Ron Paul vs. Ronald Reagan

[/MSG/]

I'll use the example of the socially conservative policy of abstinence education. Libertarians should be against this, yet the education teaches personal responsibility.

Why should they be against it? Maybe if it was not taught along with other sexual educations measures Libertarians would be against it but teaching abstinence itself is not opposed to being Libertarian.

 

[/MSG/]

As the article aptly points out, it has ALWAYS been a conservative position to oppose Communism, and always a Liberal initiative to appease them. That hasn't changed a bit, as we can tell by your smart-assed condescending remarks. The author does go into great detail on the people who Paul claims are his mentors, people he admires and looks up to. And it points out their wrongheaded views of old, going back to before Reagan was even in public office. Hardly some blowhard harping on a youtube from some irrelevant Paul supporter, a concise dossier on the Libertarian movement, and how they came to hold so much influence in the Republican party. Turns out, it's mostly a ruse.

And AGAIN, there is at most two quotes from Paul, neither of which deal with his actual stated policies or elected stances on issues but rather how people he drew inspiration from (or people that he himself inspired) felt about communism. It's irrelevant. Just like how YOU feel about any candidate is irrelevant to the candidates stance on issues or their voting history. Focusing on how Felix Morely left a publication because he didn't approve of a hard line militant stance with communists (note that this isn't appeasement by the way), in no way relates to anything with regards to Paul or Libertarianism.

Again, your post confirms precisely what I said earlier about your ignorance of history. Look, you can slice and dice things any way you please, you can construe and misconstrue facts and skew them to whatever means you wish... that's all clever and cute, and I am sure you are proud of yourself for being able to manipulate historical facts in such a way, but you are just flat out lying through your shit-stained teeth. Prior to WWI, the political sentiment of MOST of America, was isolationist. The VAST majority of Americans did NOT want to get involved overseas, with whatever was going on... same with the period just prior to WWII. It took an attack on Pearl Harbor for Americans to justify intervention in WWII. Prior to that, it was overwhelming consensus that we should stay the hell out of it. I don't give a damn if you want to not believe that, or if you want to try and rewrite history about it, that's the facts of the matter, and most intelligent thinking people know this. Unfortunately, you rely on finding really stupid people to believe you, people who listen to you yammer and think you sound like you know what you're talking about. You are totally full of shit.

Yes and that isolationist desire was clearly not manifest in any action taken by the government over the course of 200 years. So clearly you've failed a basic analysis of American relations with foreign states.

I never said we appeased Communism. I said there was a political contingent who WANTED to appease Communists, just like there is a political contingent NOW who WANT to appease radical Islamists. You're simply and quite frankly, on the wrong side of history. Are you trying to claim there weren't any political figures, during the Reagan years, who didn't want Reagan talking tough to Gorbachev? Who freaked out when Reagan walked out of the talks at Reykjavik? Who were more than willing to give up our nukes in Europe in the hopes the 'appeasement' would please the Soviets and they would play nice? Were you living under a rock at the time, or in a drug-induced coma? Or maybe you weren't even born yet, and have no fucking clue what the hell you're even talking about here? Which is it, skippy?

Umm yes you did. Your exact words were...

We tried appeasing Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism.... where did that get us?

Which implies that we DID try appeasing them, not that there were those in favor of appeasing communism or whatever ism you want to use as a boogie man. So kindly point to where in American history our government acted to appease communism. Any one incident will do.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Which implies that we DID try appeasing them, not that there were those in favor of appeasing communism or whatever ism you want to use as a boogie man. So kindly point to where in American history our government acted to appease communism. Any one incident will do.

SALT I
SALT II
SORT
IRNFT
START I
START II
CNTBT
START III


...that enough 'appeasement' for ya?

 

[/MSG/]

SALT I

How is this appeasement? If anything we benefits because we had deployed MIRV type warheads in increasing numbers, and the Soviets had not. Effectively we fucked them.

SALT II

Never signed, and also fucked them over in any case.

START I

You mean that talks proposed by Reagen (called SALT III)? But I thought Reagen opposed dirty commies, not appeased them...

START II

Really? We 'appeased' the communist Soviet Union in 1993? Didn't it disband in 1991? Man, and you say I don't know history...

SORT

Where are we appeasing commies here?

IRNFT

Odd that you mention this, since it was the Soviet proposing to get rid of THEIR nukes in Europe. Also, it effectively fucked the commies since they destroyed 2x as many nukes as we did. And was signed by Reagen, who apparently just loved appeasing commies

CNTBT

U.N. treaty resolution, that's not being enforced, and not yet ratified by the U.S. Yawn....

START III

Where are the commies here?


...that enough 'appeasement' for ya?[/QUOTE]

 

[DamnYankee]

it's still sex education, whether it's stressing not having it or having it safely. don't try to play word games when you've been pwned.

That's like saying an AA class is like going to a bar. You're stretching so hard your going to have joint problems.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That's like saying an AA class is like going to a bar. You're stretching so hard your going to have joint problems.

lol

 

[DamnYankee]

Why should they be against it? Maybe if it was not taught along with other sexual educations measures Libertarians would be against it but teaching abstinence itself is not opposed to being Libertarian.

Maybe you should be having this conversation with STY, whose saying the exact opposite.

 

[cawacko]

I'll use the example of the socially conservative policy of abstinence education. Libertarians should be against this, yet the education teaches personal responsibility.

Why should libertarians be against it? Is it because by teaching abstinence it leaves a lot of other education out?

 

[Schadenfreude]

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/07/santorums-moment-the-reagan-li/

I found this article online, which explains in detail, how libertarian conservative politics was born, and where it originates from. (It certainly wasn't from Reagan.)

It's a tough read, 6 pages long, and the writer uses a style similar to Buckley, so his thought process is a bit difficult to follow at times, but if you take the time to read this, much will be learned about how the Republicans find themselves with a party split between true conservatives, and half right, half far-left insane people, like Ron Paul.

while i like ron paul as a person, i do not like his politics, bummer

 

[/MSG/]

while i like ron paul as a person, i do not like his politics, bummer

Such as?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/07/santorums-moment-the-reagan-li/

I found this article online, which explains in detail, how libertarian conservative politics was born, and where it originates from. (It certainly wasn't from Reagan.)

It's a tough read, 6 pages long, and the writer uses a style similar to Buckley, so his thought process is a bit difficult to follow at times, but if you take the time to read this, much will be learned about how the Republicans find themselves with a party split between true conservatives, and half right, half far-left insane people, like Ron Paul.

Ronald Reagan should be posthumously stripped of American citizenship and be taken off the official list of American presidents.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Clearly you've never struck a glance in a mirror then. We were in no way isolationist during the course of WWI. We continually supplied the allied powers and accepted the biggest bullshit propaganda cause to go trouncing off to fight across the Atlantic. Nor was isolationism in any way prevalent during WWII. FDR tried desperately to intervene at the earliest moment, selling off war materials to the Allied powers from the start. It is the rarest moment indeed when America has actually practiced isolationism, because for nearly 200 years we as a nation have meddled in the affairs of other foreign powers.

If you're selling someone a ton of guns, you're not a neutral power.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Again, your post confirms precisely what I said earlier about your ignorance of history. Look, you can slice and dice things any way you please, you can construe and misconstrue facts and skew them to whatever means you wish... that's all clever and cute, and I am sure you are proud of yourself for being able to manipulate historical facts in such a way, but you are just flat out lying through your shit-stained teeth. Prior to WWI, the political sentiment of MOST of America, was isolationist.

We should've stayed out of WWI.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Ron Paul is far to the right of practically any conservative on this board when it comes to economics. He wants to repeal the 20th century, and most of the 18th and 19th. Conservatives talk like they're batshit crazy, but they don't put their money where their mouth is. They don't repeal SS, medicare, medicaid, and unemployment insurance. They talk like they want anarchy but in practice support nearly the entire government. In fact, I often find them talking about brand new programs they want to establish. Simply mind-boggling.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Ron Paul is far to the right of practically any conservative on this board when it comes to economics. He wants to repeal the 20th century, and most of the 18th and 19th. Conservatives talk like they're batshit crazy, but they don't put their money where their mouth is. They don't repeal SS, medicare, medicaid, and unemployment insurance. They talk like they want anarchy but in practice support nearly the entire government. In fact, I often find them talking about brand new programs they want to establish. Simply mind-boggling.

stop smoking that shatner weed.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Such as?

just about all of it, i am opposed to the libertarian cant in general and specific - i am not going to fill this space with specifics

i think that ron paul is a decent person, just misguided

i think that we need a central government if for no other reason to provide for the general welfare and common defense

there are too many things that individuals and local government cannot do or cope with

 

[/MSG/]

If you're selling someone a ton of guns, you're not a neutral power.

Exactly.

 

[/MSG/]

just about all of it, i am opposed to the libertarian cant in general and specific - i am not going to fill this space with specifics

i think that ron paul is a decent person, just misguided

i think that we need a central government if for no other reason to provide for the general welfare and common defense

there are too many things that individuals and local government cannot do or cope with

Which, in and of itself, is not opposed to Libertarianism. Libertarianism, when it comes to government, is simple. Use this flow chart:

Is there a problem?
If yes, how significant is said problem?
Is it big enough to need fixing?
Can it only be solved by government intervention?
If yes, what is the minimum amount of government needed to fix said problem?

Really simple.

 

[Minister of Truth]

We should've stayed out of WWI.

Thank you for this useful post.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Ronald Reagan should be posthumously stripped of American citizenship and be taken off the official list of American presidents.

along with gwb