I'd watch out speaking against what nate believes, he's awfully quick with the neg reps! But at least he puts his name to them, i'll give him that. BTW: I vote this thread of the day, interesting.
I don't have a vendetta but don't expect me to be gentle with you after some of the snide remarks you've made about me. Wow. I've definitely never negged you. I actually give the people I argue with greens cause I feel bad afterward. This isn't the first time it has happened however.
Okay, I've been negged twice by someone signing as nate and believed it was you all along. Thanks for clarifying that, I retract my last post and apologise for it.
No, that (points to User CP) was the real nate. I guess I'll have to put my signature to use to combat this guerilla-warfare.
Well someone's still playing silly bugger... Green - Mar 31st 2009 1:29 pm think we've had a few disagreements in the past worth a rep -nate Grey - Mar 31st 2009 1:30 pm haha you believed me! poo head! - nate The poor bugger obviously doesn't understand Karma.
I can't help but be suspicious of LogicFlux, whoever it is has been following this thread closely.. too bad I wasn't watching the bottom of this page to see who was viewing it at the same time as me, or was I? Someone is risking their reputation here. Is Flux really sloppy enough to post feedback anywhere near the same time I was in the thread to verify his presence? I do know he can be sloppy in discussion but to this degree I have doubt. Or did he not expect Bushranger to post the details? Well I won't go on a witch hunt here. I doubt LogicFlux would risk (further? ) debasing his reputation as not only a coward, but a hypocrite.
Thanks Guys, now assuming one can only give green once, it could not have been LogicFlux! I'm glad of that as I side with his/her arguments more often than not haha. Also, based on yesterday's green, previous reps could not have been nate. Green - Mar 31st 2009 10:19 pm have some good karma ~ Bernard Green - Mar 31st 2009 2:24 pm to help restore balance to the force -logicflux Now, enough of that, my attempt to get back on thread. I can see both sides of this argument which is why I never butted in before. On the one hand I've never heard of AJ or RP but from what I've read in P&R only, their followers do seem a bit extreme. Most here seem to like the idea of overthrowing the government with guns rather than voting them out at election, scary! On the other hand it's not right to tar all supporters with one brush. I used to live in between 2 drug growers (marijuana) and my home always got raided every time they did the neighbours so I do know what it's like to be unfairly targetted.
I definitely don't advocate violence, and any principled libertarian would have to agree.. since (most followers of modern) libertarianism is founded on the non-aggression principle. Some do, however, suggest in theory that physically overthrowing the government in retaliation is an option on the table since government is inherently initiating force. I don't believe that though, it takes a logical man to realize aggression is the mark of a fool. Many libertarians (most within the Free State Project [the most "radical"]) have made and encouraged others to take vows of nonviolence against government no matter what. Civil disobedience is what Ron Paul supporters stand for, which is why we idolize characters like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. I don't blame you for thinking we're violent radicals though, if you listen to LogicFlux, GTech or the various other scoundrels whose sole mission is to distort a simple message, you're bound to get the wrong picture.
Ever hear of a vocal minority? The RP primary campaign took wings largely because of it's vocal (and somewhat radical) internet savvy contingent. However, RP received over 1 million votes in the primaries. I can assure you that the vast majority of these people are quite even keeled and reasonable.
BushRanger, every candidate has their share of wacky supporters but the ron paul supporters I had met at rallys seem to be very knowledgable and moderate and understood why they were voting for the man. RP is a guy that doesnt support socialism (cough , sneezebama) or the extreme right neocons . When looking at any candidate to vote for , look at what they stand for and the consistency they have when talking about issues they believe in. Ron Paul has never done kerry-flip-flop or a bush (god told me to do it) on anyone. He stands for what the republican party originally stood for when it could truely be called the republican party.
I don't think we are a violent sort, either. I believe most people get that impression because we like to remind them that the Constitution was set up with the idea that, if we didn't like our government, we could violently overthrow it if it was necessary. We know the foundations of the Constitution VERY well, and the average Democrat or Republican seem to gloss over certain things. Like the Second Amendment and its true purpose. We have the right to arm ourselves to PROTECT ourselves from our own government. You'd be AMAZED at how many people I talk to that doesn't know the Constitution states that the government should work FOR those it governs, and if it doesn't, we can take it over, peacefully or by force.
I wonder of we will find a Presidential candidate in 2012 that represents some of these values mentioned in this thread, and yet can appeal more to the mainstream? Certain things I would hope for is smaller government, lower taxes, emphasis on constitution etc. A candidate with these values may have a higher chance of winning if he is more aligned with christian conservatives, than say Alex Jones, for example. Is there anyone in mind yet?
I don't believe in any sort of profiling whether it be based on race or political or religious beliefs. And I'm not just saying that because I'm sure I'm on some list because I donated money to Ron Paul in 2007 & 2008.
A number of reasons: 1. Civil Liberties. 2. Foreign Policy. 3. His honesty was refreshing. 4. I think a strong 3rd party (and maybe 4th and 5th) would be really good for this country. Really Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were closer to my views (and I donated to Gravel too actually) but I got behind Ron Paul because there seemed to be a movement there and that combined with the factors I listed above was enough for me to overlook the things I disagreed with him on (economics, domestic policy including national health care and abortion.) --- I see Obama as more of a centrist pragmatist type politician who has a bit of a liberal lean (sometimes I like to dream that he has more of one than he usually shows) that he'll try to work in if he can. My fear is the opposite of the general Republican fear basically. My fear is that he's too much of centrist and that he won't push hard enough for reform with health care and other issues. --- And no Obama is nowhere near as strong on foreign policy or civil liberties (although I think abortion is a civil liberties issue so Obama has him there) as Ron Paul is. He's also nowhere near as honest. But I think he's better than the alternative (GOP) on these issues. I prefer Obama over Paul on issues like the economy and health care and domestic spending in general.
I think this goes good here http://donklephant.com/2009/04/02/ron-paul-supporter-detained-by-tsa-for-carrying-cash/ The video is great. It takes a bit, but, good to watch. This goes to show that not everyone got the info about them retracting their little memo.
The story was picked up by the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/