Ron Paul and the Alabama straw poll

blackascoal said:
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."
Click to expand...

What do you think the ACLU calls themselves?

Who said anything about one issue. Feingold has shown a fairly consistent (for what I know the only place he has not sided with civil liberties is CFR) position on a range of issues that earn him this distinction.

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

Horse shit. Backup this claim. Pro war libertarians are not libertarians. They are dumbass Republicans who want to smoke dope and visit prostitutes, e.g., Dondero.

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
Click to expand...

There is plenty of data backing the assertion that libertarians swung the last election or, at the very least, were key.
 
RStringfield said:
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 philosophical 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.
Click to expand...

Umm I spent a bit of time searching the net for definitions of libertarians, and they are pretty much all over the map.

Philosophical differences, nope I will pretty much avoid that angle since it can pretty much go anywhere.
I just deal with with what I see and read.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's funny because I was wondering the same thing about you. What is your point? You claim you aren't a "big L" libertarian because you don't necessarily "see eye to eye with those folks", but you feel compelled to jump in and defend them when others, such as myself, don't see eye to eye with them.

And don't get it twisted .. my comments aren't about you or your personal political views whatever they may be. My comments are about Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, and the delusion of many of his supporters. This ain't (eb) about you.

For instance, ther are more Ron Paul threads on this board than there are about anyother candidate. Why would that be when he isn't a top-tier candidate, gets no more than 2% in any scientific poll, and has absolutely ZERO chance at being the president? Why, is because Paul supporters want to report every little seeming "accomplishment" he makes. If he wins the Cartton Network poll, there will be a thread here trumpeting it as an accomplishment. As if any of this makes him credible.

So I'm wondering .. what is your point?

Ron Paul is a republican whom republicans don't like. Irrespective of his republican label, he's a libertarian no differently than Lieberman is a republican regardless of what label he wears.

My point is, as stated. These straw poll "wins" are meaningless and in fact, quite stupid. Looking at the results of this one demonstrates how laughable they are.

My point is that Paul supporters are desperately trying to prove his credibility and worth by tossing up a thread everytime he farts, even when the topic is as meaningless as a fart.

I hope that clears up any confusion you may have.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Of course, no one else had anything useful or sensible to say, and this is because they're not Democrats.
Click to expand...

It's because I don't agree with what you said on this thread. Is that ok with you Adam? Should I throw a hissy fit if Rspringfeld doesn't post "QFT' under a Cypress post?

Or, is that different?
 
The straw polls wins are not meaningless. They demonstrate a tangible committed and energized base, not simply a couple of spammers that idiots try to write off his support as being.
 
blackascoal said:
For instance, ther are more Ron Paul threads on this board than there are about any other candidate. Why would that be when he isn't a top-tier candidate, gets no more than 2% in any scientific poll, and has absolutely ZERO chance at being the president?
Click to expand...

It's because we respect Ron Paul, consider him the best candidate, think that the polls are not a reflection of his potential with the whole country during what is becoming a national campaign, and we most certainly aren't going to decide our political activism based on someone who is opposed to our ideas telling us we have no chance.

You have as much interest in a Ron Paul failure as we do in his success...so why should we be discouraged by your opinion on whether he is a good political investment?

And also the vast preponderence of this community has for many years had a libertarian bias and has considered Ron Paul to be the best Congressman in Washington because of what he stands for.

You may think he stands for things reminiscent of robber barons and Hoovervilles, but I can assure you that is not what comes to the mind of those of us supporting the man and we know that's not the kind of thing he's running on.

Ron Paul is running on ending the war and protecting our liberties. We know that he will be a watchdog on bad government activity and not become immediately complicit in it. And at the same time we regard him as a highly qualified and educated individual with the perspective to show the necessary leadership.

I think his courageous performance in the GOP debates alone is evidence of what kind of President he could be. The man has a clear moral vision for how a government should be and he'd use it for the good of all the people's right.

Ron Paul was winning hypothetical Presidential polls from this community well before he announced his run. Like...years before.

blackascoal said:
As if any of this makes him credible.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul, to any sensible person, is already credible. He has very popular views on the important issues of the day, and is in a Presidential primary where many regard him as the single truth-teller. These activist events are an opportunity to demonstate his support and then engage other voters in order to expand that support.


blackascoal said:
Ron Paul is a republican whom republicans don't like. Irrespective of his republican label, he's a libertarian no differently than Lieberman is a republican regardless of what label he wears.
Click to expand...

Most Republicans don't know who Ron Paul is, so of course it's easy to say "I spew angry information about Ron Paul to people who know nothing about him and they all hate him now".

I'm sure that's a very easy sell to make when people have no regard for the stakes in this Republican primary because of a lack of knowledge of what Ron Paul really represents.

It's unfortunate that being largely unknown is an additional burden on this campaign, but that is part of the work to be done, and I can only be glad that the more America knows about Ron Paul, the more I believe they will like him because of the leadership and perspective he offers.

blackascoal said:
My point is, as stated. These straw poll "wins" are meaningless and in fact, quite stupid. Looking at the results of this one demonstrates how laughable they are.
Click to expand...

You're free to think that, but it doesn't matter anyway. None of these events are designed to attract your interest or support. To other people, they carry a lot more value.

blackascoal said:
My point is that Paul supporters are desperately trying to prove his credibility and worth...
Click to expand...

I don't think desperate is quite the word. I believe if you ask most activists in the country right now, they're very excited and hopeful. And some, more than others, understand how tough this is going to be to pull off...I know it's going to be very tough to win the nomination...but it's possible knowing what we know about the State of the Republican Party and the hopes and aspirations of their base.

I hope THAT clears up any confusion you may have.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
What do you think the ACLU calls themselves?
Click to expand...

Your point?

Who said anything about one issue. Feingold has shown a fairly consistent (for what I know the only place he has not sided with civil liberties is CFR) position on a range of issues that earn him this distinction.
Click to expand...

Again, this is nothing more than libertarians desperately trying to find credibility by associating themselves with decidely NON-libertarians and claiming them as their own. Obviously, you don't know too much about Feingold.

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Rated 80% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 26% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)
Rated 100% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing. (Mar 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
Voted YES on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted YES on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted NO on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Support UNCED Rio Declaration at 2002 conference. (Jul 2002)
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)

Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on ending Vietnam embargo. (Jan 1994)
Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)
Monitor human rights in Uganada-Sudan crisis. (Aug 2004)

Rated 25% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Apr 2001)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted YES on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted NO on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted NO on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Rated 17% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates. (Sep 2003)
Voted NO on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)

Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
Fully fund AmeriCorps. (Jun 2003)

That is a long ass way from being the record of a libertarian.

For those who actually know who Feingold is, he's a liberal who believes in government, Social Security, Civil Rights, and a range of liberal issues that define him as a LIBERAL, not a libertarian.

AND he believes in a socio-ethical responsibility of Americans to each other .. his focus is NOT on the individual .. which is THE defining cut-off for libertarianism. If the person has compassion, spirituality, and feels a sense of responsibility for fellow Americans .. that person is probably not a libertarian.

Horse shit. Backup this claim. Pro war libertarians are not libertarians. They are dumbass Republicans who want to smoke dope and visit prostitutes, e.g., Dondero.
Click to expand...

"Horse shit"????

So not only do you not know who Feingold is, you also don't even know who libertarians are ...

For your edification .. From Antiwar.com, a libertarian site, an article by Joesph Stromberg, noted libertarian writer ...

Liberventionism Rides Again
THE TWISTED TREE OF LIBERTY – INDEED!
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s041302.html

excerpt --

A while back I coined the word "liberventionism" as shorthand for "libertarian interventionism." I take the latter to be something of a contradictio in adjecto. Nevertheless, there are those who claim to be, and have been seen as, libertarians, who throw themselves into the breach to support this or that initiative of the U. S. Empire. They may not support each and every high-toned bombing raid on offer, but their support of any such philanthropies is a bit of a problem.

There is nothing like a good crisis to reveal the fault lines in any ideological movement. The present posture of a number of official libertarian foundations and publications has been more instructive than a thousand busy little seminars on de-municipalizing the garbage services (to paraphrase one of Mr. Buckley's anathemas from the 1960s). Reason magazine, never especially good on foreign policy, has suffered a major relapse into liberventionism, while the Cato Institute, dwelling in the belly of the beast, has taken up an imperial vision of "defense" with a vengeance.

So many self-named libertarians and classical liberals have taken up the warmonger's burden lately, that it will be no surprise if, fairly soon, they begin handing out freedom prizes and medals to every over-inflated warmonger who ever "served" in high office. Worse luck, they have taken to lecturing those who still warn of the perils of constant intervention, about the latters' sins, such as "anti-state libertarianism," lack of realism, excessive adherence to "creedal" positions, etc.
Click to expand...

Go here and educate yourself about how widely diverse libertarian opinion is because you don't seem to know.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-2Ojrgz8zaa.tuoHABvthpbldl6KImA--?cq=1&p=368

Ever heard of Neal Boortz?

Search on the term "liberventionists" or "liberventionism"

Educate yourself

There is plenty of data backing the assertion that libertarians swung the last election or, at the very least, were key.
Click to expand...

Get real.

I guess you'll now be claiming anyone who didn't vote for republicans or Bush is a libertarian.

Libertarians are closer to republicans than they are to democrats or the left. I'm sure there were more than a few libertarians votin g for Bush and republicans.
 
The title of civil libertarian makes no distinction on economic views.

Not all libertarians have neo-liberal economic views.

Even if you prefer to call Feingold a "liberal", his particular views on civil liberties makes him a civil libertarian.

He's been endorsed by the Democratic Freedom Caucus (a very small libertarian wing of the Democratic Party) and receives an 89 most recently from the ACLU.

If it would be helpful to illustrate this perspective, consider that I also see George Orwell a kind of libertarian, and he's a socialist! The first people to use the label libertarian were socialists, even. That's because these guys were opposed to the kind of centralized power that leads to authoritarian states and societies.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
The title of civil libertarian makes no distinction on economic views.

Not all libertarians have neo-liberal economic views.

Even if you prefer to call Feingold a "liberal", his particular views on civil liberties makes him a civil libertarian.

He's been endorsed by the Democratic Freedom Caucus (a very small libertarian wing of the Democratic Party) and receives an 89 from the ACLU.

If it would be helpful to illustrate this perspective, consider that I also see George Orwell a kind of libertarian, and he's a socialist! The first people to use the label libertarian were socialists, even. That's because these guys were opposed to the kind of centralized power that leads to authoritarian states and socieities.
Click to expand...



LOL and you told me that libertarian views were not all over the place .
 
And just because someone is "libertarian" does not make them "our own".

The whole purpose of advocating libertarian ideas is to assure that they belong to everybody and that we live in a society with a culture and traditions of liberty.

I would much rather live in a country where a Presidential election wasn't a question of whether our rights were in danger, but rather whether one administration was competent to my satisfaction.

While that is an ideal statement, it is certainly possible to mitigate the danger to our rights over time by advocating for a philosophy of governance that protects the rights and privacy of the people and not the expanding power of the State.
 
uscitizen said:
LOL and you told me that libertarian views were not all over the place .
Click to expand...

If you find the proposition laughable it is only because you cannot see that the word libertarian, regardless of its application, moves in a single direction toward more freedom and limited government.

The word liberal used to mean this too, and I only wish that it still did.
 
blackascoal said:
Your point?

Again, this is nothing more than libertarians desperately trying to find credibility by associating themselves with decidely NON-libertarians and claiming them as their own. Obviously, you don't know too much about Feingold.
Click to expand...

That was a lot of work and words wasted on a pathetic strawman. I did not claim Feingold was a libertarian. I said he was a civil libertarian. Perhaps you are ignorant of the term?

Ever heard of Neal Boortz?
Click to expand...

Yeah, he is a dumbass Republican who can't stomach their spending so he falsely claims to be a libertarian.

Search on the term "liberventionists" or "liberventionism"

Educate yourself
Click to expand...

You have yet to post anything that would indicate that need. Liberventionist is obviously a term used to set them outside libertarianism.

Libertarians are closer to republicans than they are to democrats or the left. I'm sure there were more than a few libertarians votin g for Bush and republicans.
Click to expand...

Sure there were. But there was quite a shift in 06.
 
At once you are claiming, that Feingold cannot be called a civil libertarian because he disagrees on economics whil arguing that Boortz is a full libertarian, even though he disagrees on military, foreign and many other substantive issues. Your argument defeats itself. It is is illogical, incoherent and inconsistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top