Stupid and baseless comments on the Ron Paul Blimp

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by guerilla, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #41
    You're dealing with donation numbers, not donor numbers. When you get relevant statistics, page me.

    If I have the First amendment right to free political speech, and the means to contribute more than $2,300, should I not be able to contribute more, say $5,000 or $10,000?

    It's actually a very cynical view on your part that money is the determining issue in politics. The Ron Paul campaign is proving the inverse. Not only did the grassroots support come first, but the campaign has purposely avoided spending all of the money brought in.

    Well, it goes to your argument that you are a libertarian. You want to nanny people, limit free choice, limit the free market, maintain law clearly against the spirit of free speech.

    I've never met a libertarian like you. I think you might be a fiscal conservative with small government tendencies. Because the lack of respect for civil liberties and free markets really disqualifies you from having a libertarian philosophy.
     
    guerilla, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  2. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #42
    Already have. Here's paul claiming his avg donation is $40
    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3697610
    I'm -still- not sure of your point here. You are attempting to argue, I suppose that middle class people want to donate $10,000. I'm not sure where you feel this is in any way realistic.

    Been explained numerous times. do you bother reading anything anymore?

    Private companies who have no obligation to report where the money comes from, where it's being spent, etc is ripe for fraud and abuse. Of course you know this, but as admitted, are too emotionally invested in this acknowledge it.

    How so? Did RP suddenly rocket past 2% when I wasn't looking in any national poll?

    The guy with the most money wins the vast majority of elections. It's a fact. Why do you think there is always a move to get money out of politics? So that ideas matter, not cash.

    Your purposeful obtuseness here is pretty sad and boring.

    I do? You are the only who is trying to limit the participation and keep the smaller donors out of it by making their paltry donations irrelevant. By saying "I have a billion dollars, why can't I donate it if I want" is exactly that. You limit donations to make the politicians less beholden to individual interests - it's a pretty simple concept.

    And guerilla hath spoken! LOL From a guy, who in another thread is against illegal immigration, which libertarians do support (open borders freedom doesn't end at the country border) trying to play "I'm a better libertarian" is a laugher. Thanks man!
     
    lorien1973, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  3. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #43
    You still have not answered the question on donations vs. donors.

    Ron Paul has little to nothing to do with his fundraising. If it was left up to him, the campaign might have raised $2 million, not $20 million.

    And yet you refuse to directly answer the question. Do you believe that campaign finance law should limit my right to political free speech?

    Yeah. Seems you are pretty out of touch with the campaign developments.

    Actually, there is a move to get money away from politicians, so they can't be enticed to redirect it. It has nothing to do with campaign finance.

    You're projecting.

    Again, you fail to understand the moral and ethical purpose behind a drive for small government. It's not to reduce waste. It is to remove the government from the process, period. If the government only maintains national defense and the rule of law, they have nothing to grace their benefactors with. You're looking at the symptom, not the disease. Which is a common problem with Libertarian Republicans.

    In a free society (socially) I must be economically free to spend my money however I choose. Spending my money, even if it is my every last cent to promote a political candidate I believe in, is a protected liberty known as the right to free speech.

    Limiting how much I can spend, is limiting how much I can express my support for a candidate. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Again, you're showing your slip. It's really apparent that you neither understand my perspectives, or libertarianism as a philosophy at all.

    I'll give you a hint. Learn about private property rights. It's core to the libertarian movement.
     
    guerilla, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  4. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #44
    Lorien, you're a smart guy with some decent principles, but I really think you are missing out on the best part's of libertarianism, and how it is a complete philosophy, in that once you understand it's fundamental core, it automatically offers solutions and answers to different situations.

    I also think you are intelligent enough to see the virtues and possibilities of libertarianism, and that's why I am adding this to the thread.

    Government is anti-liberty when it goes beyond defense and maintenance of the rule of law. When government sets educational, economic, agricultural etc guidelines, it's interfering in the market place. And without free speech, free markets and property rights, liberty will always be at risk. Governments do not willfully shrink themselves. And governments as large and pervasive as ours, are not going to shrink quickly, even with two terms of a libertarian president.

    Instead of starting at the late part of the stream (assuming you follow the Cato Institute from your comments), why not go back, familiarize yourself with Rothbard and Rand. The guys at Cato probably mean well, but the concept of Libertarian Republicans is truly far from what Libertarianism is about. Compromising pro-liberty positions for aggressive and pre-emptive war, shrinking civil liberties in the name of defense, and government bureaucratic largesses simply do not fit.

    Just as you wish Dr. Paul wasn't bringing down 30 years of Libertarian progress, I'm sure a lot of Libertarians wish that the name was never tied to Neo-conservatism which is the norm today in the Republican party. At their hearts, the two are incompatible. One is a trend towards socialism and statism, and the other is it's direct opposite.

    Despite arguing in circles and attacking one another, I really think we're going to end up friends one day.

    But until then, I would advise that you get over the fact that Paul is bringing negative publicity to libertarianism, the Libertarian Party itself has already endorsed him as a candidate for their own party, as well as offering some support for his Republican nomination by sharing their New Hampshire voter database.

    You might not like his views on governmental conspiracies, but reading negativity on him (Hot Air and the neocon blogs), instead of legitimately investigating the issues is more likely IMO to undermine any serious understanding of how someone who is one of the champions of libertarianism comes to these POVs.

    Paul's done more for the libertarian movement than anyone since Rothbard. He's actually on a debate stage with neocons, arguing in front of the country and world for smaller government, personal property rights, no taxation and personal freedom.

    Somewhere, Hayek and Von Mises are smiling.
     
    guerilla, Dec 12, 2007 IP
  5. d16man

    d16man Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,900
    Likes Received:
    160
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #45
    exactly my point. Conspiracies are not the same as predictions. Conspiracy theories are also different from conspiracy to commit. For someone to be guilty of conspiracy to commit, they have actually begun the process. Much different that just "saying" that the US govt was responsible for 9/11....I think you need to do some definition checking...dictionary.com is good for this.
     
    d16man, Dec 13, 2007 IP
  6. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #46
    My statement above was a joke ;)
    Mainly based off of so many call anyone who has some thought off the wall a conspiracy, even though it trully does not even fall under the true definition of conspiracy.

    You have in all reality brought the point up I had hope would come up ;)

    Using the same broad ranging term of 'conspiracy' or better yet 'conspiracy theory' one could use it in this case, yet premature, once the events happened it would fit right in, at least to the extent of how the word is thrown around now a days.
    One could argue people are prematurely having a conspiracy theory against a group of people/alliance..
     
    GRIM, Dec 13, 2007 IP
  7. iul

    iul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    46
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #47
    I have to agree with you here. There's a maximum donation limit for good reason. As you said if what the blimp guys did is OK then some big corporation who wants to support a candidate could simply poor however much money they want into a fake company and spend it promoting that candidate
     
    iul, Dec 13, 2007 IP
  8. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #48
    Ah, but that does happen.. Although it works a little differently than you are describing.. What happens is either a wealthy person or group of people or corporation will funnel money into the hands of unsuspecting, or unwilling people, some dead even..

    For examples of this see Hillary and that Wu guy.. They had quite an elaborate scheme going on for years.. Soros does crap like this as well...
     
    Mia, Dec 13, 2007 IP
  9. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #49
    On campaign finance reform,

    The donation limit is nonsense. If my money is my own, there is no reason I cannot spend it on whatever I want. When you start trying to protect the process for some people, you destroy it for others.

    I think that the RP campaign has already done a wonderful job showing how effective the internet is in organizing, communicating, promoting etc. without the support of big business, or corporate media.

    What next? If I make a sign with plywood and spray paint for my candidate in my backyard, the FEC will put a price on that and count it against my donation limit? Will they start legislating what the economic value to the campaign my yard sign up 60 days before the election provides, and then use that against my limit?

    The government needs to get out of the business of telling people what to do with their lives, their property and their money.

    Corporations and the super wealthy already influence elections in a myriad of ways. Just look at the private fund raisers held for Hillary with rock star performers, and the corporate sponsorship of all of the top tier candidates.

    In 2000, when they were pushing for McCain-Feingold, the Democrats and Republicans brought in around $400 million and this was a 40% increase over 1996. Well, so far to the end of September in these primary campaigns, both parties have already brought in $419,741,000. And there is still 2 quarters to go, as well as the actual general election.

    Putting limits on my donation count has done little to nothing to effect that growth.

    Note, I do approve of disclosure. Full transparency. Let the people see who is kicking in the big bucks. Investigate the reporting to make sure it is honest and accurate. But don't tell me I can't kick another $1,000 to my candidate because we are trying to stop corporate sponsorship. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
     
    guerilla, Dec 13, 2007 IP
  10. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #50
    True, but the problem is it gives an unfair advantage to those with wealth, in many cases people that are not even Americans..

    Let's say you and I get together and give as much as we can afford, or everything we make even.. To Ron Paul..

    Soros goes and donates billions to Hillary..

    Neither of us can compete with a limitless pot coming from one of the richest people alive.

    This is the main reason there are limits on corporate donations..

    There other areas that people need to look at when it comes to furthering this campaign finance reform.. For instance, Obama is technically getting a corporate donation from Oprah. Here star power and use of her clout and public promotion has a value.. I wonder why no one has looked into this.
     
    Mia, Dec 13, 2007 IP
  11. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #51
    I have a problem with non-Americans donating to American political campaigns.

    But let's face it. The wealthy have an advantage when it comes to where they live, what they eat, what they own, where they travel, how much they work, where their children are educated...

    Trying to level playing fields is socialism. I'm all for transparency, but not for removing the incentive to be upwardly mobile.

    Sweet, sweet music Jeremy.

    She'll need it to buy votes and people to show up to her rallies (the Mitt Romney strategy)

    Dude, you and I are two kickass webmasters with connections on the net that could enable us to mobilize 1000's of volunteers and supporters to our candidate.

    The only problem with that is, how do you quantify it? What do you charge for an Oprah for Obama, vs. a Curt Schilling for McCain? Pat Robertson for Giuliani vs. Chuck Norris for Huckabee?

    It's a mess, and the blimp is going to challenge the system, which I am totally for. The First Amendment right to free political speech.
     
    guerilla, Dec 13, 2007 IP