Ron Beats Rudy in NH?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

I have been under the impression that Nommy is in his very early 20’s. Could he be 18 or 19? Sure that’s possible. 16 or 17…maybe, but I doubt it.[/quote]

For what it’s worth, Nominal Prospect is the same poster as Al Shades. Search for a good laugh. Young, yes - though who knows the specific age. Old Al was the laughingstock a while back - well, kind of like now - what, between his consumption of .9 of a banana and thinking that his level 70 elf ninja warrior on an internet role playing game translated into him being a god among men in Real Life.

162

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

Ron Paul HAD a chance and that chance is now gone.
That’s the truth of the matter.

Wrong Nommy, his chances were exactly what I said they were last summer on this very forum; ZERO. And for the very reasons that I tried to beat into your inexperienced skull:

  1. No national political organization

  2. Underfunded

  3. No charisma

  4. He comes off like an old crank-not presidential.

The only “chance” he ever had was with the young and impressionable who have not lived long enough to see these types go through the system.

You were WRONG.

Mick,

Serious question: Who do you think a ron paul “independent” run would hurt in the general?

My knee-jerk reaction is that it would hurt a Republican.

However, I’m not so sure. If you look at the posters on this very board, you’ll find people who normally don’t vote Republican anyway.

For instance Mr. Independent (gdollars) will default to pulling the all democratic lever. He’ll rant and rave about “punishing the Republicans.” Then he’ll reward his democratic friends. However, if ron paul was on the ballot, he could satisfy his desperate need to be unique.

That’s one less democratic vote.

Good point.

Then there is lifty/nommy. If they are old enough to vote, they’d never vote Republican.

I just spit my coffee all over the keyboard after I read this. But in reality I guess it isn’t that funny, you could be right about Nommy. I have been under the impression that Nommy is in his very early 20’s. Could he be 18 or 19? Sure that’s possible. 16 or 17…maybe, but I doubt it.

However, I’m not sure these two would vote for a democrat either. The most likely scenario is they’d vote for a communist, Zsa Zsa Gabor, or stay home.

The only guy on here that the Good Guys could lose would be Mike.

However, I get the impression that he’s beginning to see through ron paul. I’ll bet he senses the naked ambition and the propensity to manipulate the facts to suit his own ends.

JeffR

Not to get far from your original question, but what I found shocking about Paul is his naivete. His one sentence answer to complex world problems.

Mr. Paul what are we going to do about Iraq?

“Iraq? Um…we get out and fast”.

In fact each and everyone of his answers were quite simple and seemed to lack any sort of deep thought process. I guess it’s no wonder he appealed to the 16 to 24 age group. That is not to say that every person in that age group is simple minded. We have many very bright guys on this site in that group. But I’ve found that youth and inexperience tends to gravitate to simplistic answers to complex problems.

Okay, to your original question:

First of all what makes you think he’ll have enough clout to impact the race in either direction? He’ll have no money, no national organization and he’s still a complete zero in the charisma department. And one more important thing, unlike when Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote, Paul will be excluded from the debates as not being a serious candidate. If they allowed him in they’d have to allow every old crank with a bunch of teen groupies into the debates as well.

However, let’s assume that there is a billionaire somewhere who takes pity on Paul, or thinks that he can use him as a spoiler. If Paul gets all the funding that he wants…in this make believe scenario… and his numbers grow to say 5% nationally (remember he’s not seen as anyone who can win) he could be a factor.

If this happens I think he’ll probably hurt the democrat more than the republican. But most likely not either side much. In a close race of course every vote counts. But, let’s face it he attracts the kids and the nut bags who probably wouldn’t vote to begin with. I mean…do you really think that Nommy is going to vote for say Hillary vs Rudy, or Romney?

Here’s the bottom line, as I’ve said since last summer (and have been proven correct) Paul is a non factor.

[/quote]

I can’t help but take insult to you reducing Paul’s positions down to “simple answers.” Therefore, making us supportive of a number of his positions out to be simple people.

Then again, maybe there is some simplicity to it. When I listen to what Walker says (and I assume he has some knowledge about the financial health of our nation), it does seem like a simple conclusion after all. We can’t keep up playing world police, and we can’t keep up a big nanny state.

When the General Comptroller of the US is basically saying that Islamic terrorism doesn’t rise to level of threat our spending and borrowing has become, I take notice. Yeah, I said it, terrorism isn’t going to destroy our way of life, or our standard of living. But, the great big black hole for tax revenues, the Federal Government sure will. Especially as the boomers start getting their checks.

So yeah, I’ve reconsidered what role the federal government, US military, and our tax dollars should play. Defend THIS nation (including it’s borders), allow me the freedom and responsibilty to provide for myself and those I choose to support. And, don’t borrow and spend the Government into a hole, only to come to me later demanding even more of my paycheck!

Moving on. Ron Paul only hurts Democrats if Hillary gets the nod. Otherwise, I think a Ron Paul independent run hurts the Republicans. And let me tell ya, they can’t afford any more hurting. You see, if Obama gets the nod, anti-Iraq war democrats and independents have a nominee they can happily vote for.

The Republican party isn’t some hive mind construct. There are a number of factions within the tent. And I sense that more than a few of have had up to their ears with the party. Alot of them…no, us…are tired of helping to get Republicans elected. But, I’m tired of simply voting anti-democrat.

Decentralization? Sharp spending cuts? Cutting the fat off the size of the Federal Government? Patriot act? Illegal Immigration? Tax cuts/reform? The Party has failed a number of it’s members. Now, you could say “don’t let the door hit ya on the ass on the way out!” You could, but you might as well call off the Republican primaries and await which Democrat is anointed President.

And you know what? In about twenty years or so, when the Goverment find itself unable to meet it’s commitments, a good many of us kooks will be vindicated. We won’t be able to play world police, or have our nanny state. Or not. Maybe even then we’ll refuse to move back towards a small and greatly restrained government. Maybe our problems will be used as evidence that Washington must be given far greater control of the wealth we produce. We’ll see

Having reached the end of my rant, I realize I’ve assumed you hold some loyalty to the GoP. Perhaps I’m wrong, and you’re a Democrat. Which would only make the “simple answers” comment humorous. There is nothing more simple than “nationalize it,” after all.

163

[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.

So what is your point?

Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB

Huh? About two million people died. Partition was a fucking disaster. What on earth are you talking about?

2 million out of how many?

They could have been a giant balcans but they weren`t.

G$–
Orion here is following his tradition of moral relativism; 2 million is relative to some other number (perhaps 400 million at the time of the Partition) and therefore cannot weigh heavily on the imagination!
But that is 2 million, say, out of the 100 million in Sindh, Rajahstan, and Bengal who were hacked to death with machetes, or 20 million who were sent homeless through the desert…
So, to a relativist, like Orion, that is relatively light, relatively speaking!

It wasn’t. It was a disaster. Orion does know what he is talking about, but he would rather dissimilate than admit he was wrong.

And Orion now stands with Stalin, who said, “A single murder is a tragedy; but a million murders is a statistic.”

5 percent of 400 million are bloody riots.

10 percent maybe a civil war.

20 and up attempted genocide.

0,5 percent, i.e 2 million out of 400 are birth pains.

And yes there are no moral absolutes.

So sorry, grow up.

Orion, I am so happy to see you acknowledge your mistakes, at last. Now that we have all the appropriate relative scales in Orion Order, I can review:
Now let’s see, by your calculations–0.5 % are “birth pains”–you must agree that Iraq (151,000 out of 28 million is about 0.5%) is experiencing birth pains over the last 4 years. Good grief, that puts Orion in agreement with Condoleeza Rice and George Bush: “the birth pains of democracy.”

Gentlemen: through diligent education, even the truculent troglodyte can be brought to light.

Would I agree with your numbers and had you not forgotten the 500000 children alone that died in the sanctions and had the separation not been an inner Indian affair instead a war of aggression you´d have a point.

See how hard I try to say something positive about your post?

Ah yes, you see I add those (putative 500,000, propagandized and never documented) children to Saddam’s list, his damnation in hell, because it was by his orders, and his failures to agree to signed treaty, that they suffered and died.

See how easy you can find it to agree with reasonable people?

With reasonable people that is no problem.

I expect reasonable people to understand that a nation that deals with her own problems in a largely non-violent manner though some of her own citizens die, is different from a nation that kills Columbians for her drug and Iraquis for her oil problems.

If you beat your wife because you can´t stand your life you may be a prick, but if you go into other peoples houses to beat up their wifes you kind of cross a line.

[/quote]
(I intend to be polite, but the opportunity for sarcasm is inescapable.)

So, to extend your analogy, if I beat your wife you can stop me, but if I beat my own wife, no one can stop me? No, I wouldn’t beat your wife–I am sure she suffers enough–and this can’t be what you meant.
Politely, let me re-trace The Rules that you have outlined, here and in other threads, just for a consistency check.

  1. Some bastards need killin’; you and I agreed.
  2. It’s good to bomb the bastards, although some countries can’t or won’t, and, after 40 years, there is no “European strike force” to police the bastards.
  3. Neither of us suggested which council might identify those bastards.

But wait. The next part–presented on this thread–I would like to understand better.
2 million dead at the Partition of India is ok–“birth pains”–because that was somehow an internal affair. (Never mind that it was between distinct populations.) But when the US reaches into another country, and inflicts “relative” “birth pains” (your term, not mine) to kill the bastards, that is wrong.
SO:
4. Inside borders–genocide/violence is ok; between borders, not ok.

Is it borders that determine the difference, Orion, and who determines which ones are to be respected? One infers from your comments that bombing murderous Serbs is ok–but wait, the US crossed border to do that, for the sake of Europeans, not Americans. IF there is anshluss between country D and country O, is it now an internal matter, and D can persecute O’s inhabitants? If Chinese murder Tibetans and Uygurrs, is that an internal affair, and ok? Is it within traditional Chinese homeland, or is it murder across borders that Chinese do not happen to respect?

My point, Orion, is that even in your stance, there is some studied ambiguity in the use of violence. Your rules don’t have to be internally consistent; perhaps it is simply a judgment you make ad hoc. Perhaps it is the case that bombing bastards is good, when Orion chooses the bastards, but bad when it is the US doin’ the choosin’.

164

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Libertarians believe in natural law - moral absolutes regarding the inalienable right to liberty making up their cause. Rothbardians don’t believe in moral absolutes, per their own admission - so freedom is no better than slavery, individualism no better than collectivism. As such, the slavery of the Confederate South - while obnoxious to true libertarians, who believe in the natural law of personal liberty - was perfectly defendable by the Rothbardians as nihilists. Nihilists aren’t interested in broad principles as they apply/should apply to humanity, as libertarianism certainly is - they are self-interested, and “if one man should enslave another, it’s not a third man’s business”.

It’s an important distinction, I think - and I think Rothbardians make libertarians look bad. We already see libertarians distancing themselves.

And, of course, we see what folks think of Rothabrdianism - even in quirky NH, which prides itself on its independence and libertarian streak, threw a Rothbardian under the bus. [/quote]

A) Libertarians believe in natural law:

Not necessarily. I don`t. I detest the alternative as inconsistent, a road to tyranny and the intellectual version of might makes right.

If, in a modern democracy the government derives its power from the people it can not have more rights that can be derived from those people.

Nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet.

The fact that a majority decides is irrelevant because even if the robber, looters or rapists are in the majority their rights to not add up, e.g. 5 rights to whatever are not worth more than one, all are absolute.

Now if we discard the notion that the government derives its powers from the people it basically comes down to might makes right, e.g. positive law.

If that is so, my ability to do drugs, evade taxes and break any other law I chose is on equal moral footing than their commands just because I CAN.

So, if we want a democracy and insist that he government derives its powers from the people there is no real alternative to the idea of natural rights, because if people have no rights in and of themselves they could not form a government that has any.

It does not require believing.

It requires the insight that the lies people try to make you believe, or the stories they tell themselves, impose limits on what they could theoretically do in good conscience and that that narrative is very important in politics.

B)No one is saying that slavery was not wrong.

What we are saying is that every other civilized nation abolished it without a major war.

We are saying Lincoln could not care less about slaves and only cared about the Union making slavery almost a non-issue.

We are saying that you cannot introduce one form of slavery (draft)to end another.

We are saying that the rule of law (especially and foremost when it binds governments actions) and human life is so important that we would have preferred the states to abolish slavery on their own.

We are also saying that your argument that Lincoln tried to end slavery like other countries did, via law, is not only historically inaccurate but also that it was not his law to make.

C) The idea that we would have to jump at every opportunity to make life more “free” is also absurd.

If we dismantled the constitution in the process, like Lincoln, FDR and others did it would be a Pyhrric victory, one we could only afford so often, until we would finally lose.

165

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.

So what is your point?

Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB

Huh? About two million people died. Partition was a fucking disaster. What on earth are you talking about?

2 million out of how many?

They could have been a giant balcans but they weren`t.

G$–
Orion here is following his tradition of moral relativism; 2 million is relative to some other number (perhaps 400 million at the time of the Partition) and therefore cannot weigh heavily on the imagination!
But that is 2 million, say, out of the 100 million in Sindh, Rajahstan, and Bengal who were hacked to death with machetes, or 20 million who were sent homeless through the desert…
So, to a relativist, like Orion, that is relatively light, relatively speaking!

It wasn’t. It was a disaster. Orion does know what he is talking about, but he would rather dissimilate than admit he was wrong.

And Orion now stands with Stalin, who said, “A single murder is a tragedy; but a million murders is a statistic.”

5 percent of 400 million are bloody riots.

10 percent maybe a civil war.

20 and up attempted genocide.

0,5 percent, i.e 2 million out of 400 are birth pains.

And yes there are no moral absolutes.

So sorry, grow up.

Orion, I am so happy to see you acknowledge your mistakes, at last. Now that we have all the appropriate relative scales in Orion Order, I can review:
Now let’s see, by your calculations–0.5 % are “birth pains”–you must agree that Iraq (151,000 out of 28 million is about 0.5%) is experiencing birth pains over the last 4 years. Good grief, that puts Orion in agreement with Condoleeza Rice and George Bush: “the birth pains of democracy.”

Gentlemen: through diligent education, even the truculent troglodyte can be brought to light.

Would I agree with your numbers and had you not forgotten the 500000 children alone that died in the sanctions and had the separation not been an inner Indian affair instead a war of aggression you´d have a point.

See how hard I try to say something positive about your post?

Ah yes, you see I add those (putative 500,000, propagandized and never documented) children to Saddam’s list, his damnation in hell, because it was by his orders, and his failures to agree to signed treaty, that they suffered and died.

See how easy you can find it to agree with reasonable people?

With reasonable people that is no problem.

I expect reasonable people to understand that a nation that deals with her own problems in a largely non-violent manner though some of her own citizens die, is different from a nation that kills Columbians for her drug and Iraquis for her oil problems.

If you beat your wife because you can´t stand your life you may be a prick, but if you go into other peoples houses to beat up their wifes you kind of cross a line.

(I intend to be polite, but the opportunity for sarcasm is inescapable.)

So, to extend your analogy, if I beat your wife you can stop me, but if I beat my own wife, no one can stop me? No, I wouldn’t beat your wife–I am sure she suffers enough–and this can’t be what you meant.
Politely, let me re-trace The Rules that you have outlined, here and in other threads, just for a consistency check.

  1. Some bastards need killin’; you and I agreed.
  2. It’s good to bomb the bastards, although some countries can’t or won’t, and, after 40 years, there is no “European strike force” to police the bastards.
  3. Neither of us suggested which council might identify those bastards.

But wait. The next part–presented on this thread–I would like to understand better.
2 million dead at the Partition of India is ok–“birth pains”–because that was somehow an internal affair. (Never mind that it was between distinct populations.) But when the US reaches into another country, and inflicts “relative” “birth pains” (your term, not mine) to kill the bastards, that is wrong.
SO:
4. Inside borders–genocide/violence is ok; between borders, not ok.

Is it borders that determine the difference, Orion, and who determines which ones are to be respected? One infers from your comments that bombing murderous Serbs is ok–but wait, the US crossed border to do that, for the sake of Europeans, not Americans. IF there is anshluss between country D and country O, is it now an internal matter, and D can persecute O’s inhabitants? If Chinese murder Tibetans and Uygurrs, is that an internal affair, and ok? Is it within traditional Chinese homeland, or is it murder across borders that Chinese do not happen to respect?

My point, Orion, is that even in your stance, there is some studied ambiguity in the use of violence. Your rules don’t have to be internally consistent; perhaps it is simply a judgment you make ad hoc. Perhaps it is the case that bombing bastards is good, when Orion chooses the bastards, but bad when it is the US doin’ the choosin’.[/quote]

No, it is more like Orion thinks it is not a good idea to interfere in other countries and still opens a beer when a Saddam dies.

Theoretically there may be no borders, all artificial lines drawn in the sand, practically people unite behind their leaders and detest you if you cross their imaginary lines.

That makes them very real and hard to debate away by sophist playing with words.

So again, if you beat up your wife the village is able to ignore you up to a point.

Beat up other wifes and the village will react.

That has nothing to do with moral issues but with how much people tolerate.

166

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Waiting until now, in the middle of a presidential campaign, to make disclaimers means that those disclaimers aren’t very convincing.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
He answered for this 10 years ago when he was re-running for congress. The article (yes, the only one) in question was published in D.C. when Dr. Paul was back practicing medicine in TX. I doubt he had a clue until someone brought it to his attention – when he DID relieve the individual of his ghost-writing privileges. He took moral responsibility for the oversight. This is a done issue.

People who call Dr. Paul a racist clearly don’t understand libertarianism.

Here’s the article that touched off the firestorm:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Here’s a link to selections from more than one of his newsletters - significantly more than one - I don’t know if the source had access to a full archive:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129[/quote]

I think the newsletter stuff calls Paul’s judgement into question, and his management skills, but the New Republic piece was a transparent hack job.

This gay Ron Paul supporter sums it up:

There are a lot of racialist and racist folks on the right-wing fringes, and Paul should have done a better job keeping himself away from them. But to accuse Ron Paul of being a crypto-racist is pathetic.

And, incidentally, I know the guy who wrote the New Republic article, and I’ll just leave it at saying that I agree with his fellow gay Republican’s assessment above.

169

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I realize I’ve assumed you hold some loyalty to the GoP. Perhaps I’m wrong, and you’re a Democrat. Which would only make the “simple answers” comment humorous. There is nothing more simple than “nationalize it,” after all.

Briefly, my “loyalty” is to any candidate who is able to lead, make rational decisions, inspire the people, reach out to the other party, or parties in bipartisan fashion and actually cut back the size of government.

Except for that last one Paul doesn’t even come close.
[/quote]

So tell me, which candidate fits your description?

170

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Yore weakness is your use of generalization without a proper understanding of what you are talking about.

I doubt you have read any of Rothbard’s work by what you have written. Here you go, free of charge:

Man, Economy, and State:

Thanks for the link - but why would I waste so much time?

Rothbard may have helped fan the flames of the Libertarian movement but he was an anarchist.

Well, “Rothbardian” was my term to distinguish the looneytarians from the Natural Law libertarians - we can use whatever taxonomy you prefer if I am misusing his name (so many useless radicals, so little time). I could call them “Rockwellians”, but giving that quack a movement-name is too much of a compliment.

Nihilism is not anarchism nor are Rothbardians nihilists… pure nihilism does not exist. Taking such a view is, in itself, a belief and thus refutes itself.

Setting aside that I feel comfortable interchanging nihilism and anarchism because anarchism wants to get rid of government root and vine and nihilism wants to get rid of morality root and vine - both are radical rejections of any authority outside of oneself and closely related - this is interesting because it leads me to my next point.

Let’s isolate your last sentence:

Taking such a view is, in itself, a belief and thus refutes itself.

Hold on to that thought.

And you still show your ignorance of relativism. There are no absolutes – this applies to relativism too.

I’ll quote you:

Taking such a view is, in itself, a belief and thus refutes itself.

Asserting the maxim “there are no moral absolutes” is asserting a universal truth, because people who think otherwise are incorrect as a matter of truth, and it thus refutes itself. Your belief that it is categorically wrong to say “there is a such thing as an absolute moral truth” expressly refutes your claim that there are no universal truths.

Far from being an exercise in semantics, it matters - because if you have demonstrated that universal truths do, in fact, exist - at least one, by your own admission - then there must be a debate as to whether other ones do too, because the concept of relativism just got folded into itself and refuted.

Example:

  1. Thunderbolt23 says: “there are universal truths”.

  2. Lifticus says: “there are no universal truths.”

We can’t both be right. One of us is right, the other is wrong - but either way, whichever is right is a universal truth that transcends a person’s personal preference on the matter - as such, relativism as you describe it doesn’t exist.

All observers perceive their own reality but two different observers can agree on what they believe. I can believe that liberty is a right and still believe that one may contest that right by exerting their power over me. Who is right? How do you know?

This fails to understand the issue. Just because we, as humans, don’t have a comprehensive, detailed Rolodex of all the universal truths at our disposal is not proof there are no universal truths.

This smells of “denying the antecedent”:

If Man has proof of Universal Truths, it is clear those Truths exist. Man does not have proof of Universal Truths, therefore they don’t exist.

False.

And, just for kicks, if we take your thesis to be true - individualism is no better than collectivism, and slavery is no better than freedom.

You have no individual “rights” - because “rights” definitionally are moral absolutes in that they are claims on men independent of what those other men think. If no moral absolutes, then no rights, then freedom is aspirational entirely dependent on the person who would like the freedom, but if he doesn’t get to enjoy freedom he wants, he has no right to complain - he is entitled to nothing.[/quote]

Semantics, indeed. We could argue about this all day but as you stated why would we waste our time. Let’s just agree to disagree.

The phrase universal truth is an obfuscated term. Our world view doesn’t even let us know what could possibly be universally true. The only thing we can generalize about is what we view in our own frame of reference. This is why philosophers typically define their boundary conditions before making an argument.

Anytime an observer makes the statement, “This is what I believe to be true,” he is taking an absolute stand about some position. Does this mean he is no longer a relativist because he takes a stand? No, it doesn’t because his opinion may change based on a different frame of reference – what we call learning. There are many other examples that we could use to demonstrate the validity of relativism.

When I stand here, this is what I see, when I stand there, that is what I see…there is nothing difficult in understanding this.

The argument about moral truths is exactly the same. For example, we both believe that life is an inherent right, an absolute truth for the purpose of our argument. What then for the right to life of a death row inmate?! Our society would say those rights are forfeit…is that not then a relative position of morality? If it is morally correct for the State to take an individual’s life then the right to life cannot be an absolute truth under certain “frames of reference”.

171

From Ron’s erstwhile supporter Matt Welch at Reason magazine:

LEDE:

[i]In Ron Paul’s statement responding to The New Republic’s story about his old newsletters, he said the following:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. [...]

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. [...]

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and “taken moral responsibility” for, these “Ron Paul” newsletters “for over a decade”? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon. [/i]

173

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
What’s a voter to do?
[/quote]

You sound like a Natural Born Paul Supporter.

174

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

Maybe I write in “Sloth”.

:wink:

[/quote]

Nice! The first member of my new Grassroots movement.

177

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

Maybe I write in “Sloth”.

:wink:

Nice! The first member of my new Grassroots movement.

And I promise not to act crazy and vote 50 times in online polls.[/quote]

Mick,

Don’t promise that in advance.

Remember, if you spam enough sites, fleece the angry, young male, you might (barely) be able to squeeze yourself into a Fox debate.

However, I urge you to part ways with ron paul when you actually get on the stage. Pleasue use YOUR podium time to improve your standing.

JeffR

178

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I realize I’ve assumed you hold some loyalty to the GoP. Perhaps I’m wrong, and you’re a Democrat. Which would only make the “simple answers” comment humorous. There is nothing more simple than “nationalize it,” after all.

Briefly, my “loyalty” is to any candidate who is able to lead, make rational decisions, inspire the people, reach out to the other party, or parties in bipartisan fashion and actually cut back the size of government.

Except for that last one Paul doesn’t even come close.
[/quote]

Only sheep need a shepherd.

mike

179

Professor David Bernstein has some excellent advice for libertarians here:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_01_06-2008_01_12.shtml#1200092167

[i]More Ron Paul Fallout:

Sensible comments, with which I largely agree, from David Boaz of Cato ( http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/ ), former VC contributor Jacob Levy ( Jacob T. Levy ), Prof. Steven Horwitz ( http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/46313.html ), Prof. Glen Whitman ( Agoraphilia: The Libertarian Small Sample Problem ), “Rightwatch” ( http://rightwatch.tblog.com/ ), and Tim Sandefur ( Freespace: The libertarian repudiation of Pauline Paleoconservatism ).

The consensus is, basically, that libertarianism needs to more aggressively disassociate itself from right-wing fringe loonies who use libertarianism as a mask to disguise other agendas, or who support libertarianism only because they adhere to some bizarre conspiracy theory or other involving the federal government. Those of us who long ago (as I did) made a decision not to associate with the creepy-paleocons-disguising themselves-as-libertarians in the Lew Rockwell circle–Rockwell being, among other things, the primary suspect as the author of the offensive passages in Ron Paul’s newsletters, though he denied it to the New Republic’s James Kirchik–need to exert peer pressure on our libertarian friends to follow suit.

Speaking of which, why would otherwise respectable libertarians such as Doug Bandow and Alan Bock write for, and allow themselves to be listed as columnists for, Justin Raimondo’s Antiwar.com? Raimondo, one might recall, is best-known for such illuminating commentary ( The Franklin Affair:A Spreading Treason - Antiwar.com Original ) as, “If we observe how we were lied into war with Iraq, and by whom, the whole affair looks more like an Israeli covert operation by the day” (and read the whole thing, not to mention his bizarre book ( http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Enigma-11-Israeli-Connection/dp/0595296823/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200092048&sr=8-1 ), to get the full flavor). Perhaps it’s not just elements of the Left that became unhinged by the Iraq War.[/i]

180

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Semantics, indeed. We could argue about this all day but as you stated why would we waste our time. Let’s just agree to disagree.[/quote]

See, there is your problem - it isn’t available for disagreement. Relativism, as you state it, refutes itself. The simple example refutes your claim, and you have offered no means of saving it.