Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

12467…16

Comments

  • #92
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    matthew8 wrote: »
    The government and police. We're not anarchists you know.

    So you have a government and police enforcing rules yet you say there is no government interference in the market. Doesn't make sense.


  • #93
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    20Cent wrote: »
    So you have a government and police enforcing rules yet you say there is no government interference in the market. Doesn't make sense.

    Little government interference in the market.


  • #94
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Little government interference in the market.

    You've gone frome "free market" to "free from government regulation market" to a little interference in the same thread now. Whats a little interference?


  • #95
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    20Cent wrote: »
    You've gone frome "free market" to "free from government regulation market" to a little interference in the same thread now. Whats a little interference?

    Copyright for instance is important but you also mentioned currency as being important. Really, we'd be better off if the government did nothing about currency and let currencies develop themselves, gold always comes out on top which is brilliant news for the common man because there is little inflation.


  • #96
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    20Cent wrote: »
    I am trying to understand the reasoning why anyone would think that libertarianism would be a good idea. Yet whenever I think about it all I see is less freedom and a handing over of power to unelected people instead of citizens.

    We have had this conversation before and every libertarian has different views about what it actually means.

    Maybe describing what a libertarian society would be like would be helpful.

    Instead of trying to understand whether or not your warped interpretation of libertarianism is a good idea, perhaps you should instead focus your efforts on understanding what libertarianism is in the first place, as that is an area in which you appear to encounter great difficulty. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you ought to familiarise yourself with what you're attempting to criticise, but I dare say you have no interest in doing so, choosing instead to re-visit the straw men you wheel out every other month.
    This stuff needs to be agreed upon and enforced.
    Who does that in the Libertarian country?

    I think the above quote from you best elucidates what I'm saying. Although there are different strands of libertarianism (as there are with every ideology), no strand wishes to abolish the state. Some Googling might help you with some other basics.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    When discussing the benefits of libertarianism I forgot to mention the gold standard. That is the best thing about libertarianism. A gold-backed currency cannot be devalued by the government, unless they find some massive heap of gold somewhere. The federal reserve has enough gold for a gold-backed dollar. Of course people on wall street want inflation so their stocks go up so they hate the gold standard.


  • #98
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Soldie wrote: »
    Instead of trying to understand whether or not your warped interpretation of libertarianism is a good idea, perhaps you should instead focus your efforts on understanding what libertarianism is in the first place, as that is an area in which you appear to encounter great difficulty. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you ought to familiarise yourself with what you're attempting to criticise, but I dare say you have no interest in doing so, choosing instead to re-visit the straw men you wheel out every other month.

    I have read a bit about it. But if there is no such thing as a free market and libertarianism is all about having a free market whats the point in exploring further?

    Soldie wrote: »

    I think the above quote from you best elucidates what I'm saying. Although there are different strands of libertarianism (as there are with every ideology), no strand wishes to abolish the state. Some Googling might help you with some other basics.

    Wikipedia says anarchism is a branch of libertarianism as does libertarianism.com.


    Maybe describing what a libertarian society would be like would be helpful?


  • #99
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    20Cent wrote: »
    I have read a bit about it. But if there is no such thing as a free market and libertarianism is all about having a free market whats the point in exploring further?

    *Hits head against wall*

    Thanks for proving my point.
    Wikipedia says anarchism is a branch of libertarianism as does libertarianism.com.

    If you had bothered to read further than the second paragraph on the wikipedia page for libertarianism you would see that it merely draws similarities between anarchism and libertarianism in that both ideologies concern themselves with the scope of the state. However, where libertarians wish to reduce the competencies of the state, anarchists wish to abolish the state altogether. You could at least try to be a bit more subtle about your agenda; you have just said that your own understanding of libertarianism is limited, yet instead of trying to develop your understanding you relentlessly create straw men and inaccurate caricatures. It's disingenuous in the extreme; you've got an axe to grind - we get it.
    Maybe describing what a libertarian society would be like would be helpful?

    In other words: You paint the picture and I'll try to poke holes in it. :rolleyes:


  • #100
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    It seems like a valid question to ask what you think a libertarian society will look like.

    Because there isn't really a consistent philosophy of what constitutes the movement. (like any other movement really) Communism for example can sound great in theory, but has failed to work in its implementation. I also believe we are rapidly approaching the point where society will acknowledge the failure of representative democracy and transition to some form of more direct democracy, though it may take a couple more centuries for this to happen.

    Look at Ron and Rand Paul. Both claim to be libertarians but espouse quite different views. I have great respect for the father but find the son totally intolerable.

    At the end of the day, if you are advocating libertarianism as a philosophy to be embraced you shouldn't be afraid to to discuss it openly and be challenged upon it.

    People have legitimate concerns about these. To you these are 'holes,' to be poked. If their concerns are based on a misunderstanding, you'll have the opportunity to clarify. If their concerns are justified then maybe you should rethink your position. But pushing your head into the sand and running away from debate you're not going to convince anyone that this is a good idea.


  • #101
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    Memnoch wrote: »
    It seems like a valid question to ask what you think a libertarian society will look like.

    Because there isn't really a consistent philosophy of what constitutes the movement. (like any other movement really) Communism for example can sound great in theory, but has failed to work in its implementation. I also believe we are rapidly approaching the point where society will acknowledge the failure of representative democracy and transition to some form of more direct democracy, though it may take a couple more centuries for this to happen.

    Look at Ron and Rand Paul. Both claim to be libertarians but espouse quite different views. I have great respect for the father but find the son totally intolerable.

    At the end of the day, if you are advocating libertarianism as a philosophy to be embraced you shouldn't be afraid to to discuss it openly and be challenged upon it.

    People have legitimate concerns about these. To you these are 'holes,' to be poked. If their concerns are based on a misunderstanding, you'll have the opportunity to clarify. If their concerns are justified then maybe you should rethink your position. But pushing your head into the sand and running away from debate you're not going to convince anyone that this is a good idea.

    This thread is not about me; it's about Ron Paul. I see little point in debating with people who repeatedly resort to deliberate misrepresentation and caricature [in this case I'm referring to 20Cent]. As evidenced by his failure even to understand the basics of libertarianism, it's clear to me that 20Cent has no interest in debating the topic honestly; he's more interested in taking pot shots, and I know this because he does it all the time (recent example). Some people have patience and will take the bait; I'm not one of them, so I'll leave it there.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Memnoch wrote: »
    It seems like a valid question to ask what you think a libertarian society will look like.

    Because there isn't really a consistent philosophy of what constitutes the movement. (like any other movement really) Communism for example can sound great in theory, but has failed to work in its implementation. I also believe we are rapidly approaching the point where society will acknowledge the failure of representative democracy and transition to some form of more direct democracy, though it may take a couple more centuries for this to happen.

    Look at Ron and Rand Paul. Both claim to be libertarians but espouse quite different views. I have great respect for the father but find the son totally intolerable.

    At the end of the day, if you are advocating libertarianism as a philosophy to be embraced you shouldn't be afraid to to discuss it openly and be challenged upon it.

    People have legitimate concerns about these. To you these are 'holes,' to be poked. If their concerns are based on a misunderstanding, you'll have the opportunity to clarify. If their concerns are justified then maybe you should rethink your position. But pushing your head into the sand and running away from debate you're not going to convince anyone that this is a good idea.

    Well there are at least 10 types of libertarianism. Capitalism-libertarianism, soicalism-libertarian, anarcho-libertarianism are a few. My image of a libertarian society is one where the only tax is income tax and at a lower rate for the working man. For Ron Paul it is the flipside of this. No income tax and other taxes at a lower rate. Libertarian society generally hates the idea of free money so many libertarians want to scrap social welfare (I think that they should work for the dole and that we should keep child benefit to prevent our population lowering).


  • #103
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Soldie wrote: »
    This thread is not about me; it's about Ron Paul. I see little point in debating with people who repeatedly resort to deliberate misrepresentation and caricature [in this case I'm referring to 20Cent]. As evidenced by his failure even to understand the basics of libertarianism, it's clear to me that 20Cent has no interest in debating the topic honestly; he's more interested in taking pot shots, and I know this because he does it all the time (recent example). Some people have patience and will take the bait; I'm not one of them, so I'll leave it there.

    What is wrong with the statement?
    Libertariuanism is ignored in real life pretty much. The most prominent one is Ron Paul even Fox news think he's crazy. You do come across more libertarians online than anywhere else. Can you name a well known libertarian in Ireland or even Europe I can't!!

    Anyway this thread has almost come full circle all that is left is for Permabear to post a link to an 18th century Austrian that no one has ever heard of and express dismay that we have not all read his complete works.


  • #104
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Soldie wrote: »
    As evidenced by his failure even to understand the basics of libertarianism, it's clear to me that 20Cent has no interest in debating the topic honestly; he's more interested in taking pot shots,

    Me too!

    I rate libertarianism right up there with scientology.


  • #105
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    20Cent wrote: »
    What is wrong with the statement?
    Libertariuanism is ignored in real life pretty much.

    You're just a disgruntled socio-neo-liberal-conservative, but a hundred years ago you would have been an anarcho-capitalist.

    :eek:


  • #106
    norbert64
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭norbert64


    Libertarianism in action perhaps? :confused:

    On July 1, the University of Michigan will become the state's first big university to ban smoking on its campus
    http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/local&id=8188341
    http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-gets-ready-to-go-totally-smoke-free-on-campus/


  • #107
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    RockinRolla wrote: »
    I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

    Thoughts?

    :pac:

    That's a joke, right?

    This guy isn't getting anywhere near the nomination. If he did by some miracle manage to gain any traction, Mitt Romney's backers would simply leak his old racist newsletters and spread his more off-the-wall comments.


  • #108
    rocksteady36
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭rocksteady36


    I think Ron Paul is doing a lot better this time round. He is aiming to win the Ames Iowa Straw Poll. If he does its going to change everything.

    I reckon that the republicans will do their best to fuk it up for him, they don't want him to change the colonial poilicies and broken FIAT Monetary system. Bearing in mind he is a libertarian in a republican party. He will probably re-join the libertarian party if he doesnt get anywhere this time.

    I love this video clip from 2008....Watch McCain and Romney squirm...These boys will pull together to try and trip Ron Paul up.

    August 13th Ames Straw Poll debate will be a watershed. But for all the posters who claim he hasnt got a chance I dont think thats a clear cut as you think..

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/25/paul-gets-big-endorsement-ahead-of-crucial-iowa-contest/

    "Ames, Iowa (CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has fresh bragging rights after picking up what is surely a coveted endorsement on Monday.


    Cory Adams - the Republican chairman of Story County in Iowa – endorsed the Texas congressman's presidential bid at a campaign event in Ames, Iowa." Lots of credible people bringing Ron Paul in from the cold.

    Ron Paul.."We have a foreign policy to bomb bridges abroad, then we tax the people to go over a rebuild the bridges when our bridges are falling down"..Says it all..


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=denwLR6Qmfo



    His so called racist crap, was probably the competition who wrote the stuff and gave it out, he has so many independent supporters that he has little if any contact, so its a easy way to sabotage him. But he gave a good account of the racist bull on TV


  • #109
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Ron Paul is at 16% in a recent Iowa poll, which is not where you would expect him to be strong. He has a great chance.


  • #110
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    rocksteady36 wrote: »
    His so called racist crap, was probably the competition who wrote the stuff and gave it out, he has so many independent supporters that he has little if any contact, so its a easy way to sabotage him. But he gave a good account of the racist bull on TV

    The competition cleverly planted it in his own newsletter? How's that work?

    Or are you calling Lew Rockwell competition? Because he's not, he's one of Paul's friends and advisors. Most of Paul's backers try extremely hard to push the "Lew did it" story. Whatever the truth is, if Paul got anywhere close to the nomination we'd all be treated to extensive discussions about the racist and anti-gay contents of those newsletters along with a renewed effort to find out how such vile things could be published under his name without his having the faintest idea about it. And that's just for starters.


  • #111
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Ron Paul at 14% in today's USAToday poll, Palin wasn't included. I am growing in confidence that Ron Paul can do this. There's no evidence that Ron Paul himself is a racist, so shut up. I guess using gargleblaster's logic all of Obama's supporters think he'll pay for their gas and mortgage.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Ron Paul at 14% in today's USAToday poll, Palin wasn't included. I am growing in confidence that Ron Paul can do this. There's no evidence that Ron Paul himself is a racist, so shut up. I guess using gargleblaster's logic all of Obama's supporters think he'll pay for their gas and mortgage.

    :pac:

    Don't shoot the messenger, buddy!


  • #113
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,593 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    :pac:

    Don't shoot the messenger, buddy!
    Then, do you have a link to support the racism accusation?


  • #114
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Overheal wrote: »
    Then, do you have a link to support the racism accusation?

    http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS
    A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

    CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

    None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.


  • #115
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    RichieC wrote: »
    http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

    It's not evidence that he himself is a racist.


  • #116
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    Overheal wrote: »
    Then, do you have a link to support the racism accusation?

    WTF, are you serious?

    I thought people in here would be more wonkish, honestly.

    This isn't news. He's been battling questions about the racist and homophobic contents of his newsletter for years, FFS.

    matthew8 wrote: »
    It's not evidence that he himself is a racist.

    Doesn't anyone here know how to play this game? Did I say he was a racist? If I did, I misspoke. The issue isn't whether or not he is. It's dragging his name through the mud.

    Surely you've noticed in past campaigns how dirt is dug up and paraded. Nobody has to come out and say he's a racist. They'll just mention the fact that after all these years, the issue of how that stuff came to be published under his name has still not been figured out. They'll insinuate that either he's an incompetent leader (for not knowing what's being done under his supposed supervision) or that he actually does support those views.


  • #117
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,593 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It wouldn't be the first time Racism was levied about on the campaign trail. Many times unsuccessfully. Not to mention other forms of dirt - like the POTUS's association with Reverend Wright, and Bill Ayers. And that whole ACORN spiel.


  • #118
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    Yes, exactly. We have now established what 'dirt' is and how it's used.

    Campaign Politics 101.


  • #119
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,593 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Well yes thats my point, that this shouldnt be a major hindrance to his campaign.


  • #120
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭gargleblaster


    These non-issues are always hindrances. That's why politicians care about them and take pains to avoid them. They have enough trouble trying to sell their message to enough people to be regarded as serious condenders without having to deal with this kind of stuff.

    For a politician like Ron Paul, it's practically a DOA stamp. Even mainstream, well-supported politicians worry about this stuff. For third-party candidates who are starting from behind it's much worse. For instance, consider Howard Dean's candidacy and the way it collapsed.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,593 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Im not even familiar with that candidate.... hmm, maybe I see your point :pac:


Advertisement