Ron Paul vs. Ronald Reagan

Sinn Fein said:
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.
Click to expand...

Define "problem."
Define "significant."
Define "big enough."
Define "solved."
Define "intervention."
Define "minimum."
Define "needed."
Define "fix."

It's not that simple.
 
Schadenfreude said:
not all of them, some are so much more deserving than others
Click to expand...

Well, we're not going to strip anyone of citizenship, just like we're not going to try Cheney and Bush for war crimes and just like Ron Paul will never be president.

Is it too much to ask for you people to grow the fuck up... just a little bit?
 
Dixie said:
Well, we're not going to strip anyone of citizenship, just like we're not going to try Cheney and Bush for war crimes and just like Ron Paul will never be president.

Is it too much to ask for you people to grow the fuck up... just a little bit?
Click to expand...
Neither will Perry.
 
Dixie said:
Well, we're not going to strip anyone of citizenship, just like we're not going to try Cheney and Bush for war crimes and just like Ron Paul will never be president.

Is it too much to ask for you people to grow the fuck up... just a little bit?
Click to expand...

roflmao - that coming from you is hilarious - of course no is going to strip anyone presidents citizenship (well maybe the feds will for naturalized citizens and even that is not yet, i hope)
 
Sinn Fein said:
Neither will Perry.
Click to expand...

Perry stands a much better chance than Ron Paul. In fact, for a guy who just got in the race, Perry isn't doing too bad. I personally don't like Perry OR Romney, my guy is Cain, and if not Cain, Bachmann. But we will have to see what the voters decide, it's still a long way off... I just don't see Paul winning the nomination, sorry. Hell, I think Newt Gingrich has better odds than Paul.

The GOP isn't going to nominate someone so far out of the scope of mainstream America. Paul appeals to a certain demographic, and it's about 15-20% of the vote...not enough to win the nomination. The ultimate winner will be the person who can resonate across the spectrum of Republicans, from the Social Cons, to the Secular Libertarians, and all in between. WHO will that be? Too soon to tell, but it's looking like Romney, Perry, Bachmann... all others are a notch down, in terms of money, in terms of support... I'm just objectively looking at reality here. I'm sorry if that poo-poos on the Paul Parade plans.
 
Dixie said:
They all do, in a philosophical sense, that was what I just explained to you.
Click to expand...

Having a similar philosophy of personal responsibility does NOT equate to 'you can't have one without the other' PERIOD.

Oh let me count the ways dear sir! First of all, you attempt to 'identify' social conservatism by equating it with two singular issues
Click to expand...

You are grasping at straws ditzie. In NO way did I attempt to equate social conservatism to just two issues. I was providing EXAMPLES of social issues that have NOTHING to do with FISCAL policy. Not once did I state anything close to resembling your idiotic straw man.

They happen to be hotly contested issues which you hold a particular viewpoint opposite of the social conservatives.
Click to expand...

See. You don't even know what my position is on the two issues. You are simply pulling shit out of your ass. While I support the rights of homosexual couples to marry, I also oppose abortion. So you see ditzie, I agree with social conservatives on one issue and disagree on another. But my position on both is inconsequential to ANY FISCAL policy.

You have no reason to reject the position taken by social conservatives, other than you just don't like what they seem to stand for. In your warped and wrongheaded mind, it's better for us to disavow religious customs and traditions, and do away with any kind of moral restraints on society, so that people can be free to do whatever the hell makes them feel good. Consequences be damned, it doesn't ever occur to you, what kind of damage this will do to society as a whole, how much it will erode and destroy our moral foundations. You just don't like religious people having a political voice, so you are committed to denigrating them at every opportunity, including an "intellectual" discussion of social conservatism.
Click to expand...

More straw men. I reject the position on gay marriage because it is DISCRIMINATION. It has NO place in government. I in no way am disavowing anyone's religious rights you idiot. I am telling you that YOU do not have the RIGHT to force your beliefs on someone else. THAT is what this country was founded upon.

and AGAIN.... your above rant has NOTHING.... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.... to do with FISCAL policy.

I never said it "altered" anything. I submit that both fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are important in comprising a well-founded ideology. Without either of the two, the ideology is missing something vital and important, whether you realize that or not. Your opinion is not the end-all-be-all to the truth.
Click to expand...

The above is YOUR opinion you dolt. You have yet to show ANY reason that fiscal conservatism cannot happen without social conservatism. Provide us with an example of what is missing ditzie. You cannot.... can you? Because it DOES NOT EXIST.



Simple philosophy... backed up by great minds like Newton... for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Everything has to do with everything... that's LIFE!
Nope... beside the point... I don't even know what you're yammering about now.
Click to expand...

Did you not just state that EVERYTHING has to do with EVERYTHING and then make a feeble attempt to justify that with Newton? Seriously... you are trying to equate 'for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction' to 'everything has to do with everything'?????

Poor ditzie.
 
Superfreak said:
Having a similar philosophy of personal responsibility does NOT equate to 'you can't have one without the other' PERIOD.
Click to expand...

But I never said you can't have one without the other, in fact, you and most secular cons are living proof you can. What I said was, conservatism without both social and fiscal conservative elements, is a weak ideology. Read that carefully, I didn't say Social Conservatism trumps Fiscal Conservatism... I didn't say Social Conservatism takes priority or holds more weight in the conservative philosophy... and I didn't say you couldn't have one without the other.

You are grasping at straws ditzie. In NO way did I attempt to equate social conservatism to just two issues. I was providing EXAMPLES of social issues that have NOTHING to do with FISCAL policy. Not once did I state anything close to resembling your idiotic straw man.
Click to expand...

Yes, you most certainly DID try to equate social conservatism with TWO specific issues. It's right there for everyone to read. And I reject your view that those particular issues have nothing whatsoever to do with fiscal policies, they most certainly do. It's not a direct correlation, which seems to be the problem you have understanding it. At the root and core of fiscally conservative constitutional style governance, is the social conservative elements of personal responsibility. Without a mechanism to ensure personal responsibility, to hold us accountable to some moral standard, we undermine the entire philosophy of conservatism, and the whole ideology fails. A smaller limited government necessarily means government is not there to answer every call for benevolence, humanitarian aid, compassion... it can't be, and remain a small limited government. There has to be something to fill that need, and this is where social conservatism plays a fundamental role. You fail to see it because you are a secular, and have a bigoted view of social conservatism.

See. You don't even know what my position is on the two issues. You are simply pulling shit out of your ass. While I support the rights of homosexual couples to marry, I also oppose abortion. So you see ditzie, I agree with social conservatives on one issue and disagree on another. But my position on both is inconsequential to ANY FISCAL policy.
Click to expand...

Not all social conservatives are opposed to gay marriage, or abortion for that matter. I have social conservative views, but I favor Civil Unions and I'm okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest, within the first trimester. At the very least, I favor states having the right to determine the parameters of social morality, not the central Federal Government! Some social conservatives would call my views Liberal. And again, while none of these issues directly relates to fiscal policy, they do have a consequential connection. You're too afraid of "Jebus" to comprehend this, your viewpoint is bigoted and prejudiced against the religious right, whom you attribute the whole of social conservatism to.

More straw men. I reject the position on gay marriage because it is DISCRIMINATION. It has NO place in government. I in no way am disavowing anyone's religious rights you idiot. I am telling you that YOU do not have the RIGHT to force your beliefs on someone else. THAT is what this country was founded upon.
Click to expand...

Well, but it's NOT discrimination... any more than denying driver's licenses to blind people! Homosexuals who are of the same sexual orientation, do not meet the criteria for "MARRIAGE" because "MARRIAGE" is the sanctified union between a man and woman, not people of the same sex. A union of people who share the same sex, is just that... A UNION -- NOT A MARRIAGE! Now, marriage itself, is a highly regarded and important aspect to religious and spiritual belief. To intentionally pervert that custom, is an affront to religious freedom itself. It's as if you decided that people can deface art masterpieces with glow-in-the-dark paint, because you think the Mona Lisa would look really cool that way! You're shitting on religious tradition and customs, and it will not be tolerated in a religiously free society.

and AGAIN.... your above rant has NOTHING.... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.... to do with FISCAL policy.
Click to expand...

And again... Everything has to do with Everything! Just because you can't find a direct correlation, does not mean it has "absolutely nothing" to do with it, it just means you are blind and refuse to see it. Promoting social moral standards is important in establishing a society with ethics, accepting of personal responsibility, an obligation to live up to as decent human beings.... which alleviates the need for government to intervene. Without moral standards, civilizations collapse, it's as simple as that, and history is rife with examples.

The above is YOUR opinion you dolt. You have yet to show ANY reason that fiscal conservatism cannot happen without social conservatism. Provide us with an example of what is missing ditzie. You cannot.... can you? Because it DOES NOT EXIST.
Click to expand...

Again, I never said that fiscal conservatism "couldn't happen" without social conservatism. For the third time now... both social and fiscal conservatism have fundamental purpose and value in the overall Conservative philosophy. To discard one and embrace the other, is foolish and shallow minded, and a recipe for political failure, because it becomes an incomplete ideology. It becomes weakened and vulnerable to the ideology of Liberalism. This works BOTH ways! A good example of someone who was more social conservative and less fiscal, is George W. Bush. Pure social cons are often big spenders, which is just as bad as fiscal conservatives devoid of social conservative values. Ronald Reagan is a good example of BOTH social and fiscal conservatism, he incorporated social conservatism with fiscal, and it was resoundingly popular, as well as politically successful.

Did you not just state that EVERYTHING has to do with EVERYTHING and then make a feeble attempt to justify that with Newton? Seriously... you are trying to equate 'for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction' to 'everything has to do with everything'?????
Click to expand...

Yes, I made that justification. I can make several more similar ones. Let's see.... there's Plato, Aristotle, Einstein... who do you want to hear from on the subject? They've all made similar points and articulated similar philosophies regarding the matter. Have you never heard of the "Butterfly Effect?" Things relate to one another in ways which are sometimes obscure and difficult to understand or comprehend. It is a FOOL who makes a statement such as yours, that (A) "has nothing to do with" (B). How do you KNOW it has NOTHING to do with it, have you explored every single one of the billions and billions of possibilities? Your brain must be tired!
 
Dixie said:
But I never said you can't have one without the other, in fact, you and most secular cons are living proof you can. What I said was, conservatism without both social and fiscal conservative elements, is a weak ideology. Read that carefully, I didn't say Social Conservatism trumps Fiscal Conservatism... I didn't say Social Conservatism takes priority or holds more weight in the conservative philosophy... and I didn't say you couldn't have one without the other.
Click to expand...

You truly are desperate now. You stated "One without the other, is a recipe for failure, as we have seen in the past." Sorry to have to quote your very own words to prove you wrong. But do keep trying to spin.

Yes, you most certainly DID try to equate social conservatism with TWO specific issues. It's right there for everyone to read.
Click to expand...

Again, NO dear little ditzie... I did not. I gave two examples of social conservative issues. Not once did I state or imply that they were the be all end all of social conservatism.

And I reject your view that those particular issues have nothing whatsoever to do with fiscal policies, they most certainly do. It's not a direct correlation, which seems to be the problem you have understanding it. At the root and core of fiscally conservative constitutional style governance, is the social conservative elements of personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

This should be good. Tell us how gay marriage somehow violates the conservative element of personal responsibility. I agree that abortion does violate it, which is part of why I oppose abortion. Gay marriage is two people TAKING responsibility for themselves and their partner.

That said.... just because they both possess the element of personal responsibility, there is NO reason.... NONE.... that fiscal policy will fail without adhering to the far rights views on social conservatism. Abortion and gay marriage have NO effect on monetary or fiscal policy decisions. They are non-economic issues. The can and should be kept separate from social issues.

Without a mechanism to ensure personal responsibility, to hold us accountable to some moral standard, we undermine the entire philosophy of conservatism, and the whole ideology fails. A smaller limited government necessarily means government is not there to answer every call for benevolence, humanitarian aid, compassion... it can't be, and remain a small limited government. There has to be something to fill that need, and this is where social conservatism plays a fundamental role. You fail to see it because you are a secular, and have a bigoted view of social conservatism.
Click to expand...

Again dearest ditzie, quit telling me what my views are when you clearly have no comprehension of them. None of your tripe above undermines fiscal responsibility. NONE of it. You can have a small and limited government with or without adhering to your social beliefs.

Not all social conservatives are opposed to gay marriage, or abortion for that matter. I have social conservative views, but I favor Civil Unions and I'm okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest, within the first trimester. At the very least, I favor states having the right to determine the parameters of social morality, not the central Federal Government! Some social conservatives would call my views Liberal. And again, while none of these issues directly relates to fiscal policy, they do have a consequential connection. You're too afraid of "Jebus" to comprehend this, your viewpoint is bigoted and prejudiced against the religious right, whom you attribute the whole of social conservatism to.
Click to expand...

So now I am 'afraid of Jesus'??? I was born and raised Catholic you idiot. I don't fear any religion. I chose to be agnostic because I neither believe nor disbelieve the teachings of the various religions. Non can be proven nor disproven thus... agnostic. Quit creating your pathetic straw men and do try to stick to the topic.

You keep telling me of this 'consequential connection' but you continue to fail to show or demonstrate the connection. You simply keep stating that without social conservative views a person somehow undermines their ability to be fiscally conservative. That is pure nonsense. You are pulling it out of your ass because you don't like what Libertarians believe in.

Well, but it's NOT discrimination... any more than denying driver's licenses to blind people! Homosexuals who are of the same sexual orientation, do not meet the criteria for "MARRIAGE" because "MARRIAGE" is the sanctified union between a man and woman, not people of the same sex. A union of people who share the same sex, is just that... A UNION -- NOT A MARRIAGE! Now, marriage itself, is a highly regarded and important aspect to religious and spiritual belief. To intentionally pervert that custom, is an affront to religious freedom itself. It's as if you decided that people can deface art masterpieces with glow-in-the-dark paint, because you think the Mona Lisa would look really cool that way! You're shitting on religious tradition and customs, and it will not be tolerated in a religiously free society.
Click to expand...

Thanks for completely undermining your position on gay marriage. To equate it to blind people not being allowed to drive? That shows your bigotry. Blind people are not allowed to drive because it would obviously endanger others. To equate the two you need to tell us how gay marriage is a threat to others. You clearly have NO CLUE what religious freedom means if you think we must adhere to 'customs' just because you say so. You also clearly do not understand the founders beliefs on freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Just admit you are homophobic and we can move on.


And again... Everything has to do with Everything! Just because you can't find a direct correlation, does not mean it has "absolutely nothing" to do with it, it just means you are blind and refuse to see it. Promoting social moral standards is important in establishing a society with ethics, accepting of personal responsibility, an obligation to live up to as decent human beings.... which alleviates the need for government to intervene. Without moral standards, civilizations collapse, it's as simple as that, and history is rife with examples.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... keep spinning ditzie.

Again, I never said that fiscal conservatism "couldn't happen" without social conservatism. For the third time now... both social and fiscal conservatism have fundamental purpose and value in the overall Conservative philosophy. To discard one and embrace the other, is foolish and shallow minded, and a recipe for political failure, because it becomes an incomplete ideology. It becomes weakened and vulnerable to the ideology of Liberalism. This works BOTH ways! A good example of someone who was more social conservative and less fiscal, is George W. Bush. Pure social cons are often big spenders, which is just as bad as fiscal conservatives devoid of social conservative values. Ronald Reagan is a good example of BOTH social and fiscal conservatism, he incorporated social conservatism with fiscal, and it was resoundingly popular, as well as politically successful.
Click to expand...

This is where you are injecting your personal beliefs into it Ditzie. You HAVE said that one cannot happen without the other. You imply it again in the above. It is nothing short of your OPINION. It is not based in reality.

ANY President that comes in and puts this country back on the path to fiscal responsibility is going to be resoundingly popular.... regardless of their social views.


Yes, I made that justification. I can make several more similar ones. Let's see.... there's Plato, Aristotle, Einstein... who do you want to hear from on the subject? They've all made similar points and articulated similar philosophies regarding the matter. Have you never heard of the "Butterfly Effect?" Things relate to one another in ways which are sometimes obscure and difficult to understand or comprehend. It is a FOOL who makes a statement such as yours, that (A) "has nothing to do with" (B). How do you KNOW it has NOTHING to do with it, have you explored every single one of the billions and billions of possibilities? Your brain must be tired!
Click to expand...

You are trying to spin this into an absurd philosophical debate. I am talking about reality ditzie. Tell me dipshit. If I pass a balanced budget amendment.... is that being fiscally conservative? What happens if I at the same time support gay marriage? Does that somehow negate my fiscal conservative bill?

No... It does not. The two have NOTHING to do with each other. PERIOD.
 
Superfreak said:
You truly are desperate now. You stated "One without the other, is a recipe for failure, as we have seen in the past." Sorry to have to quote your very own words to prove you wrong. But do keep trying to spin.
Click to expand...

It's not spin at all. You stated my quote quite adequately, and it certainly doesn't say you can't have one without the other, only that doing so is politically disastrous. You are welcome to maintain a viewpoint that is flawed and politically disastrous, that's your prerogative.

Again, NO dear little ditzie... I did not. I gave two examples of social conservative issues. Not once did I state or imply that they were the be all end all of social conservatism.
Click to expand...

This is what you IMPLIED. This is very often how Social Conservatism is attacked, on the basis of a couple of issues which seem to encroach on personal liberty. Ron Paul is not a Social Liberal, he is very conservative in his personal social viewpoint, and has made that clear on numerous occasions, but he thinks we can divorce government from legislating anything regulating or pertaining to personal liberty, and I don't agree that we can, and remain a civilized society. Social Conservatism has a variety of aspects, and is about so much more than simple emotive memes about personal liberty. People who are opposed to abortion, don't hold that view because they want to punish women and make them bear children against their will. The SC view is predicated on moral sanctity of life, moral respect for human life. People who oppose Gay Marriage, are not in opposition to punish homosexuals or deny them any fundamental right... The SC view is based on societal culture and morality, and the value to said culture, of traditional "family" as opposed to whatever-feels-good-ism. Social Conservatives believe we have an obligation as responsible decent citizens, to establish rules, boundaries, and limitations, to our collective personal "freedoms" and we shirk that responsibility when we allow political correctness, or new age thinking, to destroy our traditions and customs, as well as our values and moral foundations. It is an insidious undermining of our entire civilization, and if the so-called 'seculars' don't wake up, it will destroy us. We most certainly DO have the obligation to determine what is 'acceptable' to the society we live in! That is what "freedom" is all about, isn't it?

This should be good. Tell us how gay marriage somehow violates the conservative element of personal responsibility. I agree that abortion does violate it, which is part of why I oppose abortion. Gay marriage is two people TAKING responsibility for themselves and their partner.
Click to expand...

It's not just personal liberty and responsibility. "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron, MORON! There is no "GAY" marriage....there is just MARRIAGE: The union of a man and woman in Holy Fucking Matrimony! You are attempting to call something "marriage" that is NOT marriage... and make that REALITY by simply repeating it over and over and over and over again! Why don't we advocate for "Recycling Art" instead... we can have the 18-24 crowd go through our museums and paint over all the masterpieces, using new vibrant paint colors and hues, and make everything look better! Why not? Everyone thinks recycling is cool... and Art... well, if we can find a way to merge recycling and art together, what could be more beautiful? Now you will say, but Dixie, we can't paint over masterpieces, how absurd! And I would say, those old out-dated works are behind the times! We need to bring them all up to date with the modern era! How can you possibly deny the younger generations their opportunity to express themselves artistically, by re-painting over the top of the old dusty masters? It will be beautiful, you'll see! //sarcasm

That said.... just because they both possess the element of personal responsibility, there is NO reason.... NONE.... that fiscal policy will fail without adhering to the far rights views on social conservatism. Abortion and gay marriage have NO effect on monetary or fiscal policy decisions. They are non-economic issues. The can and should be kept separate from social issues.
Click to expand...

I understand your simple minded brain doesn't comprehend the point I have made here. Abortion and Gay Marriage do not define Social Conservatism, and here you have, once again, attempted to IMPLY that is the case! Both of those issues are based on morality and the structure of morality in the society which we live in and have to raise our children in. The constant attacks on Religion... Christianity in particular... all of this stuff, undermines our civilization, and without a civilization, fiscal policy isn't going to matter much. To idiotically continue to imply that Social Conservatism is about a couple of emotive 'liberty' issues, and disregard what Social Conservatism is REALLY about, is NOT being objective or evaluating fairly, it is quite honestly, stubborn and bigoted.

Again dearest ditzie, quit telling me what my views are when you clearly have no comprehension of them. None of your tripe above undermines fiscal responsibility. NONE of it. You can have a small and limited government with or without adhering to your social beliefs.
Click to expand...

Okay, here is where you are going to run into the fundamental flaw to your philosophy. What about the poor, the needy, the indigent? Who is going to look out for them and care for them, when you achieve your smaller limited secular conservative government? That's right... there is no one. One thing most Americans do have in common, is human compassion, to some degree... we're not going to tolerate suffering of the masses. So if your secular conservative model doesn't contain some element to address this reality, you will get your clock cleaned by the much more appealing Liberal philosophy, which has an answer... more government. Social Conservatism provides the foundation for how Conservative philosophy in general, deals with the reality of helping those in need, charity, as it were. This is a function of churches and religious organizations, and has been since before we ever became a nation. George Washington himself, said that government could never function without the influence of God. Social Conservatism is vital to the conservative message, for just this very reason. That's not to say we can't try something else... we tried Compassionate Conservatism... it didn't work... We've tried Moderate McCain Conservatism.... it didn't work. Ronald Reagan understood it was about BOTH social and fiscal conservatism, and the role EACH played in the overall message. You want to ignorantly dismiss half of your ideology, because you don't understand how important it is. And you are apparently too bigoted and stubborn, to even open your eyes to what is being said here, you had rather lob more insults and try to twist my words. That's sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top