[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You really should stop posting.
And you should learn some economics.[/quote]
Take your own advice. Stop regurgitating the lew rockwell nonsense and study how the real world works, not just some idiots fantasy of how they think it should (but never has).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:
See what I mean Weasel? You will learn soon enough that T-Nation is an awesome source for training articles but the political forums are basically a playground for name calling. Notice that if you look at someone outside of the “golden 3” now that = status quo or worse, you are called a child or ignoramus, uneducated, etc.
Funny how the ones spouting this BS are supposed to be the Republicans who, from my recollection, think that teh Democrats are intellectual snobs.
More crying from the Paul supporters.
Fact is, Paul supporters are full of ad hominem, always have been - there have been no tears shed for “neocon”, “collectivist”, “fascists”, whatever attempted slur is visited upon someone who questions the Glorious Leader. And that has been fine. Dumb, but fine.
Turn the tables, start baring your fangs at the lunacy and stupidity that seems to pervade Paul’s moronic level of support around here, and all of a sudden, Ron Paul supporters are aghast at the insults and have to retire to a fainting room to recover.
Storey, here is some good advice - grow a pair. The PWI forums have always been spirited, but generally full of good, intelligent debate. Enter the Ron Paul troops, and objective, smart debate fizzled out so fast it could be clocked with an egg timer. Instead, we get conspiracy idiocy, rah-rah cheerleading backed by a junior high level of politics, and half-literate trolling as the order of the day.
Don’t stumble in here and complain that PWI is nothing but a “playground for name calling” when the Ron Paul twits are the ones who poured the sand in and offered little other than the standard half-informed “you’re a neocon owned by the military-industrial complex!” jibberish.
Want a better PWI? You and your fellow Ron Paul troglodytes will need to up your game. Till then, any requests to be handled with kid gloves will go ignored.[/quote]
Your opinion of RP aside, seriously Thunderbolt? You’ve been a part of these forums to know that is has been the case well before any Paulnuts showed up. Do I really need to go back and dredge up the posts from the last election cycle? Just because you say you are on the side of the grown ups doesn’t mean you are or that you are anymore informed about these candidates then teh next guy. You are very well informed on certain aspects of history and civil issues, I will give you that. So are other guys on these boards. I was just trying to save weasel from the exercise in futility seeking a quality response on this subject. You can’t shoot down one loon candidate and prop up your loon candidate and then say anything else is unintelligent babble.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Your opinion of RP aside, seriously Thunderbolt? You’ve been a part of these forums to know that is has been the case well before any Paulnuts showed up. Do I really need to go back and dredge up the posts from the last election cycle?[/quote]
You mean back in 2004? There were good, fun debates - if heated - around that time. Way better than what we have seen lately. Easiest proof? Where are the Democrats around here? The election will be won - and policy driven - by either a Democrat or mainstream Republican, and the biggest issues to be debated are centered on that - but there are no Democrats around here.
Instead, we get the steady drip of the gold standard, the Illuminati, the Rothchilds, the NAU, Lew Rockwell quackery, and “blowback” taken as an article of faith.
Not nearly as good. Undoubtedly.
I never said everything is “unintelligent babble” - just most of what is offered up by the Paul supporters. I’ve had patience and tried to have objective debates on the rise of the new new libertarianism through Paul, but no takers. Hell, Lifticus said himself he can’t even strain and be objective.
And I don’t claim to be an expert on any of the candidates - but at a minimum, there should be some basic ability to have an informed, objective conversation about them. By and large, Paul supporters have done none of that, and it isn’t my problem to fix. Instead, we get trolls by the truckload who know next to nothing about relevant topics, but blabber Paul’s libertarian Dogma like it’s a theology to them.
Enough. Don’t pretend like Paul supporters haven’t brought the forum down with their poppycock - that is intellectually dishonest.
And don’t lose sight of my original point - if Paul supporters are so torn up over “name calling”, perhaps they should come in with something other than “military-industrial” starter kits naming everyone who disagrees with them as apostates to the One Truth Faith of Freedom. See the hypocrisy?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Okay General Pershing, time to stop letting the rear end of your horse speak.
C’mon, HH - after your trainwreck about “CCCs” and “Ronald Reagan”, you really want to try and make a defense here?[/quote]
You, who claim to be so knowlegeable about our Constitution, denigrate people who are passionate about following that Constituion.
Really, TB, do you want to show us that you are indeed a Country Club Conservative?
You may look down from your charger at all the filthy commoners, but that seems a little more Napoleanic than in the vein of General Pershing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Spirited? [/quote]
Old days, yes - that was when we had much smarter posters.
I am all for grown-up debate, but rest assured, fragile one, that I am more than happy to return in kind.
Be serious, Lifticus. Can’t debate sound argument? Give me a break. You are a like a child throwing a tantrum - just lashing out emotionally.
No, it is just evidence of your flimsiness, not because you changed your mind, but rather how now - suddenly - you haven’t just changed your mind, but you now have it all figured out after only a short study of some new ideas, and then, most particularly, you began trying to lecture others as to what “real conservatism” is.
That was entertaining, but foolish. It is hollow intellectual hubris - and it is hard to take seriously.
I was being charitable with the junior high reference.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Take your own advice. Stop regurgitating the lew rockwell nonsense and study how the real world works, not just some idiots fantasy of how they think it should (but never has).[/quote]
How would you know if it is nonsense if you’ve never taken the time to read where it comes from? How is you regurgitating what other people say any different than what I am doing?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am all for grown-up debate, but rest assured, fragile one, that I am more than happy to return in kind.
[/quote]
Yes, yes, you are right! All of it. 100%. I am a mere child throwing a tantrum just wanting to be listened to, “Why doesn’t anyone understand me?” Blah, blah, blah…
It’s only entertainment.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You, who claim to be so knowlegeable about our Constitution, denigrate people who are passionate about following that Constituion.[/quote]
This is just dumb - who have I denigrated that wants to follow the Constitution? When I have I said “you are a fool to want to follow the Constitution?”
Plenty of liberals want to follow the Constitution by adhering to the “constitutional” right to abortion - if I chastise them for getting the Constitution wrong, am I being unfair? Left-liberals who are sure there is a constitutional right to abortion are just as “passionate” as Paulnuts, no? Were you balling your eyes out when I took them on for being, in my view, wrong on the Constitution?
Or, like I must do with Ron Paul supporters, is it my responsibility to not disagree with them when I think they are wrong on the Constitution, and help their flagging self-esteem?
I can have a debate on the Constitution with any Ron Paul supporter - but it isn’t my job to agree with them when I think they are wrong.
This has gotten ridiculous - Ron Paul supporters just can’t stand the idea that someone decides to challenge them. Sorry guys - in the future, I will endeavor to make sure that the moment a Ron Paul supporter whips out the phrase “Constitution!”, I will cease all arguments so I don’t hurt their feelings.
At no point have I denigrated Paulnuts for wanting to follow the Constitution - I treat them the same as I do left-wing liberals who remark on the Constitution. That is a fiction - but this is what we are left with in the death rattle of the Paul campaign.
[quote]Really, TB, do you want to show us that you are indeed a Country Club Conservative?
You may look down from your charger at all the filthy commoners, but that seems a little more Napoleanic than in the vein of General Pershing.[/quote]
C’mon, HH - you aren’t even coherent. You believe any piece of trash you read. You heard some radio personality say “Country Club Conservative” and you squawk it repeatedly without thought. Try to add value - and get out of the fever swamps.
Oh, and you Paul supporters need to get some consensus. Lifticus regarded me as “common folk” because I hadn’t reached the necessary intellectual nirvana to appreciate Paul’s Unvarnished Political Gospel - now you want to paint me as a sneering aristocrat who won’t listen to the God-fearin’, liberty-lovin’ yeoman.
I am the “common-folk elitist-aristocrat”.
It ain’t worth much, but it’s entertainment.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lifticus regarded me as “common folk” because I hadn’t reached the necessary intellectual nirvana to appreciate Paul’s Unvarnished Political Gospel…[/quote]
Wrong. I called you common because it is warranted by the definition of common. What I believe is less common.
This was not an attack on your intellect. Frankly, your only valuable knowledge seems to be of American history as it has been preached to you. In other words, you can repeat stuff you have memorized which says more about your memory than it does about your intellect.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This was not an attack on your intellect. Frankly, your only valuable knowledge seems to be of American history as it has been preached to you. In other words, you can repeat stuff you have memorized which says more about your memory than it does about your intellect.[/quote]
Wait - this coming from a cipher of Lew Rockwell’s website, who hasn’t had an original thought since he discovered Rockwellian dogma?
Rich. You’re funny, Lifticus.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wait - this coming from a cipher of Lew Rockwell’s website, who hasn’t had an original thought since he discovered Rockwellian dogma?
[/quote]
Rockwell is a student of Rothbard who was a student of Mises who was a student of Boehm-Bawerk who was a student of Carl Menger, the father of the Austrian School. In all fairness, that is usually how knowledge begins. The distinctions are in how one applies that knowledge. Originality is hardly a qualifier for validity.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Your opinion of RP aside, seriously Thunderbolt? You’ve been a part of these forums to know that is has been the case well before any Paulnuts showed up. Do I really need to go back and dredge up the posts from the last election cycle?
You mean back in 2004? There were good, fun debates - if heated - around that time. Way better than what we have seen lately. Easiest proof? Where are the Democrats around here? The election will be won - and policy driven - by either a Democrat or mainstream Republican, and the biggest issues to be debated are centered on that - but there are no Democrats around here.
Instead, we get the steady drip of the gold standard, the Illuminati, the Rothchilds, the NAU, Lew Rockwell quackery, and “blowback” taken as an article of faith.
Not nearly as good. Undoubtedly.
Just because you say you are on the side of the grown ups doesn’t mean you are or that you are anymore informed about these candidates then teh next guy. You are very well informed on certain aspects of history and civil issues, I will give you that. So are other guys on these boards. I was just trying to save weasel from the exercise in futility seeking a quality response on this subject. You can’t shoot down one loon candidate and prop up your loon candidate and then say anything else is unintelligent babble.
I never said everything is “unintelligent babble” - just most of what is offered up by the Paul supporters. I’ve had patience and tried to have objective debates on the rise of the new new libertarianism through Paul, but no takers. Hell, Lifticus said himself he can’t even strain and be objective.
And I don’t claim to be an expert on any of the candidates - but at a minimum, there should be some basic ability to have an informed, objective conversation about them. By and large, Paul supporters have done none of that, and it isn’t my problem to fix. Instead, we get trolls by the truckload who know next to nothing about relevant topics, but blabber Paul’s libertarian Dogma like it’s a theology to them.
Enough. Don’t pretend like Paul supporters haven’t brought the forum down with their poppycock - that is intellectually dishonest.
And don’t lose sight of my original point - if Paul supporters are so torn up over “name calling”, perhaps they should come in with something other than “military-industrial” starter kits naming everyone who disagrees with them as apostates to the One Truth Faith of Freedom. See the hypocrisy?
[/quote]
Good response can’t argue with these points except that now I may have to do some digging into the forums from 2004 as the variables were different but the “general malaise” of the politics forum was the same. Funny though I still enjoy reading the banter.
I do have to concede that many of the people supporting Paul have brought the quality down there are others liek Mikeyali that provide a well researched, educated, and thoughtful response as well. Remmeber that guy with teh Ronald Reagan avatar? If he wasn’t enough to turn you away from Bush then I don’t know what is (besides his actual policy :])
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I teach Advanced Precalc. The university where my wife works offers Calc I,II on the campus and I teach that as well. Even better, they let me design the whole thing, so I intro the 3 proof techniques in Precalc (along with all the other stuff) and then we use those to do the Calc proofs; fits together really well.
In between all of that, I come on here and piss people off. Its a ‘Math Thing’. 
[/quote]
Took Honors pre-calc BC (no idea what the equivalent is wherever you are) last year. One of the only math classes I’ve ever enjoyed. Challenging enough to not be boring, but easy enough that I could still ace every exam.
AP Calc BC is a nightmare… so boring… so very, very boring.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
I am 19 years old. For obvious reasons, I haven’t supported any other candidates, and I describe myself as a fiscal conservative in favor of a strict construction of the constitution.[/quote]
Total result of thread thus far:
~Ron Paul supporters are still supporting Ron Paul.
~TB proves he can out-historian just about everyone here.
~Me and HH scare JeffR with calculus.
~Rainjack got a huge load of ammo in his anti-youth ranting.
-_- thanks Weasel!
[quote]storey420 wrote:
You gotta admit that it is funny that all of the objections are ideological in nature. If you started a thread about each one of the remaining candidates, the objections would be based on voting records, previous actions, poor judgement in office more so.
Either way Weasel, the bottom line is that people are going to make you feel young and undereducated and therefore your understanding of the way politics works is naive and that is why you support someone that matches ideals you think are important. Basically you have to let them feel smug about how “right” they are as they continually elect the status quo and the same people in different clothing. Do what you feel is right and if the current trend continues, you probably won’t want to be here in America much longer anyways.
[/quote]
Well, I am young. And… I am undereducated. There’s no denying that. My “understanding” of the way politics works is almost certainly naive.
At the same time, I cannot and will not cast my vote for a candidate who voted to fund the Iraq war on borrowed money. I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who speaks of 100 years of occupation in Iraq because I believe that 100 years of continuous war (well, 150 if you count the cold war and the "war on drugs) will crush us completely.
I cannot and will not cast my vote for a candidate who voted for the Patriot act. My 4th amendment rights are near and dear to me, and I will not support any who would try to take them away from me. I will not support any candidate who would increase our foreign military spending.
I started this thread because I literally did not understand why anyone would choose to vote for a candidate other than Ron Paul this election. Now I know: Your values are different from mine. Thank you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
For instance, I want your things. To me, you telling me no, would be a limit on my freedoms. To you, freedom is having your own things free from interference. See how that works?
I have the freedom to protect my life and property and you would find yourself sucking on the barrel of a shotgun…problem solved. Just because I would have to kill you dead doesn’t mean I am not free. Just the contrary. I am more free.
Freedom needs to be protected and defended. It doesn’t just exist on its own merit. Just as everything else we want needs to be earned so does freedom. It is not a right. Those are reserved to your life and everything you can produce with it.
As usual, you are wrong. Absolute freedom can exist – but with it comes responsibility. [/quote]
lifty,
I made it as simple as possible and you still couldn’t understand.
First of all, no talking tough. It doesn’t suit you.
Second, by defending your things, you are interfering with my “freedom” to take it.
One could run around claiming “freedom” for anything and everything.
Suppose I wanted to express myself by drilling an oil well through your living room.
I wanted the freedom to express an “oil well motif.”
Okay, I’ll stop. I know, with you, I’m wasting precious time.
JeffR
P.S communism sucks.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
storey420 wrote:
You gotta admit that it is funny that all of the objections are ideological in nature. If you started a thread about each one of the remaining candidates, the objections would be based on voting records, previous actions, poor judgement in office more so.
Either way Weasel, the bottom line is that people are going to make you feel young and undereducated and therefore your understanding of the way politics works is naive and that is why you support someone that matches ideals you think are important. Basically you have to let them feel smug about how “right” they are as they continually elect the status quo and the same people in different clothing. Do what you feel is right and if the current trend continues, you probably won’t want to be here in America much longer anyways.
Well, I am young. And… I am undereducated. There’s no denying that. My “understanding” of the way politics works is almost certainly naive.
At the same time, I cannot and will not cast my vote for a candidate who voted to fund the Iraq war on borrowed money. I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who speaks of 100 years of occupation in Iraq because I believe that 100 years of continuous war (well, 150 if you count the cold war and the "war on drugs) will crush us completely.
I cannot and will not cast my vote for a candidate who voted for the Patriot act. My 4th amendment rights are near and dear to me, and I will not support any who would try to take them away from me. I will not support any candidate who would increase our foreign military spending.
I started this thread because I literally did not understand why anyone would choose to vote for a candidate other than Ron Paul this election. Now I know: Your values are different from mine. Thank you.
[/quote]
weasel,
We remember being 19. It’s a time of real passion.
However, I want to ask you to think about the War on Terrorism in very personal terms. Imagine if your favorite person was killed on 9/11.
Think about it.
You don’t have to answer on this board (being 19 involves much pride and chest thumping) but, I’d wager your world-view would be very different.
In this hypothetical situation, wouldn’t you be working to improve intelligence gathering? Wouldn’t you want to combat violent extremism? Would you really care that much about the national debt? Would you really care if three scumbags were waterboarded? Wouldn’t you want to do everything possible to spare others from your pain?
You would.
Again, I expect you to respond that you’d “still have the same opinion.”
We’ll understand.
We remember.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
storey420 wrote:
You gotta admit that it is funny that all of the objections are ideological in nature. If you started a thread about each one of the remaining candidates, the objections would be based on voting records, previous actions, poor judgement in office more so.
Either way Weasel, the bottom line is that people are going to make you feel young and undereducated and therefore your understanding of the way politics works is naive and that is why you support someone that matches ideals you think are important. Basically you have to let them feel smug about how “right” they are as they continually elect the status quo and the same people in different clothing. Do what you feel is right and if the current trend continues, you probably won’t want to be here in America much longer anyways.
Well, I am young. And… I am undereducated. There’s no denying that. My “understanding” of the way politics works is almost certainly naive.
At the same time, I cannot and will not cast my vote for a candidate who voted to fund the Iraq war on borrowed money. I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who speaks of 100 years of occupation in Iraq because I believe that 100 years of continuous war (well, 150 if you count the cold war and the "war on drugs) will crush us completely.
I cannot and will not cast my vote for a candidate who voted for the Patriot act. My 4th amendment rights are near and dear to me, and I will not support any who would try to take them away from me. I will not support any candidate who would increase our foreign military spending.
I started this thread because I literally did not understand why anyone would choose to vote for a candidate other than Ron Paul this election. Now I know: Your values are different from mine. Thank you.
weasel,
We remember being 19. It’s a time of real passion.
However, I want to ask you to think about the War on Terrorism in very personal terms. Imagine if your favorite person was killed on 9/11.
Think about it.
You don’t have to answer on this board (being 19 involves much pride and chest thumping) but, I’d wager your world-view would be very different.
In this hypothetical situation, wouldn’t you be working to improve intelligence gathering? Wouldn’t you want to combat violent extremism? Would you really care that much about the national debt? Would you really care if three scumbags were waterboarded? Wouldn’t you want to do everything possible to spare others from your pain?
You would.
Again, I expect you to respond that you’d “still have the same opinion.”
We’ll understand.
We remember.
JeffR
[/quote]
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that allows otheriwise intelligent citizens to hand over their rights via garbage like the “Patriot” Act and turn a blind eye to our mounting economic meltdown. I swear this post is like a script from “Team America”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
That is pretty interesting, I had no idea.
If Ron Paul supporters were honest, the above statement would be inserted into nearly every post.[/quote]
Go easy TB. I think it took a little character to not simply respond, “Nu-uh, I’m sure Ron Paul knows more than you.” Don’t you think you should give a little credit where it’s due? Instead you end up alienating a guy from even considering sticking around to reform the republican party.
Granted, most Paulies weren’t interested in these issues until Paul got them riled up, but isn’t it good that they are at least thinking about these issues? Getting into Goldwater and Friedman got me to take economics classes in college. I don’t know if I would have ever taken those classes otherwise. I disagree with a lot of Friedman (such as privatizing the national parks) but I have learned more that I do agree with thanks to him.
As a guy who has a lot of respect for your posts and thinks we’re on the same side, I think you do yourself a disservice by lumping us Paulies together so cavalierly. Weasel is NOT jeffdirect and you dishonor the guy by acting like he is. The guy has been pretty damned civil. Moreso than either of us.
mike
Will someone going off about the Patriot Act please point me to a list of its documented abuses?