Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedLibertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 306307308309310 350>
Author
Message
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 11:28
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Originally posted by Dudemanguy Dudemanguy wrote:

I for one would not mind seeing a Paul-Huntsmen ticket (or a Paul-Johnson one). 

My dog is more electable than Gingrich. Anyone with half a brain can see the slime oozing out of that guy. Dead

Paul wouldn't run with Huntsmen.
Not even with one Huntsman
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 11:37
Who WOULD Paul run with????

It can't even be his son since I think he once said he wouldn't, supposedly they disagree on too much stuffConfused
It couldn't be...well pretty much every other politician out there.
Back to Top
Dudemanguy View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: November 14 2011
Location: In the closet
Status: Offline
Points: 89
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 11:54
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Who WOULD Paul run with????

It can't even be his son since I think he once said he wouldn't, supposedly they disagree on too much stuffConfused

It couldn't be...well pretty much every other politician out there.

It would have to be one of these guys on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican#Public_figures


Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:02
Reckon so, long as they are "true" and not like all the other republicans who are just using it.
Also LOL Barry Goldwater, dig up his body and run with him. That would be a hell of a ticket.

He is the man (Goldwater) that opened the door to less government!  Shame the Reagan revolution wasn't libertarian at all really and Wubya was a flop of grand proportionsLOL

edit: Like that guy on the list from NJ. He seems to have the cred but I don't know....never really heard of him before and I have some pretty libertarian friends here in Jersey.



Edited by JJLehto - December 14 2011 at 12:06
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:06
Originally posted by Dudemanguy Dudemanguy wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Who WOULD Paul run with????

It can't even be his son since I think he once said he wouldn't, supposedly they disagree on too much stuffConfused

It couldn't be...well pretty much every other politician out there.

It would have to be one of these guys on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican#Public_figures




I will say it will not be someone on that list.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:09
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Dudemanguy Dudemanguy wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Who WOULD Paul run with????

It can't even be his son since I think he once said he wouldn't, supposedly they disagree on too much stuffConfused

It couldn't be...well pretty much every other politician out there.

It would have to be one of these guys on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican#Public_figures




I will say it will not be someone on that list.


I would be very inclined to agree with that.

So who? Is there someone you can think of?
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:09

Dennis Miller

 
Would be worth it just for the Biden-Miller debates.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:13
I'm calling it now, Paul-Kucinich ticket.
No one will see it coming.





Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:19
I guess it would be the first father-son ticket in history
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:37

Gary Johnson would make some sense politically (former governor of a "swing state", albeit a small one electorally) but he just has no presence. 

The only reason Rand doesn't make sense is that he is Ron's son.  As  tea-party favorite he'd actually be a perfect pick for anyone else, ironically.  Not that he'd accept.
 
I wish I had even a guess at this.


Edited by manofmystery - December 14 2011 at 12:38


Time always wins.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 12:43
Originally posted by Dudemanguy Dudemanguy wrote:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/gingrich-promises-personal-fidelity-in-pledge/

Quote The former House speaker said he was fully committed to defending traditional marriage, including enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.

Quote Gingrich also used his pledge to lambaste what he called an intrusion of federal courts in the private lives of Americans, saying the phenomenon "amounts to a constitutional crisis."

Only a slight contradiction here...


Unfortunately, the media has apparently forgotten (unlike any American cognizant in the late 90s) that Newt Gingrich is a complete a****le.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 13:48
Yeah, it would like kind of bad Father and Son...especially for someone so bent on fightin the powah...looks kind of bad.

If by some divine intervention Paul gets the nomination I eagerly await his running mate, I can't even make a guess.


CANT STOP WATCHING DREWBEARDS SIG OMG LOOK AT IT GO


Edited by JJLehto - December 14 2011 at 13:49
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 15:57
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:



I would be very inclined to agree with that.

So who? Is there someone you can think of?


Judge Napolitano, a few years ago I may say Jesse Ventura might be a bit dicey politically now. I'm not so sure.

I can guess cabinet and advisory positions more easily since they need not have political motives only intellectual ones.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 15:57
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Originally posted by Dudemanguy Dudemanguy wrote:

I for one would not mind seeing a Paul-Huntsmen ticket (or a Paul-Johnson one). 

My dog is more electable than Gingrich. Anyone with half a brain can see the slime oozing out of that guy. Dead

Paul wouldn't run with Huntsmen.
Not even with one Huntsman


Hey, play nice now.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 16:01
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



I find your answers reasonable.


This is good. I thought you may not.


I wonder why you would suspect that.

The only detail I would disagree with is perhaps this:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

They should be punished differently than actually committing crimes simply because the damage inflicted is much less than if they had succeeded.


A bad thief is still a thief, no?


Perhaps my wording was poor, I was not convinced I had said enough so I thought may answers may not have been justified sufficiently for you.

Yes a bad thief is still a thief, but if you focus on restitution, and even if you focus on punishment, the attempted thief has still taken less from you than the successful thief. Like the man who sets out to kill you, yet misses and only grazes your skin with the bullet, your skin can be more easily replaced than your life so I feel the punishment should reflect that.

It's as though the thief intended to steal your flatscreen and your sports car, but he was apprehended after only getting the car. He has stolen less, he is to return less from you even though his intentions were worse.


I believe restitution should be increased with punitive damages in these cases, but I see in a later post you made you would agree with that.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 16:04
I have no problem with punitive damages as long as they are reasonable. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 18:00
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few.
To speak for me personally, libertarianism also hopes to smash down ubercorporations as JJ puts it. Yes the methods it takes differ from those of others since the market failure which allows an exploitative corporation to succeed implies the aid of government regulations or funds somewhere in the equations. I have a particular disdain for pharmaceutical companies. I think they get rich by essentially exploiting the rest of us. Attacking them is pointless though. That's like trying to destroy a tree by eating the apples. You're just letting the tree grow taller and fertilizing the tree's seeds.
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above.

In his defense, it may appear that we claim that all the government does is ipso facto evil and all private sector good. If he believes this, I just wish he would justify it in some way. I certainly believe that everything done by government has some degree of evil in it, but I do not shy away from attacking private entities either.
And as you know, so do I. Evil wealthy people can be even more evil because of government's help. I don't want a corporatist world any more than TheDoc's want it. But I want no proletarian dictatorship either. And the constant idea I get from The Doc's posts is class warfare.


Of course I'm engaged in class warfare.  But the class warfare wasn't started by the middle class and the poor.  The class war was begun by the wealthy elite, by taking more and more from the lower classes to line their own pockets.  It's a war that has been fought time and time again.  I would hope that someday, greed and lust for power will not be mankind's most apparent trait.  Throughout history, the wealthy have tried to take more and more from the masses and oppress those masses until the masses strike back and regain control.  Then the cycle starts again.  I'm simply one of the masses who has had enough.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 18:07
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few.
To speak for me personally, libertarianism also hopes to smash down ubercorporations as JJ puts it. Yes the methods it takes differ from those of others since the market failure which allows an exploitative corporation to succeed implies the aid of government regulations or funds somewhere in the equations. I have a particular disdain for pharmaceutical companies. I think they get rich by essentially exploiting the rest of us. Attacking them is pointless though. That's like trying to destroy a tree by eating the apples. You're just letting the tree grow taller and fertilizing the tree's seeds.
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above.

In his defense, it may appear that we claim that all the government does is ipso facto evil and all private sector good. If he believes this, I just wish he would justify it in some way. I certainly believe that everything done by government has some degree of evil in it, but I do not shy away from attacking private entities either.
And as you know, so do I. Evil wealthy people can be even more evil because of government's help. I don't want a corporatist world any more than TheDoc's want it. But I want no proletarian dictatorship either. And the constant idea I get from The Doc's posts is class warfare.


Of course I'm engaged in class warfare.  But the class warfare wasn't started by the middle class and the poor.  The class war was begun by the wealthy elite, by taking more and more from the lower classes to line their own pockets.  It's a war that has been fought time and time again.  I would hope that someday, greed and lust for power will not be mankind's most apparent trait.  Throughout history, the wealthy have tried to take more and more from the masses and oppress those masses until the masses strike back and regain control.  Then the cycle starts again.  I'm simply one of the masses who has had enough.


Can you please show me one time in American history where "the masses" had "control?"
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 18:39
Leave him be, he hasn't any grasp of history or reality.
 
Anyway, a glimmer of hope:
"...Republican leadership has pulled H R 1540, National Defense Authorization Act, from today's agenda! We must continue to fight to prevent the NDAA's dangerous provisions, which permit the indefinite detention of Americans without charge or trial, from coming back to the floor." - Rep. Justin Amash


Time always wins.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 18:41
Max just declared "Paul for Prez" on his FB page.  You guys have won over the boss. Tongue
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 306307308309310 350>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.988 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.