Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

05-21-2011 , 10:48 PM
So the reason not to vote Paul is because the rest of the government sucks?
05-21-2011 , 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilneedheart
My argument is (and for those who are too lazy to actually read my posts) that voting for Paul is the highest level of ******ation possible because to hope for a Libertarian government is Utopian. Its an argument, see?

That is my reason/evidence. Its a common enough argument among people who are involved in politics. You must live under a rock or be brain dead if you think that is trolling.

carry on...
Kthxbye
05-21-2011 , 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomVeil
So the reason not to vote Paul is because the rest of the government sucks?
feel better now?
05-21-2011 , 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilneedheart
feel better now?
I don't feel anything.

I'm pretty sure everybody who votes for Paul thinks that the rest of the government sucks, DUCY?
05-21-2011 , 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilneedheart
My argument is (and for those who are too lazy to actually read my posts) that voting for Paul is the highest level of ******ation possible because to hope for a Libertarian government is Utopian.

Probably the WOAT argument in anything. So you are saying because it isn't obtainable means it's a horrid idea to vote for him? What the hell do you think America was founded upon? The unobtainable (freedom from tyranny) becomes obtainable (freedom from tyranny by creating America). Has to start somewhere, and RP is the only way it starts now.
05-21-2011 , 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusJohnsonGOAT
So you are saying because it isn't obtainable means it's a horrid idea to vote for him?
I am not saying it is horrid, I am saying it is pointless.
05-21-2011 , 11:19 PM
K cool dude so is voting. An individual vote will never sway the outcome of an election. Your logic is broken and bad.
05-21-2011 , 11:26 PM
It is a common argument among political philosophers. Don't blame me for it.
05-21-2011 , 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSpartan
K cool dude so is voting. An individual vote will never sway the outcome of an election. Your logic is broken and bad.

Exactly, no point to even vote by his logic. Hell, no point to even hold elections ever. Just randomly pick a guy interested in the job, should be fine.
05-21-2011 , 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusJohnsonGOAT
Exactly, no point to even vote by his logic. Hell, no point to even hold elections ever. Just randomly pick a guy interested in the job, should be fine.
"So I think one way we could pick the president next time, make it simple and cheap. On American Idol, when they vote and there's a winner, the winner is immediately blindfolded. A map of the United States is put in front of them, and they get a dart and they throw it. Wherever it hits, that's where we have the monkey. And we put him on a plane and we fly him. He goes to to the spot on the map. We put a parachute on him and push the little ****er out. And then he hits the ground and starts walking around, and whoever's hand he grabs first...that's the new president."

Lewis Black
05-21-2011 , 11:56 PM
the only problem with that is if the first hand he grabs belongs to someone who has just stepped out of a UFO...
05-22-2011 , 09:14 AM
lou dobbs has a show?
05-22-2011 , 11:40 AM
Ten days after announcing that he’s in the race, Ron Paul announced that he will hold a press conference Monday at 1:30 at his Iowa campaign headquarters to announce his first Iowa legislative endorsement. SOURCE


Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
lou dobbs has a show?
yes. he has a radio show and a show on Fox Business.
05-22-2011 , 03:51 PM
I think he's the only politician ive ever heard say that his opinion shouldnt matter
05-22-2011 , 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilneedheart
There has never ever been a thoroughly Libertarian Government in the history of the human race. What is it specifically that makes you think a Libertarian leader would be any different to any other voted leader?
i dont know that much history but certainly the USA around 1776 was pretty close?
05-22-2011 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusJohnsonGOAT
Exactly, no point to even vote by his logic. Hell, no point to even hold elections ever.
Oh, this is what he meant? Sounds good.

Once upon a time it was standard for someone who is anti-government to also be anti-voting (imagine that... actually opposing the thing you claim to oppose). I'm not sure what changed exactly, but if this is his point I don't know why it would be handwaved away.

Quote:
Just randomly pick a guy interested in the job, should be fine.
Would be better that way imo. Don't even look for people who are interested, just pick a name out of a hat. (Or if it's possible find the people who want it least.) The cream rises to the top, I'd rather have skim-bull****.
05-22-2011 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluorescenthippo
i dont know that much history but certainly the USA around 1776 was pretty close?
maybe for like 1.5 seconds or so, but that's sort of the point.. "libertarian government" is like "healthy cancer"
05-22-2011 , 10:16 PM
ALaw we all pretty much want the same result - a society of true liberty, free of state coercion. Obviously none of us have any way of knowing what the optimal strategy is to reach that. However you need to (a) stop ignoring the importance of people actually supporting libertarian principles and the value of having guys like Ron Paul spreading some form of those principles in reaching that society and (b) stop assuming that the state will cause itself to collapse by growing larger and expanding its expenditures and that freedom will emerge after this happens or that somehow the market can "overwhelm the state", whatever that is supposed to mean.

And the cancer analogy isn't useful.

Last edited by AKSpartan; 05-22-2011 at 10:21 PM.
05-22-2011 , 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSpartan
ALaw we all pretty much want the same result - a society of true liberty, free of state coercion.
Great.

Quote:
Obviously none of us have any way of knowing what the optimal strategy is to reach that.
I don't know the optimal strategy to create the most perfect awesome super-duper tennis shoes, but that doesn't mean it's tough to recognize certain things that are a hindrance.

Quote:
However you need to (a) stop ignoring the importance of people actually supporting libertarian principles and the value of having guys like Ron Paul spreading some form of those principles in reaching that society and (b) stop assuming that the state will cause itself to collapse by growing larger and expanding its expenditures and that freedom will emerge after this happens or that somehow the market can "overwhelm the state", whatever that is supposed to mean.
Why, because you say so? Try quoting the things I've said and show me where I'm wrong. My mind doesn't change because you create a goofy caricature of what you think I think and then tell me to stop thinking that way.

Quote:
And the cancer analogy isn't useful.
Not to your Ron Paul pipe dream, but useful in general imo.
05-23-2011 , 11:55 AM
What do Ron Paul supporters think of Gary Johnson? He seems like a pretty damn good candidate as far as supporting a lot of libertarian beliefs. Is he going to take away some of the Paul vote and vice-versa?
05-23-2011 , 12:18 PM
I liked Gary Johnson a lot. A lot of people were turned off by his lack of charisma. To me, that kind of stuff is just hand-waving and the type of nonsense people care about when they aren't interested in evaluating a candidate reasonably.

To clarify, to win in politics these days, you need to appeal to stupid people. GJ doesn't do this very well, at all. He gets mad, isn't charismatic, but is usually spot on with his views and reasoning.
05-23-2011 , 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redgrape
What do Ron Paul supporters think of Gary Johnson? He seems like a pretty damn good candidate as far as supporting a lot of libertarian beliefs. Is he going to take away some of the Paul vote and vice-versa?
Most probably think he's by far the 2nd best candidate in the race. With RP in the race he really doesn't have much traction though and if anything he's hurting RP's chances. His stances are too far left to have sort of chance though. His Pro choice stance is a huge negative for anyone that considers themselves right leaning.

      
m