Ron Paul and the Alabama straw poll

[Battleborne]

LMAO.........

Umm I think you must realize that some Libertarians are nutcases.

And btw some on here are nutcases. Take AHZ for instance....

AHZ is not a Libertarian or anything else! He just has fun stirring the proverbial pot with many alter egos...

 

[uscitizen]

Also I bleieve that anyone who believes that we will unravel 200 yrs of beaucracy and govt building that has gone on is a bit nutty. But that is just me, or perhaps not just me.
I also believe that anyone who voted for bush is at least a bit nuts.
but that is what a political board is for. This is not a sunday school board.

 

[Battleborne]

LMAO..........

Also I bleieve that anyone who believes that we will unravel 200 yrs of beaucracy and govt building that has gone on is a bit nutty. But that is just me, or perhaps not just me.
I also believe that anyone who voted for bush is at least a bit nuts.
but that is what a political board is for. This is not a sunday school board.

Was it not also you who awhile back said you voted GW twice....unless you were lying ya are a guilty party also!

 

[uscitizen]

Was it not also you who awhile back said you voted GW twice....unless you were lying ya are a guilty party also!

ROTFLMAO, In your dreams, I dare you to find that post.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Also I bleieve that anyone who believes that we will unravel 200 yrs of beaucracy and govt building that has gone on is a bit nutty.

I don't know anybody on this site who plans on doing that or is advocating for a candidate who has promised to do that.

The dramatic illustrations offered by those firmly on the left are a representation designed to make a mockery of the philosophy of limited, accountable government. I think it's unfortunate that anyone would welcome the introduction of limitless government by trying to paint those that disagree with them on some significant matters of procedure or philosphy as a natural opponent who would be for no government at all.

I think that attitude has contributed to the cheapening of the word "liberal" in the lexicon of this country.

 

[Battleborne]

My time is precious.....

ROTFLMAO, In your dreams, I dare you to find that post.

Ya did say it on more than one occassion....alzheimers taking over? I am not going to go back two years to stick it to ya...guilt will prevail..that is if ya are a honest dude...if not who really cares..except maybe darla and cippie!

 

[uscitizen]

I don't know anybody on this site who plans on doing that or is advocating for a candidate who has promised to do that.

The dramatic illustrations offered by those firmly on the left are a representation designed to make a mockery of the philosophy of limited, accountable government. I think it's unfortunate that anyone would welcome the introduction of limitless government by trying to paint those that disagree with them on some significant matters of procedure or philosphy as a natural opponent who would be for no government at all.

I think that attitude has contributed to the cheapening of the word "liberal" in the lexicon of this country.

Umm advocating for a parties candidate. but then he is ashamed to run under his true party ?

And for no government at all is not the true libertarian stance now is it ?
Just a very limited govt.

 

[uscitizen]

Ya did say it on more than one occassion....alzheimers taking over? I am not going to go back two years to stick it to ya...guilt will prevail..that is if ya are a honest dude...if not who really cares..except maybe darla and cippie!

sigh, add another nutcase to the list....
I would have already done the decent thing and blown my brains out if I had voted for Bush twice.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Umm advocating for a parties candidate. but then he is ashamed to run under his true party ?

And for no government at all is not the true libertarian stance now is it ?
Just a very limited govt.

I would say there is some debate over the use of the word "very", but the word limited is certainly right. But some would misrepresent it as if it were to mean "no government" and I believe that's what you have done.

Further...

Ron Paul has ALWAYS been a Republican, he's been in Congress for twenty years as a Republican. Just because someone is a libertarian does not mean they must be members of the Libertarian Party. Some would say Russ Feingold is an example of a kind of libertarian (civil) because he voted against the Patriot Act, and he's a Democrat. Does this register with you, or do you still not get it?

Almost everyone in this online community who has ever experimented with the Libertarian Party has given it up...isn't that at least the slightest indicator to you that libertarian ideas are not exclusive to that party just because it has the word "libertarian" in its name?

 

[uscitizen]

I would say there is some debate over the use of the word "very", but the word limited is certainly right. But some would misrepresent it as if it were to mean "no government" and I believe that's what you have done.

Further...

Ron Paul has ALWAYS been a Republican, he's been in Congress for twenty years as a Republican. Just because someone is a libertarian does not mean they must be members of the Libertarian Party. Some would say Russ Feingold is an example of a kind of libertarian (civil) because he voted against the Patriot Act, and he's a Democrat. Does this register with you, or do you still not get it?

Almost everyone in this online community who has ever experimented with the Libertarian Party has given it up...isn't that at least the slightest indicator to you that libertarian ideas are not exclusive to that party just because it has the word "libertarian" in its name?

Nope you are trying to spin something into what I posted. Check back on my posts.

Libertarian is a party. If someone votes on something slightly inclilned in the direction of the libertarian parties stance , it does not make him a libertarian.
bush has done some things that are very democratic party oriented, but he is in no way a democrat.

 

[Timshel]

Nope you are trying to spin something into what I posted. Check back on my posts.

Libertarian is a party. If someone votes on something slightly inclilned in the direction of the libertarian parties stance , it does not make him a libertarian.
bush has done some things that are very democratic party oriented, but he is in no way a democrat.

Libertarianism is a consistent political philosophy. Democrat, is defined solely by the party affiliation. If there is any coherent philosophy there it would that of democratic socialist, not Democrats. Republicanism is still a somewhat coherent theory of government, but the GOP does not follow it much.

There are plenty of libertarians outside of the party. Why do you think Paul is getting support from LPers and libertarians?

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Nope you are trying to spin something into what I posted. Check back on my posts.

Libertarian is a party. If someone votes on something slightly inclilned in the direction of the libertarian parties stance , it does not make him a libertarian.
bush has done some things that are very democratic party oriented, but he is in no way a democrat.

No, your comparison is totally wrong and this is why I bought it up. You either don't understand the meaning or context of the word libertarian or you simply don't care that you're misusing it.

The word libertarian is a political philosophy, and was well before it was branded by some of its adherents for the name of a political party. Opposition to the Patriot Act is not libertarian because a party called "Libertarian" says so. It's libertarian because of its philosophical substance.

People who believe in protecting civil liberties are called "civil libertarians" for a reason.

The more appropriate statement would be: George Bush is a Republican. He happens to have views on goverment growth for the purpose of preemptive war that are not traditionally that of Conservative Republicans, and therefore his political philosophy is mostly regarded as Neo-Conservative.

Ron Paul is also a Republican. He holds the view that government should adhere to its Constitution stringently and should never commit to war without a declaration from the Congress. This would be known as a traditional Conservative view.

He also advocates a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights and preventing the State from interfering in people's personal lives, privacy and property. This is a libertarian position. Yet it is held by a Republican.

He is therefore a Republican with a libertarian-conservative political philosophy.

 

[Timshel]

Philosophical libertarians tend to also be philosphically republican. That is, they defer to seperation of powers and states rights on many issues. For instance, Paul and I agree that abortion is an issue for the states, though we disagree on the position we would then advocate for the state.

There are not many philosophical democrats. A democrat would have to take the position that Roe v Wade was irrelevant and that the issue should be decided by referendum or the legislature of the federal government or the states, with the variations depending on their preferences for representative vs direct democracy and national vs federalist decision making.

 

[blackascoal]

No, your comparison is totally wrong and this is why I bought it up. You either don't understand the meaning or context of the word libertarian or you simply don't care that you're misusing it.

The word libertarian is a political philosophy, and was well before it was branded by some of its adherents for the name of a political party. Opposition to the Patriot Act is not libertarian because a party called "Libertarian" says so. It's libertarian because of its philosophical substance.

People who believe in protecting civil liberties are called "civil libertarians" for a reason.

The more appropriate statement would be: George Bush is a Republican. He happens to have views on goverment growth for the purpose of preemptive war that are not traditionally that of Conservative Republicans, and therefore his political philosophy is mostly regarded as Neo-Conservative.

Ron Paul is also a Republican. He holds the view that government should adhere to its Constitution stringently and should never commit to war without a declaration from the Congress. This would be known as a traditional Conservative view.

He also advocates a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights and preventing the State from interfering in people's personal lives, privacy and property. This is a libertarian position. Yet it is held by a Republican.

He is therefore a Republican with a libertarian-conservative political philosophy.

No thought or position is exclusive to any political party and people are not usually defined by a position on a particular issue. It's disingenuous to claim that because anyone may agree with a libertarian on a particular issue makes them in any way libertarian.

A belief in protecting civil liberties does not make that believer a "civil libertarian."

Libertarians are as all over the political map as democrats and republicans. They are even pro-war libertarians, hence the term liberventionism.

However defined, libertarianism does not have wide spread believers and it never will. If it was going to catch on with Americans it would have done so by now. Libertarians running for national office remain stuck in the "Other" catagory and gain no more than 0.05% of the vote. Ron Paul runs as a republican because he knows running as a libertarian is the kiss of death

 

[Adam Weinberg]

No thought or position is exclusive to any political party...

Yes, thank you for reiterating my point.

and people are not usually defined by a position on a particular issue.

No, but these positions do add up to indiciate a political philosophy.

It's disingenuous to claim that because anyone may agree with a libertarian on a particular issue makes them in any way libertarian.

I never claimed that. But let us continue...

A belief in protecting civil liberties does not make that believer a "civil libertarian."

No, but a particular consistent focus on that belief does complete the equation rather well. If you want somebody to shirk from the label because you prefer "liberal", that's your own problem. But by definition, it is an accurate representation. Many ACLU members are known commonly as "civil libertarians" for this very reason.

Libertarians are as all over the political map as democrats and republicans. They are even pro-war libertarians, hence the term liberventionism.

This further plays into why I object to the characterization that Ron Paul is not a Republican, and even further that he is merely a "Libertarian Running As a Republican". That's stupid. He is a Republican with libertarian and conservative views.

However defined, libertarianism does not have wide spread believers

And it doesn't need to in order for political change to occur. I'm not a peddler in "libertarianism". I can't really think of an ism or ideology that suits me or most Americans at all. I am merely libertarian in my philosophy. And if we work hard to get ourselves and others to embrace the appropriate traditions of individual liberty, we will get many of the desired changes.

Ron Paul runs as a republican because he knows running as a libertarian is the kiss of death.

That's somewhat inaccurate. Ron Paul was always a Republican and ran for Congress as a Republican from the outset in '76 because he was concerned about monetary policy. The LP had existed then six years, so the option was available. He was drafted into their Presidential candidacy in the 80s and ran still as a registered Republican on their ticket.

Libertarians running for national office remain stuck in the "Other" catagory and gain no more than 0.05% of the vote.

It really doesn't discourage me for you to report anything negative about the LP or Big-L political goals, since I really don't see eye to eye with those folks, and I don't consider that particular party's electoral inefficacy to be a national comment on our perceived level of freedom or our views on what constitutes the best policies.

It's also your mistake not to understand that some in that party do not support Ron Paul because he is a conservative Republican in their estimation, and to an anarcho-capitalist (which I am most certainly not) that constitutes Statism.

Ultimately, I'm unsure what you're trying to argue about as it relates to the original point. And I can't help but think you really just decided to post in order to continue to attempt to belittle the ideas, institutions or people you personally consider associated with my political views, whether they are or not.

 

[uscitizen]

Libertarianism is a consistent political philosophy. Democrat, is defined solely by the party affiliation. If there is any coherent philosophy there it would that of democratic socialist, not Democrats. Republicanism is still a somewhat coherent theory of government, but the GOP does not follow it much.

There are plenty of libertarians outside of the party. Why do you think Paul is getting support from LPers and libertarians?

Umm from what I have read those calling themselves Libertarians are pretty much all over the place on issues.
But then a lot of current Libertarians are just embaressed Republicans

 

[Cancel7]

The first guy quoted in that story points out something interesting that Medcan noted:

“Ron Paul believes in freedom and the Constitution [...]" That was the first thing out of his mouth, and it's always the first thing you hear from his supporters. Thats because his entire campaign is just St. Paul tossing around the words "freedom" and "constitution" alot, and that's enough to get people on board. It's a bit like Guli tossing around 9/11.

The second guy quoted did the same thing:
“Ron Paul is the first person that is willing to stand up for the Constitution,” Klack said.


The guy's a Texan. That's enough reason not to vote for him.

By the way, straw polls are done with people who are motivated to show up and pay money to be able to vote. It's a bit like YouTube - they're spamming the straw poll with a disproportionate number of super energetic supports that reflect nothing in all reality. Kinda like this website too.

There are a disproportionate number of Libertarians on this site as well. Some of that has to do with the fact that they're just super energized and motivated to come on to the internet and spread the gospel, as one put it to me in a moment of candor.

Every time you say something about St. Paul, Libertarians unite to instantly tear off all of their clothing, stand in a circle around the heretic, and do reach arounds until the guy in the middle gets weirded out and runs away.

LMAO

 

[Cancel7]

I think there are plenty of constitutional crises brewing that have yet to come to fruition. For instance, the Democrats are in the process of laying down the legal framework by which they can hold Harriet Myers and Josh Bolton to CIVIL contempt (inherent contempt), which the president cannot pardon. If the president prevents the Justice Department from putting them before a grand jury, as he has said he would do, in direct violation of the law that says his appointee "shall" do so, he will have violated separation of powers. That's a constitutional crisis.



And Senator Clinton does not have my primary vote.



That of course depends on which Democrat we're speaking about.



When "substance" means dismantling government and turning us into a feudal state with private interests controlling everything that government doesn't absolutely have to do (like national defense), then I hope you're right. Changing the substance of policy can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. (duh) Changing policy in the direction St. Paul wants to take it is about as backwards a thing as I can imagine doing.

Even if he does get elected, he'll never get any of his agenda passed anyhow since more moderate minds control the legislation. This is the part Libertarians don't seem to understand when they accuse the opposition of "being scared" of St. Paul. The guy will not get elected, he will never be president, and even if he manages to be the only candidate not killed in some explosion of some kind and he wins by default, he will not be able to implement his agenda because the house and senate will never simultaneously be controlled by Libertarian-leaning members.

The guy's a lame duck waiting to happen.

Excellent posts on this thread.

 

[Timshel]

Umm from what I have read those calling themselves Libertarians are pretty much all over the place on issues.
But then a lot of current Libertarians are just embaressed Republicans

Really, all over the map. You could not back that up to save your life.

You are probably confusing a policy difference as being a philosophical one. I would say you don't have much clue what philosophy is then. For instance, Adam may be wrong on a certain policy (i.e., he disagrees with my position) but that does not mean he is wrong philosophically or that our difference is a philosophical one.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Excellent posts on this thread.

Of course, no one else had anything useful or sensible to say, and this is because they're not Democrats.