[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity.
For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support. [/QUOTE]
check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about[/QUOTE]
Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
Read "Harry Potter and the Prisioner of Azkaban" by J. K. Rowling and both of you will get it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: [/QUOTENAME]TURRRRNNN AROUND BRIIIIGHT EYES[/QUOTE]
EVERY NOW AND THEN I GET A LITTLE BIT LONELY...something...something. xD
EVERY NOW AND THEN I GET A LITTLE BIT LONELY...something...something. xD
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Was I proposing a simplicity concerning abortion? My dear friend, it is far and away the most complicated of concerns. But I shall come to that in a moment.
It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are trying to say, is that there is no such person capable of performing the duties of the office of President of the United States of America from an objective perspective. Therefore, we should vote for the candidate whose subjective beliefs we are most aligned with, and who will thrust these beliefs upon an entire nation.
What you fail to notice is Ron Paul's impeccable track record, where he has consistently and objectively upheld his duties to the Constitution.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led to the erection of the 'American Dream' as a means of perpetually oppressing a lower class vainly bent on achieving success by the skin of their teeth.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously economics, much like any other science or education, exists to the benefit of mankind. I see we have a difference in opinion, which is understandable. It is the primary decision when one considers socialism or capitalism. Equality or prosperity? What is better, a world where we are unequal, but all prosperous? Or a world where we are all equally destitute?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You made broad assertions concerning Libertarianism and offer no proof to back it. I have known several libertarians, and to a man they were selfish, whining black holes, insistent that any gain they achieved in life was based solely in their superiority as human beings. Never mind the obvious boosts supplied by pale skin and vaunted economic status - no. They were veritable supermen, far and away better than the squalling masses.
[/QUOTE]
Who's making broad assertions? Under the ideal of Libertarianism, gains achieved in life are due entirely to effort and risk/reward. This only makes sense. It has nothing to do with superiority. Libertarianism is all about freedom. The ability to do as you wish so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. The same thing this country was founded upon. I guess the founding fathers were really evil entities.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
This is where our ideologies separate, and why this argument is quite futile. I believe in the abolishment of capitalist stratification. I believe in the dissolution of oppressive class structure. Libertarianism is a selfish economic policy that allows each rich man to remain rich, whilst clearing his consciousness of any responsibility to tho
It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are trying to say, is that there is no such person capable of performing the duties of the office of President of the United States of America from an objective perspective. Therefore, we should vote for the candidate whose subjective beliefs we are most aligned with, and who will thrust these beliefs upon an entire nation.
What you fail to notice is Ron Paul's impeccable track record, where he has consistently and objectively upheld his duties to the Constitution.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led to the erection of the 'American Dream' as a means of perpetually oppressing a lower class vainly bent on achieving success by the skin of their teeth.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously economics, much like any other science or education, exists to the benefit of mankind. I see we have a difference in opinion, which is understandable. It is the primary decision when one considers socialism or capitalism. Equality or prosperity? What is better, a world where we are unequal, but all prosperous? Or a world where we are all equally destitute?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You made broad assertions concerning Libertarianism and offer no proof to back it. I have known several libertarians, and to a man they were selfish, whining black holes, insistent that any gain they achieved in life was based solely in their superiority as human beings. Never mind the obvious boosts supplied by pale skin and vaunted economic status - no. They were veritable supermen, far and away better than the squalling masses.
[/QUOTE]
Who's making broad assertions? Under the ideal of Libertarianism, gains achieved in life are due entirely to effort and risk/reward. This only makes sense. It has nothing to do with superiority. Libertarianism is all about freedom. The ability to do as you wish so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. The same thing this country was founded upon. I guess the founding fathers were really evil entities.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
This is where our ideologies separate, and why this argument is quite futile. I believe in the abolishment of capitalist stratification. I believe in the dissolution of oppressive class structure. Libertarianism is a selfish economic policy that allows each rich man to remain rich, whilst clearing his consciousness of any responsibility to tho
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity.
For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support. [/QUOTE]
check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about[/QUOTE]
Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
Read "Harry Potter and the Prisioner of Azkaban" by J. K. Rowling and both of you will get it.[/QUOTE]
Alas! Earwax!
For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support. [/QUOTE]
check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about[/QUOTE]
Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
Read "Harry Potter and the Prisioner of Azkaban" by J. K. Rowling and both of you will get it.[/QUOTE]
Alas! Earwax!
From what I'm seeing from the possible candidates, I won't be voting. It's not that I don't like the choices. Actually, I can't find any major flaws in anyone that is in the running. For some reason, I can't imagine the country going to hell under the direction of the lizard queen or any of the others. I am getting the impression, though, that we will see our first black president elected in 2008. I see no reason to buy into anything unless distinctly compelled.
I'm not voting, and won't complain about the results.
I'm not voting, and won't complain about the results.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]yamaha wrote: [/QUOTENAME]From what I'm seeing from the possible candidates, I won't be voting. It's not that I don't like the choices. Actually, I can't find any major flaws in anyone that is in the running. For some reason, I can't imagine the country going to hell under the direction of the lizard queen or any of the others. I am getting the impression, though, that we will see our first black president elected in 2008. I see no reason to buy into anything unless distinctly compelled.
I'm not voting, and won't complain about the results.[/QUOTE]
i cant understand why you dont want to someone as good as ron paul
I'm not voting, and won't complain about the results.[/QUOTE]
i cant understand why you dont want to someone as good as ron paul
That might be to do with the fact that your parents should've been sterilized at birth.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Was I proposing a simplicity concerning abortion? My dear friend, it is far and away the most complicated of concerns. But I shall come to that in a moment.
It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are trying to say, is that there is no such person capable of performing the duties of the office of President of the United States of America from an objective perspective. Therefore, we should vote for the candidate whose subjective beliefs we are most aligned with, and who will thrust these beliefs upon an entire nation.[/QUOTE]
So, basically, what you are saying is that it is possible for a president to be completely neutral in every issue, putting his personal views aside, and judging right from wrong by applying the constitution to every matter? So, essentially, he is a one-man-supreme-court, over and above the parties? Did you know that this view was proposed in the ideology refered to as "Civic Humanism", deemed impossible and surrendered in the early 19th century, revived in the so-called Gilded Age, proven untenable and yet again reverted from? I'll give you a few quotes you might consider.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton (Historian)
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglas
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams
To that I wish to add, that anyone who desires power is by definition not to be trusted with it.
You argue that it is possible for someone to withstand the temptations of power. That lobby-groups will not bring him/her down. That he/she is in fact CAPABLE of knowing absolute right and wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above implicit suppositions I find in your response has been proven flawed over the years!
[QUOTE]What you fail to notice is Ron Paul's impeccable track record, where he has consistently and objectively upheld his duties to the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so he did not in 2001 apologize for racist comments he himself published?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.[/QUOTE]
Subjective, unsupported response, avoidance of burden of proof. You have skilfully parried Lozlan rhetorically, yet have done nothing to respond to his credible statement. You should run for office yourself, slippery as you clearly are.
[QUOTE][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led
It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are trying to say, is that there is no such person capable of performing the duties of the office of President of the United States of America from an objective perspective. Therefore, we should vote for the candidate whose subjective beliefs we are most aligned with, and who will thrust these beliefs upon an entire nation.[/QUOTE]
So, basically, what you are saying is that it is possible for a president to be completely neutral in every issue, putting his personal views aside, and judging right from wrong by applying the constitution to every matter? So, essentially, he is a one-man-supreme-court, over and above the parties? Did you know that this view was proposed in the ideology refered to as "Civic Humanism", deemed impossible and surrendered in the early 19th century, revived in the so-called Gilded Age, proven untenable and yet again reverted from? I'll give you a few quotes you might consider.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton (Historian)
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglas
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams
To that I wish to add, that anyone who desires power is by definition not to be trusted with it.
You argue that it is possible for someone to withstand the temptations of power. That lobby-groups will not bring him/her down. That he/she is in fact CAPABLE of knowing absolute right and wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above implicit suppositions I find in your response has been proven flawed over the years!
[QUOTE]What you fail to notice is Ron Paul's impeccable track record, where he has consistently and objectively upheld his duties to the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so he did not in 2001 apologize for racist comments he himself published?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.[/QUOTE]
Subjective, unsupported response, avoidance of burden of proof. You have skilfully parried Lozlan rhetorically, yet have done nothing to respond to his credible statement. You should run for office yourself, slippery as you clearly are.
[QUOTE][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Oh yes, I am so ill-informed. Your pedantic tone has never ceased to amaze me; compounded with your implied sneer (what of the millions that have never studied economics as a serious persuit? Are we intellectually doomed to sub-standard living and treatment?) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of why he is doing so, Ron Paul will abolish Roe vs. Wade. Even if this is act of pure ideology, utterly untainted by his core personal beliefs, it is still a destructive decision that will lead to widespread suffering. That is why I oppose Ron Paul, laying all personal qualms with Libertarian thinking at the wayside.[/QUOTE]
My point is, unless one has studied economics, he should do well to not formulate opinions on the proper way to run the economy. And if he does form any opinions, he should be wise to not debate them with someone who has studied such the science.[/QUOTE]
I've studied economic history. Good enough for ya? Do you have the guts to back up your big mouth? Then let's go!
[QUOTE]Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.[/QUOTE]
This is again a fallacy. We are talking about theoretic rights here: does a woman have full rights regarding her own body? If you say yes, then abortion is legalized, and ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION is required to place limitations on this freedom, NOT the other way around. If you say no, you are in violation of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: by giving a political or judicial body the right to limit a person's rights in regards to their own body, they violate article 1, because women are not given full control over their own bodies when men are, and article 3, because security of person is violated. However, the most important matter here is that, as you know just as well as I, the rhetoric used is less radical than that opinion which it voices: by not outright permitting abortion, it can be effectively forbidden by using "letter of the law"-type legislation and maintenance thereof, much like the "separate but equal" doctrine for a long time violated the 14th amendment. Perhaps you support this, perhaps you fail to notice it. Perhaps you are even so gullible as to believe your own remarks. The point is, history demonstrates otherwise.
Oh yes, I am so ill-informed. Your pedantic tone has never ceased to amaze me; compounded with your implied sneer (what of the millions that have never studied economics as a serious persuit? Are we intellectually doomed to sub-standard living and treatment?) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of why he is doing so, Ron Paul will abolish Roe vs. Wade. Even if this is act of pure ideology, utterly untainted by his core personal beliefs, it is still a destructive decision that will lead to widespread suffering. That is why I oppose Ron Paul, laying all personal qualms with Libertarian thinking at the wayside.[/QUOTE]
My point is, unless one has studied economics, he should do well to not formulate opinions on the proper way to run the economy. And if he does form any opinions, he should be wise to not debate them with someone who has studied such the science.[/QUOTE]
I've studied economic history. Good enough for ya? Do you have the guts to back up your big mouth? Then let's go!
[QUOTE]Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.[/QUOTE]
This is again a fallacy. We are talking about theoretic rights here: does a woman have full rights regarding her own body? If you say yes, then abortion is legalized, and ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION is required to place limitations on this freedom, NOT the other way around. If you say no, you are in violation of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: by giving a political or judicial body the right to limit a person's rights in regards to their own body, they violate article 1, because women are not given full control over their own bodies when men are, and article 3, because security of person is violated. However, the most important matter here is that, as you know just as well as I, the rhetoric used is less radical than that opinion which it voices: by not outright permitting abortion, it can be effectively forbidden by using "letter of the law"-type legislation and maintenance thereof, much like the "separate but equal" doctrine for a long time violated the 14th amendment. Perhaps you support this, perhaps you fail to notice it. Perhaps you are even so gullible as to believe your own remarks. The point is, history demonstrates otherwise.
I'm disgusted with all the candidates. Can't find one I agree with on the issues I deem important.
Maybe Bloomberg will run after all.
Maybe Bloomberg will run after all.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. [/QUOTE]
If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.
If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.
An anti-Treasure Moment act?
I'll be the John Hancock on that parchment...
I'll be the John Hancock on that parchment...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. [/QUOTE]
If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.[/QUOTE]
xD
If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.[/QUOTE]
xD
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. [/QUOTE]
If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.[/QUOTE]
"bon jovi is better than queen" hahaha
If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.[/QUOTE]
"bon jovi is better than queen" hahaha
So let me get this straight...
This guy that no one has heard of before this, who is not a front runner in the campaign in any way at all, thinks that just because he has more online subscribers to his YouTube videos he is going to win the Republican nomination. Then, he will be elected president and change the attitudes of Americans to government so completely that he will scrap the IRS and bring the US government in line with what the constitution says and what the founding fathers wanted?
OK. I see several problems here:
1) Online polls mean shit in the world of politics. The most online savvy age group of people are also the segment of the population that votes the least. Of the people of that age group that do manage to get up and vote, they tend to vote democrat anyway (hence why they all came out for Obama)
2) The attitudes American have for their government have shifted in the slightly less than 3 centuries we have been a country. He's going to undo all of that in one term, or even to be generous, two terms? Pfft...good luck
3) He knows exactly what the founding fathers wanted? That's a bit presumptuous. The founding fathers didn't even know what they wanted when they were creating the government for crying out loud! Why do you think we had all of the amendments added by them later and several failed versions of the constitution, not to mention bitter fighting between them over who should have what power (The Federalists debates for example)
4) Are we sure this guy is a Republican? He sounds more like a Constitutionalist to me, or maybe even swinging into the Libertarian camp.
That being said, I think a lot of what he said makes sense, but it's impossible to accomplish any of it. Of course, in the end all of this is a moot point because he will never get the nomination.
This guy that no one has heard of before this, who is not a front runner in the campaign in any way at all, thinks that just because he has more online subscribers to his YouTube videos he is going to win the Republican nomination. Then, he will be elected president and change the attitudes of Americans to government so completely that he will scrap the IRS and bring the US government in line with what the constitution says and what the founding fathers wanted?
OK. I see several problems here:
1) Online polls mean shit in the world of politics. The most online savvy age group of people are also the segment of the population that votes the least. Of the people of that age group that do manage to get up and vote, they tend to vote democrat anyway (hence why they all came out for Obama)
2) The attitudes American have for their government have shifted in the slightly less than 3 centuries we have been a country. He's going to undo all of that in one term, or even to be generous, two terms? Pfft...good luck
3) He knows exactly what the founding fathers wanted? That's a bit presumptuous. The founding fathers didn't even know what they wanted when they were creating the government for crying out loud! Why do you think we had all of the amendments added by them later and several failed versions of the constitution, not to mention bitter fighting between them over who should have what power (The Federalists debates for example)
4) Are we sure this guy is a Republican? He sounds more like a Constitutionalist to me, or maybe even swinging into the Libertarian camp.
That being said, I think a lot of what he said makes sense, but it's impossible to accomplish any of it. Of course, in the end all of this is a moot point because he will never get the nomination.