How about it? I can pretty much guarantee you there is nothing in it about tearing down one's country. Would you agree with me on that point? It has everything to do with it. It may not fit the agenda of those that "pretend" to be conservative, while always arguing from a liberal stand point, but it doesn't change the fact. See above. Again, when one doesn't like the reality, they set forth to change the definitions. Classic followup to the call for "define xyz!" Incorrect. I've made no such line on anyone in general. Just being observant of "some." Now if you believe the shoe fits, perhaps what I'm saying is hitting home.
Would you also be willing to concede that there is nothing in it about building up or supporting your country? IE, your point about conservatism is totally irrelevant? Until you can define Conservatism, you can't declare others pretenders with any credibility. Give us a definition for Conservatism. And please source it. Reality would be basing your arguments, as you lauded earlier, on facts. Define Conservatism. And source it. You know, and I know what you are doing. Playing the semantic game is the last refuge for a bad argument. Your best defense is that everyone else is pretending, or at least everyone who challenges you to make sound, reasoned arguments based on fact. I've got a couple articles to write tonight, and you're going back on my ignore list. You seem to have zero interest in debate, just name calling and then using semantics as a shield.
I completely understand why it is viewed as irrelevant from your position. If you want a definition, you'll have to find one that suits your agenda. I provided one for the Republican party, which is notoriously "conservative." How often do we hear of a "liberal" Republican? That's not my task. If you need a definition to fit your agenda, please post one. I took the time to post a general overview of such. I contend that there is nothing "conservative" about tearing one's country down. I've done so. On both counts. I'm not the one calling for a definition or redefinition of such. That ball is in your court. I would have though making up one's own facts, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would be a "last refuge" effort. You are entitled to your "opinions." I stand corrected. That would be a good example of a last refuge attempt, when one cannot argue on the facts. Some people just want to tear America down and not have others point it out. It's really a shame too. One shouldn't be afraid of being confronted with the truth. We both know your motivation and goals. I hoped that by bringing some of those to light, one might have the courage to follow their own words of advice. I see I gave too much credit, once again.
Let's see here... stand for a strong defense -- Ron Paul has the same foreign policy as our Founding Fathers. He explains why the Democrats are handling the situation the wrong way also, namely in trying to define troop counts. He believes a strong defense is absolutely essential, but realizes that it starts at home by locking down our borders, and that the threat of terrorism is more than anything influenced by foreign occupation. He knows that the Patriot Act is not a real solution. Just because you don't agree with the way he wants to implement national security does not mean he is incorrect or not conservative. His security starts at home, your security starts halfway across the world...his certainly sounds much more rational. low taxes -- Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, consistently votes against pork spending bills, and thinks the government taxes us entirely too much. This is also in line with his plan to eliminate the income tax in tandem with the gradual elimination of ineffective governmental departments. Ron Paul's actions here would also fall in line with the qualities of small government and fiscal responsibility listed above. Have you heard the story about the Rosa Parks medal, and his challenge to fellow Congressmen? colorblindness -- Ron Paul thinks we should treat all people as individuals, and not as members of a group. He also has a history of opposition to affirmative action programs, for many of the same reasons. love of country -- Ron Paul joined politics when Nixon advocated getting off the gold standard in 1971. He has served in the United States military. He does not take donations from special interest groups, nor take part in the Congressional pension program. It certainly appears that he is in Congress to better his country, not for his self interests. Nowhere in the definition of conservatism does it say you can't criticize the government, and to say such would be silly, and unpatriotic. In fact, Ron Paul sees patriots as those people willing to stand up against oppressive state power. Also, weren't the two people widely credited with basically defining the Republican Party and conservatism, Barry Goldwater & Ronald Reagan, very critical of what was wrong with this country, but clear on how they intended to fix it? I see nothing that shows Ron Paul as anything other than a conservative, using your definition.
Yea GTech only highlighted ones that he felt fit his agenda more clearly, and that he felt Ron Paul definitely didn't represent, when history shows that RP has a clear history of love of country, colorblindness, lower taxes, and strong national defense. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that GTech doesn't believe the colorblindness part because of the long debunked ghostwriter fiasco, that he doesn't believe the strong defense part because of non-interventionist policy, I have no fucking idea how he could not associate Dr. No with lower taxes, and saying he doesn't love his country is just silly. I also predict that GTech will ignore all the links I've posted that have RP explain himself and views, and in turn give a better explanation of WHY he's a conservative. Instead, he'll blabber on about how RP is a racist, how it's a battered wife policy or something ridiculous without ever qualifying it, and then there will be a rant or two about Democrats. GTech gets to be quite predictable: starts off logically, you give evidence that supports another opinion, he calls it changing the definition, resorts to ad hominem attacks, all the while making it clear that he hasn't even read your sources, and in some cases, his own. Remember, when you can't combat the message, discredit the source, call it false and misleading, attach a derogatory label meant to shift discussion away from the actual debate, all textbook diversionary tactics.
I'm still amazed that guerilla still debates GTech as much as he does. You have to remeber guerilla that GTech is always right. Always.
The debate is over. I'm tired of the name calling and character assassination. Maybe one day we can have a discussion strictly on the issues with out straw man arguments and Ad Hominem attacks. Maybe. It seems the neo conservative tactic here and in the media is to talk away from the issue, to steer the conversation away from the target. I gotta give lorien credit for addressing issues at least as straight up as I try to. It makes for an honest, albeit sometimes intense argument.
You think everyone's posts are exactly the same, except when certain posts by some users mention "twin towers", "conspiracy" over & over
+ Confirmed Heartless umm... person, when it comes to sick people getting medicine safely. I can't seriously consider any candidate who doesn't care about upholding what we vote for.
Thanks SolutionX, returning this debate back into what it started as, the debate over medical marijuana, and Romney being a dick.
Guantanamo is very humane when compared to what our soldiers did in WWII when they cut a German fighting out of uniform. They shot him on the stop.
As it should be. Or are you saying that over 50% of us are just talking out our ass? Many people's lives are effected by this. Sometimes I have to spend $100+ a day to be able to keep working without migraines. If it were protected, I could just grow it in the garden next to my tomatoes. How many of you are sick and still have you make over $100/day to make any profit? There are hundreds of thousands like me. Thanks for caring Romney, Mark
Sigh, and people talk about the size of the illegal drug trade. Legalization will make it like any industry, cheap as hell. I just find it interesting that 30 years later, the war on drugs have failed, it encourages more violence, more drug usage (the cool/rare factor), and has cost us billions, and yet these idiots still close their eyes and say "we just need to fund it more, we need to protect the children". Sad, really.
I won't be surprised if the people who are against the legalization of drugs are actually benefiting from it. That is the reason that they even refuse to look at Holland example when it is already shown that legalizing drugs will not increase the usage. Can you imagine what a loss it will be to Mafia and other criminal organization if it is legalized? Mafia will never support a candidate that is for legalizing their core businesses.
Without boogeymen, government cannot grow. Prosperity of the people is bad for business. True story, the origins of Marijuana bans in the US have their origins in the incredible properties of Industrial Hemp. Newspaper giants like JP Morgan (one of the fathers of the Federal Reserve) owned the pulp mills, and a competing product, with more uses, more strength and cheaper to produce was a threat to his business. So the newspapers were the first ones to start promoting the idea of reefer madness, and now it has become a part of the American psyche to believe that people will smoke pot and go on a killing rampage, when all of us know that they are a lot more likely to laugh at stupid sh1t and eat too many snacks.
He's my primary choice for the 08 election I want to watch some of the debates, then i will make my final desicion
That was a hilarious video. Mitt Romney is a liar, an aspiring war criminal. I believe this video ought to be on TV... YouTube has become an important weapon in exposing nutheads who aspire to be rulers. I hope more people in US see this stuff, before they decide who their President should be... Ron Paul is amazing! I hope he wins...