, but I also know that there are a lot of accountants, including several I've had, who'd like to see what we have ditched. I don't see how you can allow creeping inflation to push regular folks into higher tax brackets though and call that good, let alone fair.

Whenever there is any reform, there will be a period of adjustment, even confusion...that's what happens when a new order is put in.

I'm hardly a devoted Keynesian, I just think that Keynes had quite a few things right, and his ideas sparked development of far more sophisticated economic models. In this case, I think the Keynesian idea that the short term harm might be so severe you risk historical impacts, might be applicable here.

I, however, do not subscribe to the radical keynesian idea that we can "spend our way" out of every economic bump.

I know Paul subscribes to the Austrian school of economic thought. I like some of the Austrian school concepts (particularly the idea that in any one segment, the prevalant economic condition is DIS equilibrium), I am not really on board with much of their thinking.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 05:36 PM
I'm hardly a devoted Keynesian, I just think that Keynes had quite a few things right, and his ideas sparked development of far more sophisticated economic models. In this case, I think the Keynesian idea that the short term harm might be so severe you risk historical impacts, might be applicable here.

I, however, do not subscribe to the radical keynesian idea that we can "spend our way" out of every economic bump.

I know Paul subscribes to the Austrian school of economic thought. I like some of the Austrian school concepts (particularly the idea that in any one segment, the prevalant economic condition is DIS equilibrium), I am not really on board with much of their thinking.

I see. Do you consider yourself a Monetarist then? Since that's a mix of Keyne's and Chicago School.

I love the Austrian School, but I'm not an absolutist if ya' really wanna know. I certainly do not feel having a central bank ( central planning model) has created or been a big contributer to prosperity. I don't think the facts overall support it, even if some do.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 05:39 PM
"comrade," "socialist," "communist," "egalitarian," and "nonlibertarian;" that's five labels in one response to me. Thank you for proving how pathetic you are. BEP would be proud of your lability.


Too bad you don't know what most of them mean. I'm serious about you being a socialist, damn near communist. Labels mean things. They're a way to collect ideas into a container. The ideas you express are often communist ideas. I can't help it if you don't like the label. I can't help it if you don't understand why the ideas you espouse fit that definition so well. Further, I don't care. All this recoiling and running away from the labels that best describe you just shows me that when a light is flashed on your ideology, you run scurrying away from it.



If you want to really piss me off just question my Ben-Franklinism, you piece of shit.

AHAHAHAHAHA! Dude, you apparently have no clue about Ben Franklin, because you seem to think that you and he share a lot of views. Your ideas on this forum would definitely prove that wrong.


You, ****ing bandwagon libertarian, you. I want you to tell my right here and now how I don't see it the same way Franklin did.

I already did. It's a freaking joke that you think you share a lot of the same fundamental philosophy that Ben Franklin did. Ben Franklin was a real libertarian, not an egalitarian like yourself.


This is exactly where you and I disagree on liberty. Franklin believed that enabling all of society promoted liberty while you believe that economic Darwinism promotes liberty.

See what I mean. You have no clue what Ben Franklin believed in. Ben Franklin did not believe in "enabling society." Ben Franklin believed in individual liberty and individual responsibility - or what you would moronically call economic Darwinism. Ben Franklin is the American father of cultural laissez-faire capitalism. Don't believe me? Google: Ben Franklin Capitalism. (Man, I can't understand how you can't be embarassed when you say such ignorant things as you are a libertarian in the mold of Ben Franklin - such a moron).


Democracy enables the free market, not the other way around. That's what bandwagon libertarians like you don't understand.

Democracy enables the free market? *laughing* W-w-w-h-h-at!? Ahahahaha! You are such an uneducated tool. I get emarassed for you when I chat with you. That's such a stupid thing to say. It doesn't make any sense. Democracy doesn't enable capitalism. Look at China. They're turning into a capitalist society, but Democracy is nowhere to be found.

Penchief, seriously man... Cant you see the people who are naturally on your side of the debate do everything they can to distance themselves from your rambling dialogue? Haven't you ever noticed that no one ever comes in to defend your ideas? Ever wonder why that was?

penchief
12-16-2007, 05:39 PM
My biggest problem is that every time I explain something to you, the conversation doesn't change to reflect that you've taken in the new information. So I have chosen to patronize you rather than waste my time.

You have never ever EXPLAINED anything to me. So don't even go there.

And you're right - I know exactly where you stand on liberty, comrade: you want to take away as much of it as possible in the name of equality.

There has to be a balance between the interests of commerce and the interests of society. Not only do you overlook this fact, you accuse those who recognize it as being anti-libertarian by being either socialist, communist, or whatever other ism you want to pin on them.

You're not worthy of my time penchief. Others here can take new information, and then use that new information to formulate rational discussion, and the conversation moves forward. You lack the basic foundation to be able to maintain a conversation in this forum. I mean, for God's sake, you think that you're a libertarian.

I will take new information as long as we can get beyond our fundamental disagreement. Something you are unwilling to do. You act like we're arguing over home plate when I can't even get you to swing at a pitch.

If you really want to know about the philosophy of liberty, I posted that cartoon, which provides an accurate overview of the philosophy. I would be happy to continue the conversation with you once it was clear that you've seen the video and assimilated the new ideas. Otherwise, I'm not prepared to waste any more brainpower on you. I'd rather engage with people who are at least generating some brainpower in return for the exchange.

I don't want to watch the cartoon. I want you to tell me in your own words what liberty means to you. If you start the fight you have to be able to back it up yourself instead of faking it. To not do so is nothing less than chickenshit.

And by the way, you ARE worth my time because you do more to prove my point by running away from the challenge than anything you post in your threads.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 05:47 PM
All this recoiling and running away from the labels that best describe you just shows me that when a light is flashed on your ideology, you run scurrying away from it.
When I was on my first sports BB in the off-topic/political forum or Blitz Room as it was would called on one board, I said to one guy one day that he was espousing communism. He came right out and admitted it. We actually became pretty good friends after initially sparring. Then there was another on the same board whose ideas I labeled the same...and he admitted he was a socialist and just felt Americans just weren't ready for communism yet. I have a good nose for spotting 'em...just by the ideas and the terms used...like "social contract" for one. Wanna see one get really angry, mention some true facts about Marx's life, like how he was a bum, and some of his own children died of starvation eventhough he had a middle-class university job. Watch the accusation of ad hominem and name calling come at cha' like it's a criminal offense.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 05:47 PM
Penchief, I responded to your post in #184.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 05:48 PM
When I was on my first sports BB in the off-topic/political forum or Blitz Room as it was would called on one board, I said to one guy one day that he was espousing communism. He came right out and admitted it. We actually became pretty good friends after initially sparring. Then there was another on the same board whose ideas I labeled the same...and he admitted he was a socialist and just felt Americans just weren't ready for communism yet. I have a good nose for spotting 'em...just by the ideas and the terms used...liked "social contract" for one.

My favorite is "enabling society" that Penchief throws around... Like Ben Franklin walked around talking about the "enablement" of society! Hahahaha! I can't help but laughing incredulously at the father of American Lassiez-Fare Capitalism talking about the "enablement" of "society!" ROFL Not that Franklin's views were perfect. But he was definitely not out there talking about "enabling society." Franklin was famous for defending the rich.

At some point in time, I would think the guy would get embarassed and use that pride mechanism as a catalyst to crack a book, or even drop on a Wikipedia page or two. Apparently not.

BucEyedPea
12-16-2007, 05:52 PM
My favorite is "enabling society" that Penchief throws around... Like Ben Franklin walked around talking about the "enablement" of society! Hahahaha! I can't help but laughing incredulously at the father of American Lassiez-Fare Capitalism talking about the "enablement" of "society!" ROFL
The thing is that during the Founder's time there were collectivist types around...and they discussed them negtively I might add. They were called "levelers" then. It was some of the late 18th century writers where some of this material began to develop, like Rousseau, but it did not become a modern political movement until the mid-19th century. Ideas definitely have consequences. That's all they are is ideas.

penchief
12-16-2007, 06:09 PM
Too bad you don't know what most of them mean. I'm serious about you being a socialist, damn near communist. Labels mean things. They're a way to collect ideas into a container. The ideas you express are often communist ideas. I can't help it if you don't like the label. I can't help it if you don't understand why the ideas you espouse fit that definition so well. Further, I don't care. All this recoiling and running away from the labels that best describe you just shows me that when a light is flashed on your ideology, you run scurrying away from it?

You are such an extremist that you don't recognize the need for balance in society or the economy. America has always offered the hope of a better life because it has continually evolved as a country by recognizing that legal and economic justice is a reinforcer of democracy and acts as a buffer against violent revolution.

AHAHAHAHAHA! Dude, you apparently have no clue about Ben Franklin, because you seem to think that you and he share a lot of views. Your ideas on this forum would definitely prove that wrong?

Show me which ones and I will counter them one at a time. I'll bet you can't or will be unwilling. I'm certain that I can show you where Franklin believed in economic justice as much as he did individual ingenuity.
I already did. It's a freaking joke that you think you share a lot of the same fundamental philosophy that Ben Franklin did. Ben Franklin was a real libertarian, not an egalitarian like yourself

Give me an example. Let's debate it. Something that you never seem to want to do.

See what I mean. You have no clue what Ben Franklin believed in. Ben Franklin did not believe in "enabling society." Ben Franklin believed in individual liberty and individual responsibility - or what you would moronically call economic Darwinism. Ben Franklin is the American father of cultural laissez-faire capitalism. Don't believe me? Google: Ben Franklin Capitalism. (Man, I can't understand how you can't be embarassed when you say such ignorant things as you are a libertarian in the mold of Ben Franklin - such a moron).

Of course Ben Franklin believed in individual responsiblity. He invented the American work ethic. IMO, he was the true father of this country. Not only was he an individualist but he believed in the benefits that civil society had to offer to individuals as well as what it had to offer democracy.

But he also believed in enabling society. Why else would he give away his inventions freely without patenting them? He was the one who had the ingenuity to develop them but it was his humanity that inspired him, not his greed.

Why would he have made it his life's work to establish the first volunteer fire department, the modern day Postal system, the first free library, the Franklin stove, the first paved streets, the first street lamps, the lightening rod, the bifocals, etc. (all for the benefit of society instead of his own bank account).

You understand only a little bit of where Franklin was coming from. Just like you understand only a little bit of what liberty is about. And that is because you are an enthusiastic bandwagonner instead of someone willing to take in the bigger picture.

Democracy enables the free market? *laughing* W-w-w-h-h-at!? Ahahahaha! You are such an uneducated tool. I get emarassed for you when I chat with you. That's such a stupid thing to say. It doesn't make any sense. Democracy doesn't enable capitalism. Look at China. They're turning into a capitalist society, but Democracy is nowhere to be found.

Absolutely, If we did not have a democratic society we would not have a free market. I believe we are slowly losing our fair market as a result of our eroding liberties and our waning democracy.

Penchief, seriously man... Cant you see the people who are naturally on your side of the debate to everything they can to distance themselves from your rambling dialogue? Haven't you ever noticed that no one ever comes in to defend your ideas? Ever wonder why that was?

I can defend myself. Which is a lot more than I can say for you. As far as I can see, nobody's stepping in and filling your shoes either.

Unless you can give me your definition of liberty in your own words you have no business criticizing others who can do so. You have no business touting an ideology that can't defend certain aspects of it's own beliefs. At least you can't defend them.

penchief
12-16-2007, 06:22 PM
Penchief, I responded to your post in #184.

Did you give me your definition of liberty?

banyon
12-16-2007, 06:29 PM
I see that BucEyedPea is still pretending Social Contract theory doesn't predate Rousseau.

Ridiculous as usual.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 06:33 PM
You are such an extremist that you don't recognize the need for balance in society or the economy.

How do you figure? I've never said anything to my knowledge that would indicate that your statement has any validity. As usual, you're just taking stabs in the dark....


America has always offered the hope of a better life because it has continually evolved as a country by recognizing that legal and economic justice is a reinforcer of democracy and acts as a buffer against violent revolution.


I'm not really sure that this heap of intellectual dung actually means anything. Legal and economic justice is a reinforcer of democracy? I wish I could say that I've never heard such a stupid amalgamation of words put together, but I've been conversing with you for far too long for that to be true...



Show me which ones and I will counter them one at a time. I'll bet you can't or will be unwilling. I'm certain that I can show you where Franklin believed in economic justice as much as he did individual ingenuity.

You're right that I'm unwilling. Nothing loathes me more than to have to continually school you.



Give me an example. Let's debate it. Something that you never seem to want to do.

I told you... I am done "debating" you. You don't have the education to keep up, and it's far too much work than it's worth to educate you enough to make it an actual debate. I'd rather debate with Banyon or Amnorix who at least understand the fundamentals of these discussions, and who can back up their statements with actual matter.

penchief
12-16-2007, 06:50 PM
How do you figure? I've never said anything to my knowledge that would indicate that your statement has any validity. As usual, you're just taking stabs in the dark.....

Then counter my claim. Trace it back to the thing we're ultimately arguing about instead of saying absolutely nothing in your continuing attempt to further obfuscate our fundamental disagreement.

I'm not really sure that this heap of intellectual dung actually means anything. Legal and economic justice is a reinforcer of democracy? I wish I could say that I've never heard such a stupid amalgamation of words put together, but I've been conversing with you for far too long for that to be true....

Could you possibly think about it for a moment or would that be too much to ask? I wouldn't want you to strain yourself by trying to comprehend something that remotely challenges your latest infatuation/indoctrination.

Is legal justice a real concept? Is there such a thing as economic injustice? How would the absence of either legal or economic justice affect civil society (or even liberty)? In your own words, please.....

You're right that I'm unwilling. Nothing loathes me more than to have to continually school you.

You are definitely not schooling me. It's plain to anyone who has witnessed our exchanges that you do nothing more than resort to personal attacks in an obvious effort to evade backing up your own claims. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting.

I told you... I am done "debating" you. You don't have the education to keep up, and it's far too much work than it's worth to educate you enough to make it an actual debate. I'd rather debate with Banyon or Amnorix who at least understand the fundamentals of these discussions, and who can back up their statements with actual matter.

You're "done" debating me because you refuse to debate me. It has nothing to do with my education. It has to do with your inability to back up your own beliefs with your own thoughts and words. I don't get into your label games so you don't know how to play when you have to substantiate your claims with your own ideas. You simply can't do it so you resort to diversionary tactics every time.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 07:41 PM
Then counter my claim. Trace it back to the thing we're ultimately arguing about instead of saying absolutely nothing in your continuing attempt to further obfuscate our fundamental disagreement.


Um no. I'm not going to bother to counter your made up claim. You said that I'm an "extremist that doesn't recognize the need for balance in society or the economy." I've never said anything to my knowledge that would indicate that your statement has any validity. If you have something in mind that would back up your empty rhetoric, I'd be happy to address it. But I'm not going to waste any time countering empty claims that you can't back up.

There's no need to counter empty words. Empty words defeat themselves by their inherent emptiness. This is why you horribly lose your ass in these debates day in and day out, comrade.

Taco John
12-16-2007, 07:43 PM
It has to do with your inability to back up your own beliefs with your own thoughts and words.



Why don't you ask Banyon if he agrees with you. Or anyone here, really. I assure you that my counterparts around here are well aware of my ability to handle my own in these discussions, providing plenty of depth and substance to my arguments, even if they disagree with my positions.

Trust me, I hardly feel threatened by your empty charactarizations of me.

penchief
12-16-2007, 07:50 PM
Elizabeth was recently quoted on the stump saying Republicans scare her in a lot of ways.

And before the obligatory 'they SHOULD scare all right thinking persons,' my post was in response to your characterization of liberals as those who seek understanding and empathy rather than domination and hate.

Well I gotta admit that republicans have been scaring me lately, too. That said, I understand what you're saying. However, democrats still get their asses handed to them because they're ultimately unwilling to play hardball the way republicans do without conscience.

IMO, it comes down to the fact that one side isn't willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater while the other side doesn't care (they'll do whatever is necessary to win). I know that a lot of people will disagree but it sure seems like that's the way it's been for too long now.

penchief
12-16-2007, 07:57 PM
Why don't you ask Banyon if he agrees with you. Or anyone here, really. I assure you that my counterparts around here are well aware of my ability to handle my own in these discussions, providing plenty of depth and substance to my arguments, even if they disagree with my positions.

Trust me, I hardly feel threatened by your empty charactarizations of me.

Then let's throw down right now. Give me your definition of liberty so that we can break it down. Surely, someone with your certainty about its meaning can speak freely and confidently while expressing your own thoughts. I have been waiting anxiously for you to do so. Now is the time. Let's stop this silly dance. Let's discuss what liberty means instead of claiming a monopoly on it's definition.

Let's invite everybody on this board to employ the Socratic Method in reaching a concensus on the concept of universal liberty.

Cochise
12-16-2007, 07:59 PM
There are a few notables here who deal chiefly/exclusively in empty characterization with no substance, but I don't think Taco is one of them. He doesn't strike you as someone repeating what he read on a few bookmarked websites.

I think he likes to stir the pot and will generally be found opposing the majority on any particular item - perhaps sometimes for its own sake, perhaps by reflex, who knows - but on the matters currently dominating this forum, however misguided one finds those beliefs... I don't doubt they are deeply held.

banyon
12-16-2007, 08:07 PM
Why don't you ask Banyon if he agrees with you. Or anyone here, really. I assure you that my counterparts around here are well aware of my ability to handle my own in these discussions, providing plenty of depth and substance to my arguments, even if they disagree with my positions.

Trust me, I hardly feel threatened by your empty charactarizations of me.


I agree with him that if you are backed into a corner, sometimes you don't provide a meaningful reply. But as I said yesterday, most of the time you do try to back up the things you think are right.

That's ultimately the difference between apparently why I can't talk to BEP, and you can't seem to converse with penchief. You are open to ideas besides your own (I'd like to think I am too), and even though you probably haven't read as much academic literature as BEP or myself, you are still grounded in your experience and common sense, which keeps you from making claims that are (too) outlandish.

You probably view penchief the same way, I'd guess, though I have no problems, since we share many ideological views.

I will say, though, that I finally watched your little video today, and it's fairly insulting in its simplicity. If they had the techniology, it could've been a powerpoint presentation from J.P. Morgan in 1880.

penchief
12-16-2007, 08:11 PM
Um no. I'm not going to bother to counter your made up claim. You said that I'm an "extremist that doesn't recognize the need for balance in society or the economy." I've never said anything to my knowledge that would indicate that your statement has any validity. If you have something in mind that would back up your empty rhetoric, I'd be happy to address it. But I'm not going to waste any time countering empty claims that you can't back up.

There's no need to counter empty words. Empty words defeat themselves by their inherent emptiness. This is why you horribly lose your ass in these debates day in and day out, comrade.

No, you evader, counter my claim that you don't understand liberty by proving to me that you understand it better than I do. If you are right (as you claim) it would be easy for you to put me in my place instead of changing the subject away from that challenge and toward my being a hopeless case.

Baby Lee
12-16-2007, 08:42 PM
democrats still get their asses handed to them because they're ultimately unwilling to play hardball the way republicans do without conscience.
Nop democrats don't play 'hardball' because they know that if their 'base' positions were placed at the forefront, they'd never win another national election. Republicans play 'hardball' in the belief, based on the history of the latter half of the 20th century, that their actual 'base' positions carry the majority.

ClevelandBronco
12-16-2007, 08:44 PM
If you are a true neolibertarian then maybe you can do something for me that BEP and Taco have been unable to do so far (describe your definition of liberty). Can you do that?

Because I want to know in my own mind what the difference is between a libertarian like myself (Ben Franklin style) and a new libertian (neolibertarian) like yourself and semi-libertarians like BEP and Taco.

Can you help me out with that?

You are nothing like a libertarian, so I doubt I can help.

penchief
12-16-2007, 08:57 PM
Nop democrats don't play 'hardball' because they know that if their 'base' positions were placed at the forefront, they'd never win another national election. Republicans play 'hardball' in the belief, based on the history of the latter half of the 20th century, that their actual 'base' positions carry the majority.

Not so. Bush's agenda was dead in the water before 9/11. He was a joke. After 9/11, he was able to impose pretty much the entirety of his largely unpopular agenda.

Another example: When republicans controlled congress they were ready to exercise the "nuclear option" in order to do away with the fillibuster. Now that democrats control the congress, republicans are using the fillibuster at an unprecedented rate in American history.

Republicans were willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater (by threatening to eliminate the fillibuster) while democrats were more interested in preserving an essential tool for the future of our democracy. Now that republicans are using the fillibuster like drunken sailors, why haven't democrats threatened to do away with it?

penchief
12-16-2007, 08:59 PM
You are nothing like a libertarian, so I doubt I can help.

Explain, please. Back it up. How is it that you are a libertarian and I am not? Be specific instead of just being a cheerleader.

banyon
12-16-2007, 09:01 PM
http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

patteeu
12-17-2007, 09:33 AM
Not so. Bush's agenda was dead in the water before 9/11. He was a joke. After 9/11, he was able to impose pretty much the entirety of his largely unpopular agenda.

Another example: When republicans controlled congress they were ready to exercise the "nuclear option" in order to do away with the fillibuster. Now that democrats control the congress, republicans are using the fillibuster at an unprecedented rate in American history.

Republicans were willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater (by threatening to eliminate the fillibuster) while democrats were more interested in preserving an essential tool for the future of our democracy. Now that republicans are using the fillibuster like drunken sailors, why haven't democrats threatened to do away with it?

You realize, don't you, that Republicans were only threatening to do away with the filibuster on Presidential nominations not on general legislation. The Republicans have not filibustered a single Presidential nomination since becoming the minority.

banyon
12-17-2007, 09:40 AM
The Republicans have not filibustered a single Presidential nomination since becoming the minority.
. :spock:

Cochise
12-17-2007, 09:41 AM
Well, I'd say it's probably true.

Amnorix
12-17-2007, 10:41 AM
You realize, don't you, that Republicans were only threatening to do away with the filibuster on Presidential nominations not on general legislation. The Republicans have not filibustered a single Presidential nomination since becoming the minority.


Wow! Really?!?!

:p

patteeu
12-17-2007, 10:46 AM
Wow! Really?!?!

:p

Yeah, I know. Hard to believe, huh? ;)

penchief
12-18-2007, 03:09 PM
You realize, don't you, that Republicans were only threatening to do away with the filibuster on Presidential nominations not on general legislation. The Republicans have not filibustered a single Presidential nomination since becoming the minority.

Okay. Let's assume for a moment that if the right had to oppose a democratic nominee for the supreme court. Are you telling me that they wouldn't pull out all the stops? Of course, they would. You and I both know it.

They've already proven that by making 60 votes the standard no matter what the cause. They regularly oppose the will of the people by making sure that nothing passes without 60 votes.

Are you suggesting that when a liberal supreme court justice is up for confirmation that they would suddenly stop using the fillibuster at their record-setting pace when a vote most crucial to their crusade comes up? If so, you are even more naive than I am accused of being.

Controlling the judicial branch has been their holy grail since Reagan. They know that once they do that, whatever they do within the administrative can be supported even if the congress is not on board.

The difference between righties and lefties is that righties want a judicial branch that acts as a rubber stamp to the authoritarian tendencies of a right-wing executive while lefties want a judicial branch that responds to the nature and wisdom of justice.

That said, when it comes to the fillibuster it is clear that republicans are total hypocrites.

chagrin
12-18-2007, 03:13 PM
[QUOTE=penchief]They've already proven that by making 60 votes the standard no matter what the cause. They regularly oppose the will of the people by making sure that nothing passes without 60 votes. /QUOTE]


When libs like you claim to speak for "the people" it shows how arrogant you really are. You do not speak for "the people" you speak for YOUR people, going forward please don't claim to speak for everyone, thank you very much.

penchief
12-18-2007, 03:30 PM
[QUOTE=penchief]They've already proven that by making 60 votes the standard no matter what the cause. They regularly oppose the will of the people by making sure that nothing passes without 60 votes. /QUOTE]


When libs like you claim to speak for "the people" it shows how arrogant you really are. You do not speak for "the people" you speak for YOUR people, going forward please don't claim to speak for everyone, thank you very much.

When I say, "the people" I am referring to the same people described by our founding fathers with the phrase "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

The fact that you don't get that only proves that you are not trying to understand. The government that you righties want to do away with was designed by our founding fathers to be the "voice of the people."

Our founding fathers designed our government to represent the will of the people against the interests of elitist power, authoritariansm, and undue economic influence. Our government is the pragmatic tool that "we the people" have at our disposal when we don't like something.

Unfortunately, those who have always despised self-government are still trying to undermine it. They do so by using their influence and wealth in ways that buy policy, restrict information, and promote propaganda.

Only when enough people wake up to the fact that we, "the people" are being manipulated big time by greedy forces that have no interest whatsoever in promoting American values; only then will we be able to see things more clearly. Sadly, you are not there yet.

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 03:31 PM
When I say, "the people" I am referring to the same people described by our founding fathers with the phrase "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

The fact that you don't get that only proves that you are not trying to understand. The government that you righties want to do away with was designed by our founding fathers to be the "voice of the people."

Our founding fathers designed our government to represent the will of the people against the interests of elitist power, authoritariansm, and undue economic influence. Our government is the pragmatic tool that "we the people" have at our disposal when we don't like something.

Unfortunately, those who have always despised self-government are still trying to undermine it. They do so by using their influence and wealth in ways that buy policy, restricts information, and promotes propaganda.

Only when enough people wake up to the fact that we, "the people" are being manipulated big time by greedy forces that have no interest whatsoever in promoting American values; only then will we be able to see things more clearly. Sadly, you are not there yet.
Partisan generalizations don't work. Get over them kthx.

penchief
12-18-2007, 03:35 PM
Partisan generalizations don't work. Get over them kthx.

They are not generalizations. An overview of what has happened in this country over the past twenty-seven years will reveal to anyone capable of honest observation that we people have allowed ourselves to become manipulated consumers instead of empowered citizens.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 05:39 PM
They are not generalizations. An overview of what has happened in this country over the past twenty-seven years will reveal to anyone capable of honest observation that we people have allowed ourselves to become manipulated consumers instead of empowered citizens.

We were likely always manipulated consumers and rarely if ever empowered citizens.

Also depends on who you're talking about. Blacks weren't empowered for the first 200 years of our country, etc.

Don't yearn for a lost time of perfection in our country -- it never existed. Not even close.

Amnorix
12-18-2007, 05:40 PM
Penchief -- your argument confuses me. The Senate has always had the ability to filibuster. What are you railing against that is different from what it was before?

Sure there's a different procedural rule in effect -- cloture, but that doesn't change the fact that filibuster has always been part of the Senate.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 06:09 PM
Okay. Let's assume for a moment that if the right had to oppose a democratic nominee for the supreme court. Are you telling me that they wouldn't pull out all the stops? Of course, they would. You and I both know it.

They've already proven that by making 60 votes the standard no matter what the cause. They regularly oppose the will of the people by making sure that nothing passes without 60 votes.

Are you suggesting that when a liberal supreme court justice is up for confirmation that they would suddenly stop using the fillibuster at their record-setting pace when a vote most crucial to their crusade comes up? If so, you are even more naive than I am accused of being.

Turnabout WOULD be fair play, would it not? You call it hypocrisy if the Republicans do what they criticized when democrats were doing it. Will you also call it hypocrisy if the democrats threaten to use the nuclear option to prevent them from doing so?

And the Republicans didn't make "60 votes the standard no matter what the cause". That has been the standard for a long time (since 1975 or so). In fact, it became the standard when a democrat controlled Senate changed the filibuster rule that had previously required 67 votes to it's current 60. Not coincidentally, the Senate contained 62 democrats at the time. (Although to be fair, the adoption of this new rule was not strictly along party lines as there were conservative democrats and liberal Republicans at the time who crossed over).

penchief
12-18-2007, 06:29 PM
Penchief -- your argument confuses me. The Senate has always had the ability to filibuster. What are you railing against that is different from what it was before?

Sure there's a different procedural rule in effect -- cloture, but that doesn't change the fact that filibuster has always been part of the Senate.

I realize that. I don't have a problem with the fillibuster. I was using it as an example of republican hypocricy. They railed against it without making any distinctions. They threatened to do away with it. Now that they don't control congress they use it as a matter of routine.

While patteeu tries to (successfully, some might argue) make a distinction between judicial nominees and all other acts of congressional oversight or leglislative responsibitlies, the republican minority's use of fillibustering has been unprecedented.

Distinctions aside, when one compares their past contempt for the procedure, they are now it's biggest abusers.

penchief
12-18-2007, 06:43 PM
Turnabout WOULD be fair play, would it not? You call it hypocrisy if the Republicans do what they criticized when democrats were doing it. Will you also call it hypocrisy if the democrats threaten to use the nuclear option to prevent them from doing so?

Absolutely. However, the gross hypocricy lies at both ends of the equation for republicans. Not only have democrats not threatened to go nuclear, democrats have not abused it in order to deny the majority its say the way republicans have. Republicans are using it more than anyone in history.


And the Republicans didn't make "60 votes the standard no matter what the cause". That has been the standard for a long time (since 1975 or so). In fact, it became the standard when a democrat controlled Senate changed the filibuster rule that had previously required 67 votes to it's current 60. Not coincidentally, the Senate contained 62 democrats at the time. (Although to be fair, the adoption of this new rule was not strictly along party lines as there were conservative democrats and liberal Republicans at the time who crossed over).

1974, I believe. Yet, none of that excuses the hypocricy being displayed by republicans when it comes the issue of filibustering.

penchief
12-18-2007, 06:51 PM
We were likely always manipulated consumers and rarely if ever empowered citizens.

Also depends on who you're talking about. Blacks weren't empowered for the first 200 years of our country, etc.

Don't yearn for a lost time of perfection in our country -- it never existed. Not even close.

I realize it never fully existed but we never stopped moving forward. Now, it seems that we're willing to settle for being manipulated. This country has stopped moving forward in that regard. We are now allowing America's virtue and her progress to be threatened by elitists with a robber baron mentality.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 07:27 PM
Absolutely. However, the gross hypocricy lies at both ends of the equation for republicans. Not only have democrats not threatened to go nuclear, democrats have not abused it in order to deny the majority its say the way republicans have. Republicans are using it more than anyone in history.

The democrats haven't threatened to go nuclear because they haven't won the whitehouse yet. It would be a bit premature to do so at this point.

1974, I believe. Yet, none of that excuses the hypocricy being displayed by republicans when it comes the issue of filibustering.

As I pointed out before, there is not hypocrisy. The manner in which the Republicans are using the filibuster was never threatened by them when they were in the majority. You're comparing filibuster apples and filibuster oranges.

And the fact that it was the democrats who established the "60 votes to get anything done in the Senate" standard refutes your claim that it was the work of Republicans. But the mistake I really think you made was that you didn't understand that the filibuster has been around for a very long time and the Senate has never been a simple majority body during it's existance.

banyon
12-18-2007, 11:22 PM
We were likely always manipulated consumers and rarely if ever empowered citizens.

Also depends on who you're talking about. Blacks weren't empowered for the first 200 years of our country, etc.

Don't yearn for a lost time of perfection in our country -- it never existed. Not even close.

Like the other side yearns for everything to go back to "Leave it to Beaver"?

Taco John
12-19-2007, 04:49 AM
This seems like a good place to share this story from a voter in Michigan...


From the Ron Paul Forums:

So i realised yesterday on the last possible day to change my voter registration address that i was not registered where i now live and i started to panic. I looked up on the website for the Michigan Secretary of State and saw that they closed at 5pm then i looked down at my watch and saw that it was 4:15 and i was like "Holy F#!&%!!!!". I then proceeded to bolt out the door and didn't even stop to put socks on. I ended up getting there at 4:52 because of nasty yuppy Chistmas shopping traffic and quickly ran to the door and saw that the place was packed. I grabbed a number and waited for about a half hour and heard the people working at the place complain that they were never going to get to go home. I finally got up to the counter and asked for a voter registration slip to fill out and just as i finished signing it i had a moment of self doubt and asked "i forgot if Michigan is an open primary state ,is it, or do i have to register as a republican?" and she said "thank god no, that one got struck down a while ago, you can vote how you like" i responded "i think Ron Paul is grateful for that". Then from behind me i hear a guy say "Go Ron Paul!!!" and i heard a bunch of people laugh and i turned around and looked at the guy and gave him a nod. Then i asked out loud "how many other people are here for voter registration?" and there were 17 people that raised their hands (I know because i counted them). Then i asked "How many people are voting for Ron Paul?" and 14 of them raised their hands in the crowd and 4 of the workers behind the counter. Everybody was laughing at this point then i asked the other 3 who they were voting for. One of them said Romney and then got a big "Ouch" from the rest of the crowd and the other two both said Obama. One guy got up from his seat and gave one of them a DVD. Then i left to go to work after saying goodbye to them.

Now the area i live in is very conservitive and i would have never expected to see that pecentage of people willing to vote for Ron. Now that i left i wish i could have asked a few more questions like "How many of you have never voted before" or "who voted democrat last time around".

There was one guy there that got the second half of that on his camera phone and if this guy is reading this board right now please send me the video or post it on Youtube or something because half of the people i tell this to think i'm full of crap.

The moral of the story is:
Whatever we are doing, keep doing it. This stuff works and if Ron can just get his message out a bit more i think we can grab allot more people. This is what it's all about. I don't want to hear anymore self doubt or guilt trips from you guys. We are going to do this and we are doing this the right way. I think allot of you forget what Ron already knows, this movement is not about Ron Paul, this is about us. Ron is just a rally point, he didn't ask for this, he was born for it. Keep it up, this is the real thing.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 05:49 AM
I hear that another dozen or so Ron Paul voters showed up at the Michigan Secretary of State's office the next day to register.

The moral of this story is:
Ron Paul voters realize, too late, that they have to be registered in order for their votes to count just like they will realize, too late, that they need a realistic foreign policy to defend the country from the enemies who will take advantage of the neo-isolationism to which he would subject us.

Amnorix
12-19-2007, 07:06 AM
I realize that. I don't have a problem with the fillibuster. I was using it as an example of republican hypocricy. They railed against it without making any distinctions. They threatened to do away with it. Now that they don't control congress they use it as a matter of routine.

While patteeu tries to (successfully, some might argue) make a distinction between judicial nominees and all other acts of congressional oversight or leglislative responsibitlies, the republican minority's use of fillibustering has been unprecedented.

Distinctions aside, when one compares their past contempt for the procedure, they are now it's biggest abusers.
Ok, that's fair. I have no argument with any of that. Thanks for clarifying.

penchief
12-19-2007, 08:00 AM
The democrats haven't threatened to go nuclear because they haven't won the whitehouse yet. It would be a bit premature to do so at this point.



As I pointed out before, there is not hypocrisy. The manner in which the Republicans are using the filibuster was never threatened by them when they were in the majority. You're comparing filibuster apples and filibuster oranges.

And the fact that it was the democrats who established the "60 votes to get anything done in the Senate" standard refutes your claim that it was the work of Republicans. But the mistake I really think you made was that you didn't understand that the filibuster has been around for a very long time and the Senate has never been a simple majority body during it's existance.

I understand that politics is contentious and both sides play rough. But in the context of current affairs, the republicans are being huge hypocrites on this issue. And it exposes their willingness to constantly change the ground rules to benefit their current situation. Which is a kind of dishonesty that should tell us what their priorities are.

I guarantee you that if the roles were reversed that the republicans would be squealing like stuck pigs about the obstructionist democrats and how it was time to go nuclear. And the corporate media would be all over it like flies on shit. You know it and I know it, so why even try to pretend?

stevieray
12-19-2007, 08:04 AM
I understand that politics is contentious and both sides play rough. But in the context of current affairs, the republicans are being huge hypocrites on this issue. And it exposes their willingness to constantly change the ground rules to benefit their current situation. Which is a kind of dishonesty that should tell us what their priorities are.

I guarantee you that if the roles were reversed that the republicans would be squealing like stuck pigs about the obstructionist democrats and how it was to go nuclear. And the corporate media would be all over it like flies on shit. You know it and I know it, so why even try to pretend?

dude this isexactly why things are the way they are...divisive bs where we try to claim only one side is the culprit, just like you like to pretend that our citizens are guilt free, and only the government is greedy.

If we are screwed up, we all are.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 08:15 AM
I understand that politics is contentious and both sides play rough. But in the context of current affairs, the republicans are being huge hypocrites on this issue. And it exposes their willingness to constantly change the ground rules to benefit their current situation. Which is a kind of dishonesty that should tell us what their priorities are.

I guarantee you that if the roles were reversed that the republicans would be squealing like stuck pigs about the obstructionist democrats and how it was time to go nuclear. And the corporate media would be all over it like flies on shit. You know it and I know it, so why even try to pretend?

What part of "there isn't any hypocrisy" do you refuse to understand. You can't just make up hypocrisy in your head.

Is "hypocrisy" one of those words that has a commonly understood meaning AND a different penchief meaning like "libertarian"?

penchief
12-19-2007, 08:17 AM
dude this isexactly why things are the way they are...divisive bs where we try to claim only one side is the culprit, just like you like to pretend that our citizens are guilt free, and only the government is greedy.

If we are screwed up, we all are.

I've never said that the people were guilt free. In this thread I've accused the people of allowing themselves to become helpless consumers instead of being empowered citizens. The people bear most of the blame because they have allowed themselves to be manipulated into compromising their own future.

Which is why I express my opinion. Because I would like people to be more aware and more active in holding their government accountable. If we had been more diligent we would not have allowed ourselves to be bamboozled out of our privacy and our civil liberties while being snookered into an endless Orwellian war.

penchief
12-19-2007, 08:21 AM
What part of "there isn't any hypocrisy" do you refuse to understand. You can't just make up hypocrisy in your head.

Is "hypocrisy" one of those words that has a commonly understood meaning AND a different penchief meaning like "libertarian"?

If republicans had gone ahead and pulled the trigger on the nuclear option and eliminated the filibuster, would they be using it now?

Mr. Kotter
12-19-2007, 08:26 AM
I hear that another dozen or so Ron Paul voters showed up at the Michigan Secretary of State's office the next day to register.

The moral of this story is:
Ron Paul voters realize, too late, that they have to be registered in order for their votes to count just like they will realize, too late, that they need a realistic foreign policy to defend the country from the enemies who will take advantage of the neo-isolationism to which he would subject us.

patty...

patteeu
12-19-2007, 08:39 AM
If republicans had gone ahead and pulled the trigger on the nuclear option and eliminated the filibuster, would they be using it now?

Of course. The nuclear option did not have anything to do with filibusters like the ones the Republicans are currently using.

There's a difference between selling cigarettes to minors and selling peanut butter to minors. Both are "selling" but they are different types of "selling". Advocating a law against the former does not make you a hypocrite if you participate in the latter. So to with the different types of filibuster.

I'm not going to explain this to you by posting an internet cartoon. Instead I'm trying to do it in my own words. In the past you've said you preferred that approach. Now is your chance to prove that you aren't resistant to all forms of education.

penchief
12-19-2007, 09:06 AM
Of course. The nuclear option did not have anything to do with filibusters like the ones the Republicans are currently using.

There's a difference between selling cigarettes to minors and selling peanut butter to minors. Both are "selling" but they are different types of "selling". Advocating a law against the former does not make you a hypocrite if you participate in the latter. So to with the different types of filibuster.

I'm not going to explain this to you by posting an internet cartoon. Instead I'm trying to do it in my own words. In the past you've said you preferred that approach. Now is your chance to prove that you aren't resistant to all forms of education.

I understand the difference and I know what you are trying to say but they didn't make that clear at the time. You are making a distinction that they did not make.

And if the nuclear option were the right thing to do whan approving judicial appointees, why didn't they do it anyway?

Baby Lee
12-19-2007, 09:24 AM
Now is your chance to prove that you aren't resistant to all forms of education.
ROFL - I snorted so hard I think I displaced some cartilage.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 09:39 AM
I understand the difference and I know what you are trying to say but they didn't make that clear at the time. You are making a distinction that they did not make.

No, they made the same distinction. In this case, the forest in which the tree fell was crowded with lots and lots of onlookers so it made a big noise. It's not my fault that, when it happened, you were at a rally in the city with a bunch of red diaper babies who were complaining about how the corporate-quo is keeping you all down.

And if the nuclear option were the right thing to do whan approving judicial appointees, why didn't they do it anyway?

They didn't have enough votes. Some Republicans were reluctant to join those pushing the nuclear option either because they didn't think it would go over politically, or because they knew that someday the democrats would regain control, or for some other reason.

This quote from the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option) addresses both of your points and shows that someone besides me was paying attention:

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Taco John
12-19-2007, 10:40 AM
:popcorn:

Amnorix
12-19-2007, 10:51 AM
I understand the difference and I know what you are trying to say but they didn't make that clear at the time. You are making a distinction that they did not make.

Actually, I think they did. My understanding of the nuclear option was that the Republicans were going to eliminate filibusters ONLY with respect to judicial nominations. Perhaps all nominations (not just judicial), but certainly not EVERYTHING that went through the Senate.

penchief
12-19-2007, 12:13 PM
No, they made the same distinction. In this case, the forest in which the tree fell was crowded with lots and lots of onlookers so it made a big noise. It's not my fault that, when it happened, you were at a rally in the city with a bunch of red diaper babies who were complaining about how the corporate-quo is keeping you all down.



They didn't have enough votes. Some Republicans were reluctant to join those pushing the nuclear option either because they didn't think it would go over politically, or because they knew that someday the democrats would regain control, or for some other reason.

This quote from the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option) addresses both of your points and shows that someone besides me was paying attention:

I can see that you're correct. I'll yield to the facts. I'll take back that part but I still believe that the tactic of blackmailing us by threatening to eliminate an important tool of the minority was too much. And I think it was somewhat hypocritical, too.

They didn't like the filibuster because they finally had their chance to dominate the supreme court. Something they've been trying to do since Reagan. So they threatened to change the rules so that they could get their way. The dems were damned if they did and damned if they didn't (and they're wussies).

Just because republicans wanted to place ideologues on the supreme court doesn't diminish the usefulness or value of the filibuster. The concept of the filibuster is no less important when addressing the judicial system than when passing legislation. In fact, one could argue that the filibuster has the most value when the most is at stake.

So, while I know you are right about the circumstances surrounding their desire to eliminate the filibuster (when and where), it does little to change how I feel about the tactic of holding our checks and balances hostage in order to impose ideology.

penchief
12-19-2007, 12:16 PM
Actually, I think they did. My understanding of the nuclear option was that the Republicans were going to eliminate filibusters ONLY with respect to judicial nominations. Perhaps all nominations (not just judicial), but certainly not EVERYTHING that went through the Senate.

Yeah, he's right. When it was happening I missed that distinction.