[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Another strawman.
[/quote]
How was this paragraph a straw man? There is no misrepresentation or exaggeration of your position.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Another strawman.
[/quote]
How was this paragraph a straw man? There is no misrepresentation or exaggeration of your position.[/quote]
Who’s doing the same thing over and over? You’re not being specific. You’re suggesting that I’m somehow supporting tyranny by not being a radical libertarian. That’s the straw man.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Who’s doing the same thing over and over? You’re not being specific. You’re suggesting that I’m somehow supporting tyranny by not being a radical libertarian. That’s the straw man.[/quote]
Everyone who supports making some people masters. That paragraph suggested nothing about you or your argument.
Once it’s recognized that a state has become tyrannical, continuing to support it, in hopes that it will unchain us if we cooperate, is insane.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Everyone who supports making some people masters.
[/quote]
Look I’m not really interested in this infantile argument again.
Recognised by whom? You?
[quote]
continuing to support it, in hopes that it will unchain us if we cooperate, is insane. [/quote]
Okay, so we overthrow the state right? When do we start? You haven’t started because for all your talk about being a slave you don’t have the will to kill and die for what you believe. The state has not become intolerable enough for you to do so. You’re just some guy who got sucked in to Ron Paul’s delusional ideology.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Recognised by whom? You?
[/quote]
The people under its rule.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Okay, so we overthrow the state right? When do we start? You haven’t started because for all your talk about being a slave you don’t have the will to kill and die for what you believe. The state has not become intolerable enough for you to do so. You’re just some guy who got sucked in to Ron Paul’s delusional ideology.
[/quote]
You’re asking the obvious question: When does a ruler become intolerable? What makes one intolerable?
You seem to have a huge problem with Ron Paul. What is the cause of the problem? I like the guy just fine, but I had no idea who he was until after I had already been introduced to libertarianism. He seems pretty harmless, so I’m not sure why you have hatred for him.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The people under its rule.
[/quote]
That was my point. What constitutes “the people?”
[quote]
You’re asking the obvious question: When does a ruler become intolerable? What makes one intolerable?
You seem to have a huge problem with Ron Paul. What is the cause of the problem? I like the guy just fine, but I had no idea who he was until after I had already been introduced to libertarianism. He seems pretty harmless, so I’m not sure why you have hatred for him. [/quote]
He’s a lunatic. He’s an historical revisionist who blames the United States for every problem in the world that ever happened/happens including 911. In the past he advocated open borders - he said the Southern border was designed to “keep us in.” He’s a neo-Confederate Lincoln hater.
He also lies about the Constitution. He pretends to be a strict Constitutionalist but he’s not - eg, he lies and claims the executive does not have Constitutional authority to wage war without Congressional approval. This exact thing is discussed in the Federalist papers. The executive has the power to wage war and Congress has the power of the purse to defund it if necessary. Paul isn’t a Constitutionalist. He wishes the union had never been formed. He’s a liar and a kook and his followers are fanatics and idiots.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
He also lies about the Constitution. He pretends to be a strict Constitutionalist but he’s not - eg, he lies and claims the executive does not have Constitutional authority to wage war without Congressional approval. This exact thing is discussed in the Federalist papers. The executive has the power to wage war and Congress has the power of the purse to defund it if necessary. Paul isn’t a Constitutionalist. He wishes the union had never been formed. He’s a liar and a kook and his followers are fanatics and idiots.[/quote]
Declare war=state intention of going to war
Wage war=to carry on a war
Does the Constitution say something different?
Congress declares war, then the president manages the armed forces.
Being a Constitutionalist is not the same as agreeing with everything the current government decides to do. The Constitution was to be the supreme law of the United States; it has become nothing but something to be twisted to rubber stamp the desires of the powers-that-be.
Of course, there’s always the idea that being a Constitutionalist means going along with whatever the majority says at the time; in that case, what’s the point of the Constitution? To be the aforementioned rubber stamp?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Declare war=state intention of going to war
Wage war=to carry on a war
Does the Constitution say something different?
Congress declares war, then the president manages the armed forces.
Being a Constitutionalist is not the same as agreeing with everything the current government decides to do.
[/quote]
No really?
[quote]
The Constitution was to be the supreme law of the United States; it has become nothing but something to be twisted to rubber stamp the desires of the powers-that-be.
Of course, there’s always the idea that being a Constitutionalist means going along with whatever the majority says at the time; in that case, what’s the point of the Constitution? To be the aforementioned rubber stamp?[/quote]
None of that is relevant. I’m not making any of those claims. My claim is that Ron Paul only pretends to be a Constitutionalist. He’s actually an anti-federalist who deliberately distorts the original intent in order to further his anti-federalist kook agenda.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
None of that is relevant. I’m not making any of those claims. My claim is that Ron Paul only pretends to be a Constitutionalist. He’s actually an anti-federalist who deliberately distorts the original intent in order to further his anti-federalist kook agenda.[/quote]
What evidence do you that he “pretends” to be a Constitutionalist? I’m not sure what you meant by, “No really?” in your response, but I assume you meant that what I said was obviously true. If that’s what you meant, then you agree with Paul, as far as I can tell, in regards to Constitutional presidential war powers.
Federalism does not equal nationalism.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
None of that is relevant. I’m not making any of those claims. My claim is that Ron Paul only pretends to be a Constitutionalist. He’s actually an anti-federalist who deliberately distorts the original intent in order to further his anti-federalist kook agenda.[/quote]
What evidence do you that he “pretends” to be a Constitutionalist? I’m not sure what you meant by, “No really?” in your response, but I assume you meant that what I said was obviously true. If that’s what you meant, then you agree with Paul, as far as I can tell, in regards to Constitutional presidential war powers.
Federalism does not equal nationalism.[/quote]
I discussed Ron Paul ad nauseum on this forum leading up to the 2012 election. He was a nobody then and he’s a nobody now. I don’t really see the point in me trying to convince you of what I’m saying. You asked me why I hate him and I told you. You can believe what you want about him. Anyone who knows his background and the cabal of nutty professors he hangs out with knows he’s not a Constitutionalist - he’s a neo-Confederate/anti-federalist posing as a Constitutionalist. You see the founders weren’t anarchists.
Ron Paul is from the Rothbardian anarchist school. He’s also an extreme isolationist in the tradition of the “old right.” Please don’t bother to tell me he’s an “anti-interventionist” - that’s not the term used for his foreign policy. Then there’s all the batshit conspiracy theories he’s adopted. His historical revisionism. He’s a laughing stock.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No one is going to watch a half hour video that you’ve posted with no comment. Why don’t you speak for yourself. What is it in the video that you agree with? What are you trying to say?
Good podcast I listened to this morning, James Otteson, author of The End of Socialism
Found it here