Titan6
member
Bear- You can claim to be a libertarian all you want but when you post such nonsense as you have been over the few months I have seen you post than you are just pretending.
Here's why Ron Paul can't win.....
- Thread starter SnakeEater
- Start date
- Status
Bear- You can claim to be a libertarian all you want but when you post such nonsense as you have been over the few months I have seen you post than you are just pretending.
Nonsense? To what do you refer? The FACT that Ron Paul got .5% of the popular vote when he ran for President?
You NEVER address strategy.
You simply repeat "Paul is God, Paul is God!" Anyone who points out that you don't have a winning strategy is "not part of the club."
Statements that there are priorities to gaining lost freedoms are heresies to you.
That's why I can do little but mock the posts in this thread.
How many Presidential elections have you voted in, anyway?
You NEVER address strategy.
You simply repeat "Paul is God, Paul is God!" Anyone who points out that you don't have a winning strategy is "not part of the club."
Statements that there are priorities to gaining lost freedoms are heresies to you.
That's why I can do little but mock the posts in this thread.
How many Presidential elections have you voted in, anyway?
Thin Black Line
Member
AB, my concern is that we have arrived at a time when it seems like people
(both the candidate himself and those who would "vote") need a holy annointment
from a would be king-maker priest:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55724
So, AB, when I see threads along this line of defeatism while delegating this
so-called king making power to a handful of dysfunctional neo-con cheerleaders,
then it needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history
(both the candidate himself and those who would "vote") need a holy annointment
from a would be king-maker priest:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55724
So, AB, when I see threads along this line of defeatism while delegating this
so-called king making power to a handful of dysfunctional neo-con cheerleaders,
then it needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history
Titan6
member
Please quote that post thread and number I will retract it right now as I find it offensive in many ways.
Again. Not as offensive, but also not true.
General Elections? Well gosh let me see, five. Did not vote in 2000 or 2004 though. As a resident of Texas I did not see the point either time. The first time I would have voted for Bush and if he needed my help to carry Texas he would have no chance to win the election anyway. The second time there was no one worth voting for running.
Primaries? All of them. The elections are won and lost in the primaries and few enough people vote in them to make a big difference. The campaign for the primaries is going on right now.
Titan6
member
TBL- Do not forget rule #7
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
longeyes
member
Ron Paul can't win because he doesn't project the nationalist strength the people are looking for.
Libertarianism is an admirable philosophy that flourishes best after the Hobbesian nastiness is already mopped up by less idealistic men.
Libertarianism is an admirable philosophy that flourishes best after the Hobbesian nastiness is already mopped up by less idealistic men.
You can dish it out but can't take it, I see.
Isn't that the plight of the incurably self-righteous?Quote some "nonsense", and I'll retract that.
Holy crap! You can lose completely for 28 straight years and not notice that you're not going to win that way? (Not voting is, of course, also a losing strategy.)
Can you not see that I'm not interested in yet another rehash of libertarian doctrine? That's all over the web. I agree with most of it.
Can you not see that I'd love to goad someone into thinking about HOW TO WIN? It's not working. I'll quit.
AB...
How to win? Give Paul the exposure he needs and allow him to put forth the ideas he believes in, the ideas that echo those of the average American. It really is that simple.
Why do you think the right wing talk show pundits are fighting tooth and nail to trash the man at every opportunity when he is clearly winning the polls?
Biker
How to win? Give Paul the exposure he needs and allow him to put forth the ideas he believes in, the ideas that echo those of the average American. It really is that simple.
Why do you think the right wing talk show pundits are fighting tooth and nail to trash the man at every opportunity when he is clearly winning the polls?
Biker
xd9fan
Member
Ron Paul has got the local "conservative" talkradio talking about isolationism.
Gotta love the GOPers purposely miss using the words isolationism and non-military intervention.
Why is it that the GOP think non-military interventionism IS isolationism?
Why do they think the words non-military interventionism means you can't trade goods with other countries??
so much for honesty
Gotta love the GOPers purposely miss using the words isolationism and non-military intervention.
Why is it that the GOP think non-military interventionism IS isolationism?
Why do they think the words non-military interventionism means you can't trade goods with other countries??
so much for honesty
budney
member
You mean, you want people who are willing to "crack a few eggs to make an omelet"? Or to modernize it, "Smash tens of thousands of chick peas to make falafel"?
I guess that's your choice. Disdain "libertarian purity" all you want, but I'm not interested in being an accessory to mass murder.
--Len
Titan6
member
I did. What you wrote was nonsense.
Who said my candidates lost? Most of the candidates I voted for won.
Who ever said I was a libertarian? Not me. That would be you. I am a reformed republican. A strict constitutionalist. The Republican party sold out their ideals and their principals a while back and I decided not to go with them.
How to win what for who? If you have an agenda other than bashing Dr. Paul please explain or don't if you want to quit then quit, it matters not to me.
In rebuttle to Limblob's tripe...
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. -- Ronald Wilson Reagan
Ghouliani is pwnd from beyond the grave.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. -- Ronald Wilson Reagan
Ghouliani is pwnd from beyond the grave.
You're right. Honesty compels a recognition that establishing trade with other nations means establishing interests with said nations. If they suffer militarily, you help them militarily as if you don't, you lose your trading partner or see your trade suffer. You also have to control the lines of transportation, so you want forces (including naval, air and land) capable of doing so and, in some cases, prepositioned.
Insofar as they do, there are two reasons.
1. They don't agree with his politics.
2. They think he can't beat whomever the Democrats put forward in November 2008.
I don't think he can win because he doesn't appear to be someone who can present a positive message in a way that gets a good number of the American people fired up. Not just nodding in agreement, fired up.
That's a big part of winning the Presidential election, or of getting votes for a third-party candidate.
Who could do that?
JFK, Reagan, Clinton (and Perot who nose-dived at the end but still swung the election).
Who couldn't, but beat other uninspiring or despised opponents? Nixon, Carter, Bush I, Bush II.
The Democrats will have a candidate who can stump, this time around. There won't be a Kerry or a Gore to beat. Bush II has dragged down the GOP and perceptions of conservatism (mainstream libertarianism along with it, in terms of vote-getting power). A candidate who can't get people excited means the Democrats have this one in the bag. They're the default winners, going into it, and no analyst denies that. All they have to do is shut up and win, unless there's someone who will FIGHT to win on the other side.
This guy will fight: http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/2007/05/15/fred-thompson-a-most-unusual-candidate/
Interesting OODA Loop commentary.
Paul isn't that kind of a fighter. He might be on the right side of things, but I don't see that he's the sort of take-no-prisoners fighter that it will take to beat the Democrats in an election that is truly theirs to lose.
That's my opinion. It's not defeatism. It's not bashing Ron Paul. Saying that a great scientist can't play the piano, or a great blues musician knows nothing about mapping the human genome is hardly bashing a person.
I might be wrong. But I'm trying to be realistic, too.
ebd10
Member
If it were a matter of simply presenting their ideas and plans for their term in office, Ron Paul would win easily. Unfortunately, elections have become nothing more than popularity contests in which the candidate's ability to lie with sincerity while spewing pithy sound bites is more important than real substance. Ron Paul scares the schitt out of the Republicrats because they know that if he actually wins, all of the mechanisms that they have put into place in order to circumvent the Constituional Process would be used against them. Further, he would work to rebuild a Constitutional Republic from the rubble of the socialist experiment we have had forced upon us for 70 years.
The fact that he is winning in all of the polls has the neo-cons quaking in their boots. The easiest way to tell that they are afraid is the amount of time they spend attempting to scoff, ridicule, or discredit him even though they have nothing of substance with which to counter.
It's ironic that lowlifes like Rush and Hannity have been espousing lower taxes, smaller government, and greater freedom for decades, but when a candidate shows up that would actually try to accomplish these goals, they sound more like Hillary's mob than like true conservatives.
Titan6
member
To take that a step fruther to overthrow them and install a dictator when they foolishly elect a government that no longer wants to trade with us.
budney
member
What's hard for people to understand is that libertarians aren't interested in getting power. If they were, they'd be the massive failures you're implying. Recently, the LP has made changes in order to improve their chances at gaining power. On the one hand it won't work; and on the other hand they've ceased to be libertarian.
Libertarians are ultimately about the elimination of power itself. Actual aggression against persons or property should be resisted and/or punished. Other than that, nobody has the right to dictate anything to anyone. All governments, and ours in particular, serve mainly to put a cloak of legitimacy on outright theft and aggression--in the same way that pimps, abusive husbands, etc., structure their victims' lives in such a way as to make them feel responsible for their own victimization.
The only way for liberty to win ultimately is for 300-million-odd abused women to stop believing that it's our fault for making Uncle Sam mad at us, and besides--there's no alternative. Uncle Sam takes good care of us; if we stood up to him, we'd have no place else to go...
--Len.
budney
member
That's completely asinine. By your reasoning, McDonalds would intervene in every customer's health care, because if they didn't, they might lose customers...
--Len.
Thin Black Line
Member
I thought #7 was:
Apparently, the Rules of Acquisition apply just as well to neo-cons.
Apparently, the Rules of Acquisition apply just as well to neo-cons.
That's strangely contradictory. I can't think of a strict constitutionalist who won in that time period.
So if I think someone, say Fred Thompson, can win, but Paul can't, that's my opinion. Addressing that by repeating how much you and the American people agree with Ron Paul does not answer the question: can he win?
Titan6
member
Gosh, I am pretty fired up and had not even heard of him six years ago.
Not a fighter hunh? That is simply not true.
Again he has won elections by wide margins in a congressional district where a consensus is a tough sell, even when the lines were redrawn to get rid of him. If that is politicially unsavy please explain how.
- Status
