Are you bloody kidding? A Democrat who was thrown out of office by his own party? A goofball who wants to nationalize healthcare? An idiot who wants to surrender the world to the Islamists? He's never held a position of leadership. At least Hillary slept with someone who was a leader. Surely you must be joking!
Ughh... I don't know why I bother to spoon feed information to people who are too lazy and stupid to learn for themselves. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. In the first two (recent) instances where you misused this term, I was not referring to "the person making the argument or claim." In the third instance, I was not addressing an argument. How much more simple do I need to make this for you?
I'm a classic liberal. Classic liberals hate neo-liberals. I am far more libertarian than RP would ever want to be.
Nope. Try again. That statement was not addressed to any specific argument or claim. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
So you read the link, and you feel you are a classic liberal? Interesting. I will start looking at your positions from now on by contrasting them with classical liberalism. I've always wondered how you can read Goldwater, and call Paul a moonbat, and read Hayek, and endorse Rudy Giuliani. But I guess that is libertarianism. A big tent, with all kinds of ideas.
Ever been to a Libertarian convention? No one hates Libertarians like Libertarians. This is my own personal Liberty Platform.
That's the most honest and funny thing you have posted tonight. Thanks for the laugh. Now I have to sleep and dream of a Ron Paul Presidency, with so much liberty, we'll be drowning in it.
Drowning yes, in American blood. That's what happens when you run from a fight with a ruthless and determined opponent. Drowning yes, in poverty. That's what happens when you destroy free market economics. Drowning yes, in debt. That's what happens when you fight an unwinnable war to prevent the free flow of human beings across borders.
Fear mongering. There is nothing less libertarian than the argument for preventative war or nation building. This one is way out in left field. Paul is more for free market economics than any other candidate, possibly in decades. What about the debt of the unwinnable war against Terror, and the confiscated and redistributed wealth of the citizens? Look, you're against pork, where the money stays domestic, but you have no problem transferring domestic wealth to foreign countries. You have no problem with enforcing ideology or government on others. You have no problem with surrendering local and national government to global government, without representation of the people. How exactly are you a libertarian? Because you talk about free immigration and free trade and free markets? This is the same kind of flawed libertarianism, that lorien was trying to tell me he stood for. If you are for civil liberties and economic freedom, you have to be anti-income tax. You also have to be for sound money, (1) to prevent the government from growing, and (2) to preserve the economic liberty of the citizens by not subjecting them to the erosion of their wealth through inflation. There are a lot of flavors of libertarianism, but nation building, occupation, global government, and regime change don't fit into any that I know about. In fact, all of these things are ANTI-LIBERTY.
Nonsense. Liberty is for everyone, not just the small minority who happen to vote for Ron Paul. There are two possible futures for this world: Liberty for everyone. Death for everyone. Bad government leads to war. That's been the situation for thousands of years and it's the situation today. But, within a hundred years, that option will be outdated by technology. Within 100 years, even the worlds smallest dictatorship will be able to develop a weapon powerful enough to kill millions or billions of people worldwide. The only solution to peace and the only thing which brings peace is liberty. In effect, we must give the gift of liberty to the entire world in order to enjoy the fruits of liberty for ourselves. As Darwin said, altruism has a selective advantage. Whatever his rhetoric, Paul is a protectionist in practice. He wants to keep foreign goods and foreign labor out of his back yard. Honestly. Seriously. Read Barry Goldwater. The Conscience of a Conservative really is a very thin book. Yes, I hate that we have to spend money on national defense. I hate it like I hate going to the dentist -- both are necessary. And no, the War on Terror is not unwinnable by any stretch of the imagination. That's a bizarre statement. Well, unless by "wealth" you mean "bombs". OK, that was a joke. Yes, foreign aid is sometimes necessary and Barry Goldwater covers this specific topic in depth in The Conscience of a Conservative. Honestly, when people try to compare Paul to Barry it makes me so mad I want to strangle them. Barry was a great man. Paul cannot even stand in his shadow. I have no problem at all in granting people liberty -- except the liberty to impose their will on others. Global government is coming. We have two choices. We can either lead it or we can follow the nation that does. Which would you rather live in, a world built from American ideals or a world built from Chinese ideals? This is going to sound crazy, but the best way for you to understand this may be to read a work of fiction, Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. It's not flawed, you're just not inducted into the understanding yet. This isn't something which fits nicely into TV (or YouTube) soundbites. It's not at trendy and saleable as Ron Paul's schtick. It's the nasty dirty reality and that's the only good thing that can be said for it. Who isn't against the income tax? (Oh yeah... the Dummycrats... I like to pretend they don't exist.) Whoa there... you just confused a whole lot of different things. I'll tackle just two for now, to give you a chance to sort that sentence out into a whole lot of smaller sentences. "Sound money" can mean a lot of different things -- but it can't prevent the government from growing. Inflation, though much maligned, doesn't erode wealth if you plan for it. That's a very common misunderstanding. Yes, if you put $100 under your bed for a decade it will be worth a lot less when you pull it out. But smart people don't do that anyway. Invest it somewhere and inflation will be factored automatically into the interest rate. Well, now you know better. Welcome to the larger world.
I can't even begin to stress how this is neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. It has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism, classic liberalism or classic conservatism. You're talking about evangelical liberty, you're talking about imposing your values, and your concept of liberty by force. And that's not libertarianism, which can best be summed up by "live and let live", not "the ends justify the means". What you're talking about, is Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and neo-liberalism like Woodrow Wilson's "making the world safe for democracy". It's antithetical to libertarianism to coerce anyone, or to receive coercion from anyone. I don't buy into social Darwinism. Darwin was a dangerous man, from a dangerous line of thinkers. Take Eugenics for example. These are the theories of an Adolf Hitler. Philosophically, Goldwater had more in common with Paul than any of the other candidates running. Paul is also starting to be attacked in exactly the same way that Goldwater was when he was running. You have to remember, these guys worked together to get Reagan elected, and Barry's own son has endorsed Paul, as well as UROC (http://www.unitedrepublicansofcalifornia.org/UROC-Hist.html). You're an interesting mixture of contrasting philosophies. You come off ideologically as an anarchist (not in the pejorative sense), but you favor authoritarianism to achieve it. Paul merely believes in fulfilling the rule of law, and where necessary altering the law legally. Ok, but Global governance is antithetical to Goldwater's positions. It's antithetical to Hayek's positions. Global governance is homogenization. It's also moving the decision making process further away from the individual, and it's not compatible with libertarianism, by any stretch of the imagination. Now you're being (in some sense of the word) a pragmatist. This is neo-conservatism which is based on Marx and Trotsky. I mean, Goldwater would never have stood for global education guidelines. I'm pretty sure he was a major player in promoting the end of the Dept. of Ed domestically. Yeah, but Goldwater was also for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Remember, Goldwater had libertarian ideals, but he wasn't a libertarian, even a minarchist. Why is it so incompatible to have a world where American and Chinese ideals can co-exist? It's a very dark and narrow view of the world, that there can only be one Highlander. By coercive law, economic force or military force, it's anti-liberty to impose values on someone else. It's only a little crazy. I know what you are getting at, but at the same time, Heinlein's view wasn't realistic, or humanistic. I prefer William Gibson myself. On the contrary, I am pretty sure I have a good grasp on your philosophy now. And it is flawed, in my eyes, because it is immoral. Therein lies the problem. Liberty is not yours to grant. Again, you fail to understand the phisophical underpinnings of Hayek, Goldwater and Libertarianism. Natural Law. Everyone is born with the right to liberty, you cannot grant or revoke it. To think otherwise is autocratic. I liked Libtards better. Candidates like Giuliani realize that the coercive power of government is derived from taxation. And they also support the FED and banking cartel, whose collateral as a lender of last resort is taxation. Goldwater understood this, Von Mises understood this, and Paul understands this. There is only one candidate running, for zero income taxation. Both statements are canards. Sound money prevents the growth of government, unless the will of the people allows it. At the very least, sound money promotes economic liberty. Re: inflation, you're stepping into my realm now. I'd invite you to join me in this thread so we can debate economics. But I'm going to warn you, the premise you are starting off with doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. Constant inflation, in an era of artificially managed interest rates makes it impossible for money to hold it's original value. It's nice chatting with you Will. I think you have incompatible ideologies, but it is nice to get a better understanding of your points of view.
Will spencer, the tv's got you shivering in your own puddle of piss. I ain't scared of shit why are you.
2nd amendment IMO is something that can not be thrown in the corner to take the 'good with the bad' Without keeping it strong I personally do not see this country maintaining what it was founded upon, I find someone having a weak stance on the 2nd amendment much, much more dangerous than a few goat herders 1/2 way around the world
The 2nd is very important. Someone who is for global government, would love to see the people disarmed, because it is a key way the sovereignty of a nation will be stolen. It's very important that Parents get involved again in educating their children, and sharing their values with their children. We can't leave it up to schools, where basic curriculum like civics are no longer mandatory.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/magcoverlg.jpg Just as off topic as anything else posted in the last 4 pages... But I LOVE THIS PIC!