1) Noam Chomsky is a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nothing more. Might as well quote your local barber.
2) Why not start a thread on Noam Chomsky's thoughts on Ron Paul?
yeah and ron paul is just a doctor ... what the cuss!?? ...
Once again, you are free to think what you want. As for baiting and trolling - I simply get tired of reading page after page of threads (which weren't on the subject of gay rights) be turned away from the original subject matter - I'd admit this particular thread may not be the best example because he can say I wanted to discuss RP's issues. But, to me, it's repetitive and it gets old. If he's upset about politicians and their views on gay marriage, that's fine... I encourage him to write a thread on it rather than going into a multitude of threads and changing them from their original intent into threads on gay rights. Moreover, I don't have a problem with occasional changes of the subject in threads... I mean that happens. It's the repetitive nature and it's the multitude of his posts in a single thread (which really sways the discussion in a thread). That's my issue. Finally, he is 100% allowed to continue to do what he's doing by going into threads and changing the debate. It's just that I don't have to like it and I'm 100% allowed to not want to get sucked into debates that are outside the realm of the original thread's purpose.
I'm not sure what you want a thread about Ron Paul to look like. You're sick of POD changing the subjects to gay rights, but then that's what you respond to in the thread. There's been several other points and questions in the thread that you didn't respond to. Someone quotes Chomsky and you discredit it by saying he's just a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nearly all of Ron Paul's policies exist in the philosophical world and not in the pragmatic world. Why not recognize what a philosopher has to say about it? It seems like you just want to guide this into a 'Keynesian economics sucks' thread.
I'm glad you learned his position on gay marriage. From what I understand he's against the government being involved in marriage in totality (hetero or homosexual). Regardless, I think it's fantastic that you think we shouldn't have to talk about it. My response is... then don't. Or, better yet, if you do want to talk about it, I'd recommend you do so in a thread on that subject.
You're missing the point. We wouldnt have to talk about it if all these republicans didnt want to keep people from having these rights. None of us supporting gay marriage want to talk about it, it should just be legal and then it wouldnt be an issue. It will be universally legal one day, in my opinion, so why fight it?
I get what you're saying in the rest of your post. If you're really interested in these threads, but dont want to read a persons posts, use the 'foe' option I guess. Personally, I feel like several people can have different discussions about RP's policies in the same thread.
btw, If I had to vote today, i'd probably just pass on the opportunity. I dislike them all.
but you jsut said you'd go with RP. Are you sure youre not a Romney fan....with the flip flop and all?
just kidding, ive been a bit occupied with floppers lately
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
I'm glad you learned his position on gay marriage. From what I understand he's against the government being involved in marriage in totality (hetero or homosexual). Regardless, I think it's fantastic that you think we shouldn't have to talk about it. My response is... then don't. Or, better yet, if you do want to talk about it, I'd recommend you do so in a thread on that subject.
You're missing the point. We wouldnt have to talk about it if all these republicans didnt want to keep people from having these rights. None of us supporting gay marriage want to talk about it, it should just be legal and then it wouldnt be an issue. It will be universally legal one day, in my opinion, so why fight it?
I get what you're saying in the rest of your post. If you're really interested in these threads, but dont want to read a persons posts, use the 'foe' option I guess. Personally, I feel like several people can have different discussions about RP's policies in the same thread.
btw, If I had to vote today, i'd probably just pass on the opportunity. I dislike them all.
but you jsut said you'd go with RP. Are you sure youre not a Romney fan....with the flip flop and all?
just kidding, ive been a bit occupied with floppers lately
haha, Well, I meant that if I HAD to chose from the republicans, RP is the only one who I could remotely consider. the others, not so much.
In a general election, I doubt I could make up my mind, unless Bob Ross was alive and on the ticket.
[quote="JonnyPistachio"
haha, Well, I meant that if I HAD to chose from the republicans, RP is the only one who I could remotely consider. the others, not so much.
In a general election, I doubt I could make up my mind, unless Bob Ross was alive and on the ticket. [/quote]
happy little trees
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Once again, you are free to think what you want. As for baiting and trolling - I simply get tired of reading page after page of threads (which weren't on the subject of gay rights) be turned away from the original subject matter - I'd admit this particular thread may not be the best example because he can say I wanted to discuss RP's issues. But, to me, it's repetitive and it gets old. If he's upset about politicians and their views on gay marriage, that's fine... I encourage him to write a thread on it rather than going into a multitude of threads and changing them from their original intent into threads on gay rights. Moreover, I don't have a problem with occasional changes of the subject in threads... I mean that happens. It's the repetitive nature and it's the multitude of his posts in a single thread (which really sways the discussion in a thread). That's my issue. Finally, he is 100% allowed to continue to do what he's doing by going into threads and changing the debate. It's just that I don't have to like it and I'm 100% allowed to not want to get sucked into debates that are outside the realm of the original thread's purpose.
I'm not sure what you want a thread about Ron Paul to look like. You're sick of POD changing the subjects to gay rights, but then that's what you respond to in the thread. There's been several other points and questions in the thread that you didn't respond to. Someone quotes Chomsky and you discredit it by saying he's just a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nearly all of Ron Paul's policies exist in the philosophical world and not in the pragmatic world. Why not recognize what a philosopher has to say about it? It seems like you just want to guide this into a 'Keynesian economics sucks' thread.
Ugh... here we go.
This thread began (by me) discussing RP in SC. Basically, showing his polls. There's been a multitude of RP threads on his stances. POD's posts would have been more appropriate there, or in his own thread on the subject matter he wanted to discuss... which is very similar in most of his posts.
As for what I've responded to, I don't sit by the edge of my seat and respond every day... nor every so often. I take a look when I can. So, to elaborate, I wouldn't respond all the time even if I wanted to. So, what I've responded to here, makes little difference.
As for the Chomsky post, that poster was doing something similar to what POD was doing. Clearly, both dislike RP and want to discuss his negatives. In my personally opinion (which I'm sure you disagree with, because that's how you operate), the problem is they were not really on message with the thread. So, in this particular case, I thought it was appropriate to be consistent and recommend that this other poster posts a thread on that subject. I also stated my opinion on Chomsky, since apparently he thinks his word is gospel.
Finally, to conclude... this wasn't intended to be a thread on RP's policies, it was intended to be a thread on RP's polls in SC (as the title suggests). There are plenty of threads on RP's issues. I simply think either of these posters could have posted there. I've said all along... anyone can do what they want. They can do what they are doing here. I just don't have to like it and I can recommend they do it elsewhere.
I was sorry to see Huntsman leave, but it was expected. I believe his supporters will generally follow his endorsement of Mitt, with Ron Paul getting the rest. The news of Huntsman leaving the campaign is not good for the social conservative (Gingrich, Perry, Santorum), despite Newts comments.
Here's what's important to understand about Ron Paul and Libertarian thought, generally speaking:
Libertarians believe in voluntary association, private property, and are against the use of force except in self-defense of life or property. Government action through enforcement of law or taxation is force. Libertarians that believe in having law believe in it to the minimal extent possible, and that those laws are to protect life and property, but believe in strict adherence to those laws, as well as keeping them easily understandable. Fraud, theft, extortion, coercion, vandalism, and assault are not permissible in a free society governed by laws or otherwise.
When you ask a guy like Ron Paul about any issue, you can receive several different answers that can even seem contrary to each other, but they all apply to this mode of thought, it just depends on context and what position the answer is being given from. There's a philosophical answer, which is usually given independent of any existing infrastructure of law. Then there's the Constitutional answer-- many libertarians believe that the Constitution, being the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, although imperfect, at least gives clearly-defined powers to the federal government, and reserves other powers for states and is therefore somewhat "libertarian" in nature. It was meant to limit federal power and allow people to govern themselves more locally at state levels where things are managed easier and more apt to change if need be. The Constitutional answer uses an existing framework that is law, the supreme law, and having respect for that law to be carried out, which more often that not pushes responsibilities of governance to the states and relies on the courts to determine constitutionality of federal laws. It is a means to an end of achieving a freer society, but again is not perfect, but at least it is already a decent guideline OFFICIALLY already in place. There's also the less-talked about and less-relevant private-property answer (what would a person permit on their own property / forum) as well as the personal answer. In a presidential race, you're going to hear Paul talk about the most applicable to the position he is running for-- the Constitutional answer.
Take Cannabis legalization as an example how the answer could vary but still maintain maximum individual choice and protection of property for all:
Constitutionally: The federal government has no business regulating what we can and can't put into our bodies. As dictated by Article I, nowhere does it state that Congress can make a substance illegal or create an agency do that job for Congress.
Philosophically: The state shall not infringe on a person's right to put what they want into their own bodies so long as they cause no physical harm to anyone else in the process.
Private Property: No smoking weed at my house when you come to visit-- I don't want you driving away stoned and potentially causing an accident. My house, my rules.
Personally: * rips bong *
Some people might apply the Philosophical answer right down to a private property and personal level. Imagine if this board contained NO censorship? The worst of the worst posts on here could be seen as a direct endorsement by Pearl Jam-- or not...
I see how some people think that a libertarian-style system implemented at all levels would seem dangerous, callous, an impossibility or just a bad idea. I personally do not. It is the least violent system there can be, and therefore the most compassionate. It requires people to make informed choices themselves, not have other easily corruptible politicians choose for them at the behest of special interests. To some, it seems like it gives up protections-- I think that it may, but only to the extent that it also gives up protection-ISM, which is the best guarantee for the worst products, services, and policies to be rammed down EVERYONE'S throats.
explain how the libertarian philosophy is a) the least violent and b) the most compassionate
Violence is only permissible in self-defense of life and property. There would be no drug war. Prisons would only need to be occupied by people who have used violence themselves by depriving others of their life and property. There would be no offensive wars against "threats" or other philosophies / systems of governance like communism, etc... A libertarian president and congress would NOT have sent our troops overseas for even one quarter of the conflicts that the US has been involved in in the past 100 years. There would be no need to tax directly or through inflation to pay for these horrible wars and policies, also allowing for people to provide for themselves, and keep more of what they would have earned. There would be more opportunities for business, in general. With people being able to take greater care of themselves, there would be less need for social safety nets provided by government and locally provided, the gap to be provided by private charity would be smaller. No one would be deprived of their rights of association, or to basically do as they please so long as no one else is being harmed.
Violence is only permissible in self-defense of life and property. There would be no drug war. Prisons would only need to be occupied by people who have used violence themselves by depriving others of their life and property. There would be no offensive wars against "threats" or other philosophies / systems of governance like communism, etc... A libertarian president and congress would NOT have sent our troops overseas for even one quarter of the conflicts that the US has been involved in in the past 100 years. There would be no need to tax directly or through inflation to pay for these horrible wars and policies, also allowing for people to provide for themselves, and keep more of what they would have earned. There would be more opportunities for business, in general. With people being able to take greater care of themselves, there would be less need for social safety nets provided by government and locally provided, the gap to be provided by private charity would be smaller. No one would be deprived of their rights of association, or to basically do as they please so long as no one else is being harmed.
in reference to foreign policy ... any socialist model would be the same ... so, i'll give you that but only so much as that there are other models that accomplish the same things ...
as for allowing people to provide for themselves ... this is where we have and always will disagree ... all evidence points that void of regulation - what you end up with is a huge prosperity gap in wealth ... that ultimately, will drive the need for charity ... the being harmed bit is where it becomes issue of semantics ... i could argue that global warming is the single biggest global issues causing death and suffering right now ... something that ron paul doesn't believe ... so, what i'm hearing is that compassion is based on a belief that the world is not suffering ... that the current suffering can be alleviated simply by allowing people and corporations more freedom ... i see no example of this in the real world vs. models of socialism achieving these very same objectives ... not libertarian models ...
Violence is only permissible in self-defense of life and property. There would be no drug war. Prisons would only need to be occupied by people who have used violence themselves by depriving others of their life and property. There would be no offensive wars against "threats" or other philosophies / systems of governance like communism, etc... A libertarian president and congress would NOT have sent our troops overseas for even one quarter of the conflicts that the US has been involved in in the past 100 years. There would be no need to tax directly or through inflation to pay for these horrible wars and policies, also allowing for people to provide for themselves, and keep more of what they would have earned. There would be more opportunities for business, in general. With people being able to take greater care of themselves, there would be less need for social safety nets provided by government and locally provided, the gap to be provided by private charity would be smaller. No one would be deprived of their rights of association, or to basically do as they please so long as no one else is being harmed.
in reference to foreign policy ... any socialist model would be the same ... so, i'll give you that but only so much as that there are other models that accomplish the same things ...
as for allowing people to provide for themselves ... this is where we have and always will disagree ... all evidence points that void of regulation - what you end up with is a huge prosperity gap in wealth ... that ultimately, will drive the need for charity ... the being harmed bit is where it becomes issue of semantics ... i could argue that global warming is the single biggest global issues causing death and suffering right now ... something that ron paul doesn't believe ... so, what i'm hearing is that compassion is based on a belief that the world is not suffering ... that the current suffering can be alleviated simply by allowing people and corporations more freedom ... i see no example of this in the real world vs. models of socialism achieving these very same objectives ... not libertarian models ...
the socialism in which you refer, is it voluntary or compulsory?
Once again, you are free to think what you want. As for baiting and trolling -
While its certainly not my intention to "bait" or "troll," I know that I do tend to personalize politics.
That can happen when a huge portion of every debate is directed at me and my family. I doubt you would be much different if you seemed to get singled out and had every candidate argue over who hates you more.
I made a lot of posts in this thread that related to Ron Paul's ideology and how I personally see it... More about how he comes off as someone who would love to go back to the industrial revolution where there were no laws to protect the people or the workers, business owners could rape the land and cheat the people with no regulations or rules.
I may have that wrong, but it certainly wasn't me baiting or trolling or going on for pages and pages about a different topic. Yes, marrige equality did eventually come up and like it does in every other arena, it's a topic that elicits some pret fierce arguments every time.
I choose to even bother here at the pearl jam site because at the very least I can get intelligent discussion. You go try that on the NASCAR forum, see what a cluster f*ck you get there.
I choose to even bother here at the pearl jam site because at the very least I can get intelligent discussion. You go try that on the NASCAR forum, see what a cluster f*ck you get there.
I don't see compassion in having to take from someone to give to someone else.
of course you don't ...
look - i know you guys are somewhat entrenched in your disdain for any gov't involvement outside of what is mandated in the constitution ... but, the reality is that these socialist countries have the highest standard of living and are voted tops in so many indexes for a reason ... and that is because the people believe in that system ... if i could use team sports - the teams that have the most success are likely to have it because every member of that team buys into the team philosophy whatever that may be ... what libertarian model do you guys have to point to that shows it works?
your idea of compassion is simply based on not being forced to do something ... in your philosophy - when people are in need - there is no mandate for compassion ... one only assumes that some will exist ... and that the necessity for such compassion is diminished under your system ... there simply is no foundation to say that is true ...
I don't see compassion in having to take from someone to give to someone else.
of course you don't ...
look - i know you guys are somewhat entrenched in your disdain for any gov't involvement outside of what is mandated in the constitution ... but, the reality is that these socialist countries have the highest standard of living and are voted tops in so many indexes for a reason ... and that is because the people believe in that system ... if i could use team sports - the teams that have the most success are likely to have it because every member of that team buys into the team philosophy whatever that may be ... what libertarian model do you guys have to point to that shows it works?
your idea of compassion is simply based on not being forced to do something ... in your philosophy - when people are in need - there is no mandate for compassion ... one only assumes that some will exist ... and that the necessity for such compassion is diminished under your system ... there simply is no foundation to say that is true ...
Your ideal system sounds like compassion only exists WITH a mandate. How can that be? I don't really think you believe that, but that's how I'm reading it. I think the good thing here is that we both believe that there is a lot of good within humanity. I just want to get rid of the system that can attempt to provide for the common good, but ultimately creates a class of people granted with monopolistic use of force, in which the less well-intentioned people will most likely co-opt to use to their own ends.
But I'm not going to completely shit on socialism-- I'm just shooting for my ideal. I don't see socialism on a national scale succeeding here in the US. The "team" as you put it, is too big. The team has too many coaches, too many different players playing different positions, and probably even different sports . I can see socialism working a lot better in Scandinavia-- that's a pretty small uniform group of people. I'd say even constitutionally speaking here in America, socialism is accepted by all of the states in many areas already. How are prices determined in a socialist system? How can it be that in a system devoid of competition that prices can be affordable for all? What is the debt to GDP ratios in socialist countries?
America's grand experiment in freedom was over before it started in many ways, when it didn't grant equal rights to ALL of the people from the onset. By the time we get there, we'll be even deeper in an already steep Corporatocracy.
that mandate is simply that society believes in compassion ... the foundation and building blocks are designed to ensure that there is a social infrastructure of support ... devoid of that - you are relying on others with no process of support ... again - if you can point me to any libertarian model out there that works ... i'll be happy to look into it ...
having said that - i actually agree with you that socialism isn't going to work in the US ... the primary reason being that the US is more a "me" culture vs. "we" ...
as for the the socialists countries economic performance - the S&P have them all at AAA ratings (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, etc) ...
that mandate is simply that society believes in compassion ... the foundation and building blocks are designed to ensure that there is a social infrastructure of support ... devoid of that - you are relying on others with no process of support ... again - if you can point me to any libertarian model out there that works ... i'll be happy to look into it ...
having said that - i actually agree with you that socialism isn't going to work in the US ... the primary reason being that the US is more a "me" culture vs. "we" ...
as for the the socialists countries economic performance - the S&P have them all at AAA ratings (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, etc) ...
The same S&P that just downgraded the US to at AA rating when our rating should be an F+?
While its certainly not my intention to "bait" or "troll," I know that I do tend to personalize politics.'
I don't care if you personalize your politics. I believe everyone does (including me), so that doesn't matter, nor was it my point. What I do care about is how some here sway topics of discussion. I've seen it many times. It's not just you. I've said it before... you and them (or even me, if I've done it) can continue to do it. But, I think it's good to be called out on it. I've seen it on threads about the economy somehow swaying into threads on global warming or even gay rights. That sort of thing. For you, it's typically something along the lines of "I'm gay, I work in porn and..." then some sort of victimization. And that's all well and good,... but, why not do it in a thread that's about that topic? Instead of this one.
That can happen when a huge portion of every debate is directed at me and my family. I doubt you would be much different if you seemed to get singled out and had every candidate argue over who hates you more.
This is what I meant by victimization. Everyone is not after you. And you're certainly not being singled out. In my opinion, you should quit the "woe is me" nonsense. Everyone is victimized in one way or another.
To give you an example, while and after obtaining my PhD in economics, I was discriminated against a multitude of times. Here's how: in order to get into the program, minority students are given preference as are women. White men are not given that slight advantage. Ok. That may seem fair. But, that's one time. It gets extended. So, here's the kicker - there's more minorities (particularly, Asians in math subjects like economics) wanting to obtain higher level degrees in mathmatical subjects like econ than other fields of social science. But, many schools count the number of minorities/females by higher level (social sciences rather than direct fields like econ, poly sci, etc). In other words, the school needs a certain amount of minorities, and almost all of them were in math-related programs (like econ). I was one of five white men who started in my program. So, white men are not only biased against in the original application process, but also bias against in my field because it's heavily math oriented (which favors certain nationalities who tend to do better in that subject matter). If you got a degree in poly sci it was relatively equal men/female and there were much less minorities. Anyway, I was the "victim" of bias again when applying for grants based on the color of my skin and my sex. One of the white males I went to school with dropped out (in my opinion) because he didn't get a grant and spent too much time outside of the program (working), in order to properly compete. Two white men completed the program, 5 white women and 10 minority students. Finally, if I finish, which I did, I apply for a job and get biased on again based on the color of my skin and my sex by the company/school/gov't that is hiring me.
To this above... I respond - "waaah" to myself. It sucks. But, guess what,... it's life. And my overarching point for bringing this up is that I don't go into every single thread and talk about it. You may receive unfair treatment, but... my advice,,... don't bitch about it all the time. Here or there, fine... but, all the time?
I made a lot of posts in this thread that related to Ron Paul's ideology and how I personally see it... More about how he comes off as someone who would love to go back to the industrial revolution where there were no laws to protect the people or the workers, business owners could rape the land and cheat the people with no regulations or rules.
This wasn't a thread on Ron Paul's ideology. That's the point. Look at the title. Look at my first post. It was on polls. I get and understand you don't like him. That's fine. Start a thread on it or comment on the hundred discussion his positions. And feel free to mention for the billionth time that you are gay and you do porn. Like I said from the get-go, for me - personally, I don't care. I think you should look at that and say that's real equal rights. I think the gov't should get the f out of marriage entirely. Unless, they can properly explain why they are there to begin with.
I may have that wrong, but it certainly wasn't me baiting or trolling or going on for pages and pages about a different topic. Yes, marrige equality did eventually come up and like it does in every other arena, it's a topic that elicits some pret fierce arguments every time.
Let's correct this one too. You were going on and on for pages about a topic unrelated to the original one in the thread, which was on Ron Paul's polling in South Carolina.
I choose to even bother here at the pearl jam site because at the very least I can get intelligent discussion. You go try that on the NASCAR forum, see what a cluster f*ck you get there.
I don't care if you post here or NASCAR. I honestly think half the problem with the polarization in the US politics is what you typed right there. Those people at the NASCAR forum "may" have a prejudice against people like you... and guess what, you have evident prejudice against them. Who's better? I say... once again... I don't care. Make a thread about it. Discuss it. I will skip that one.
I didn't need an example of bait/troll. I have seen many of them. I'm tired of seeing threads on subjects that deserve attention derailed by single-issue people with an agenda to plant their one-issue seed in every debate, relevant or completely not relevant.
But, once again, I'm not stopping you. Keep on doing what you're doing if it makes you feel good. I'll keep saying to myself, "not another post by this dude on the same f'ing subject victimizing himself".
Yeh, I cut off the "porn" aspect before it was brought up (I think). Because, after reading about 100 or so posts by POD on his porn background, I knew it was coming. It's predictable.
The gay thing, that took care of itself about 50 posts back and has continued til' ummmm now.
new national poll out today has Ron Paul tied with Obama in a head to head.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Comments
yeah and ron paul is just a doctor ... what the cuss!?? ...
I'm not sure what you want a thread about Ron Paul to look like. You're sick of POD changing the subjects to gay rights, but then that's what you respond to in the thread. There's been several other points and questions in the thread that you didn't respond to. Someone quotes Chomsky and you discredit it by saying he's just a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nearly all of Ron Paul's policies exist in the philosophical world and not in the pragmatic world. Why not recognize what a philosopher has to say about it? It seems like you just want to guide this into a 'Keynesian economics sucks' thread.
but you jsut said you'd go with RP. Are you sure youre not a Romney fan....with the flip flop and all?
just kidding, ive been a bit occupied with floppers lately
haha, Well, I meant that if I HAD to chose from the republicans, RP is the only one who I could remotely consider. the others, not so much.
In a general election, I doubt I could make up my mind, unless Bob Ross was alive and on the ticket.
haha, Well, I meant that if I HAD to chose from the republicans, RP is the only one who I could remotely consider. the others, not so much.
In a general election, I doubt I could make up my mind, unless Bob Ross was alive and on the ticket.
happy little trees
Ugh... here we go.
This thread began (by me) discussing RP in SC. Basically, showing his polls. There's been a multitude of RP threads on his stances. POD's posts would have been more appropriate there, or in his own thread on the subject matter he wanted to discuss... which is very similar in most of his posts.
As for what I've responded to, I don't sit by the edge of my seat and respond every day... nor every so often. I take a look when I can. So, to elaborate, I wouldn't respond all the time even if I wanted to. So, what I've responded to here, makes little difference.
As for the Chomsky post, that poster was doing something similar to what POD was doing. Clearly, both dislike RP and want to discuss his negatives. In my personally opinion (which I'm sure you disagree with, because that's how you operate), the problem is they were not really on message with the thread. So, in this particular case, I thought it was appropriate to be consistent and recommend that this other poster posts a thread on that subject. I also stated my opinion on Chomsky, since apparently he thinks his word is gospel.
Finally, to conclude... this wasn't intended to be a thread on RP's policies, it was intended to be a thread on RP's polls in SC (as the title suggests). There are plenty of threads on RP's issues. I simply think either of these posters could have posted there. I've said all along... anyone can do what they want. They can do what they are doing here. I just don't have to like it and I can recommend they do it elsewhere.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3
I was sorry to see Huntsman leave, but it was expected. I believe his supporters will generally follow his endorsement of Mitt, with Ron Paul getting the rest. The news of Huntsman leaving the campaign is not good for the social conservative (Gingrich, Perry, Santorum), despite Newts comments.
Interesting, Ron Paul doesn't get any support from former Huntsman supporters. Goes to Mitt or goes away (i.e. no 2nd choice).
It does to the guy that only gets 25% to begin with!!!!
Libertarians believe in voluntary association, private property, and are against the use of force except in self-defense of life or property. Government action through enforcement of law or taxation is force. Libertarians that believe in having law believe in it to the minimal extent possible, and that those laws are to protect life and property, but believe in strict adherence to those laws, as well as keeping them easily understandable. Fraud, theft, extortion, coercion, vandalism, and assault are not permissible in a free society governed by laws or otherwise.
When you ask a guy like Ron Paul about any issue, you can receive several different answers that can even seem contrary to each other, but they all apply to this mode of thought, it just depends on context and what position the answer is being given from. There's a philosophical answer, which is usually given independent of any existing infrastructure of law. Then there's the Constitutional answer-- many libertarians believe that the Constitution, being the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, although imperfect, at least gives clearly-defined powers to the federal government, and reserves other powers for states and is therefore somewhat "libertarian" in nature. It was meant to limit federal power and allow people to govern themselves more locally at state levels where things are managed easier and more apt to change if need be. The Constitutional answer uses an existing framework that is law, the supreme law, and having respect for that law to be carried out, which more often that not pushes responsibilities of governance to the states and relies on the courts to determine constitutionality of federal laws. It is a means to an end of achieving a freer society, but again is not perfect, but at least it is already a decent guideline OFFICIALLY already in place. There's also the less-talked about and less-relevant private-property answer (what would a person permit on their own property / forum) as well as the personal answer. In a presidential race, you're going to hear Paul talk about the most applicable to the position he is running for-- the Constitutional answer.
Take Cannabis legalization as an example how the answer could vary but still maintain maximum individual choice and protection of property for all:
Constitutionally: The federal government has no business regulating what we can and can't put into our bodies. As dictated by Article I, nowhere does it state that Congress can make a substance illegal or create an agency do that job for Congress.
Philosophically: The state shall not infringe on a person's right to put what they want into their own bodies so long as they cause no physical harm to anyone else in the process.
Private Property: No smoking weed at my house when you come to visit-- I don't want you driving away stoned and potentially causing an accident. My house, my rules.
Personally: * rips bong *
Some people might apply the Philosophical answer right down to a private property and personal level. Imagine if this board contained NO censorship? The worst of the worst posts on here could be seen as a direct endorsement by Pearl Jam-- or not...
I see how some people think that a libertarian-style system implemented at all levels would seem dangerous, callous, an impossibility or just a bad idea. I personally do not. It is the least violent system there can be, and therefore the most compassionate. It requires people to make informed choices themselves, not have other easily corruptible politicians choose for them at the behest of special interests. To some, it seems like it gives up protections-- I think that it may, but only to the extent that it also gives up protection-ISM, which is the best guarantee for the worst products, services, and policies to be rammed down EVERYONE'S throats.
:shock:
now - you're just getting carried away ...
Why?
explain how the libertarian philosophy is a) the least violent and b) the most compassionate
Violence is only permissible in self-defense of life and property. There would be no drug war. Prisons would only need to be occupied by people who have used violence themselves by depriving others of their life and property. There would be no offensive wars against "threats" or other philosophies / systems of governance like communism, etc... A libertarian president and congress would NOT have sent our troops overseas for even one quarter of the conflicts that the US has been involved in in the past 100 years. There would be no need to tax directly or through inflation to pay for these horrible wars and policies, also allowing for people to provide for themselves, and keep more of what they would have earned. There would be more opportunities for business, in general. With people being able to take greater care of themselves, there would be less need for social safety nets provided by government and locally provided, the gap to be provided by private charity would be smaller. No one would be deprived of their rights of association, or to basically do as they please so long as no one else is being harmed.
in reference to foreign policy ... any socialist model would be the same ... so, i'll give you that but only so much as that there are other models that accomplish the same things ...
as for allowing people to provide for themselves ... this is where we have and always will disagree ... all evidence points that void of regulation - what you end up with is a huge prosperity gap in wealth ... that ultimately, will drive the need for charity ... the being harmed bit is where it becomes issue of semantics ... i could argue that global warming is the single biggest global issues causing death and suffering right now ... something that ron paul doesn't believe ... so, what i'm hearing is that compassion is based on a belief that the world is not suffering ... that the current suffering can be alleviated simply by allowing people and corporations more freedom ... i see no example of this in the real world vs. models of socialism achieving these very same objectives ... not libertarian models ...
the socialism in which you refer, is it voluntary or compulsory?
While its certainly not my intention to "bait" or "troll," I know that I do tend to personalize politics.
That can happen when a huge portion of every debate is directed at me and my family. I doubt you would be much different if you seemed to get singled out and had every candidate argue over who hates you more.
I made a lot of posts in this thread that related to Ron Paul's ideology and how I personally see it... More about how he comes off as someone who would love to go back to the industrial revolution where there were no laws to protect the people or the workers, business owners could rape the land and cheat the people with no regulations or rules.
I may have that wrong, but it certainly wasn't me baiting or trolling or going on for pages and pages about a different topic. Yes, marrige equality did eventually come up and like it does in every other arena, it's a topic that elicits some pret fierce arguments every time.
I choose to even bother here at the pearl jam site because at the very least I can get intelligent discussion. You go try that on the NASCAR forum, see what a cluster f*ck you get there.
If you really want a bait/troll example here, maybe try that other rant/diatribe like this one.
it's both ... it's compulsory but the people believe in it so in a way its voluntary ...
I don't see compassion in having to take from someone to give to someone else.
of course you don't ...
look - i know you guys are somewhat entrenched in your disdain for any gov't involvement outside of what is mandated in the constitution ... but, the reality is that these socialist countries have the highest standard of living and are voted tops in so many indexes for a reason ... and that is because the people believe in that system ... if i could use team sports - the teams that have the most success are likely to have it because every member of that team buys into the team philosophy whatever that may be ... what libertarian model do you guys have to point to that shows it works?
your idea of compassion is simply based on not being forced to do something ... in your philosophy - when people are in need - there is no mandate for compassion ... one only assumes that some will exist ... and that the necessity for such compassion is diminished under your system ... there simply is no foundation to say that is true ...
Your ideal system sounds like compassion only exists WITH a mandate. How can that be? I don't really think you believe that, but that's how I'm reading it. I think the good thing here is that we both believe that there is a lot of good within humanity. I just want to get rid of the system that can attempt to provide for the common good, but ultimately creates a class of people granted with monopolistic use of force, in which the less well-intentioned people will most likely co-opt to use to their own ends.
But I'm not going to completely shit on socialism-- I'm just shooting for my ideal. I don't see socialism on a national scale succeeding here in the US. The "team" as you put it, is too big. The team has too many coaches, too many different players playing different positions, and probably even different sports
America's grand experiment in freedom was over before it started in many ways, when it didn't grant equal rights to ALL of the people from the onset. By the time we get there, we'll be even deeper in an already steep Corporatocracy.
having said that - i actually agree with you that socialism isn't going to work in the US ... the primary reason being that the US is more a "me" culture vs. "we" ...
as for the the socialists countries economic performance - the S&P have them all at AAA ratings (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, etc) ...
The same S&P that just downgraded the US to at AA rating when our rating should be an F+?
I don't care if you personalize your politics. I believe everyone does (including me), so that doesn't matter, nor was it my point. What I do care about is how some here sway topics of discussion. I've seen it many times. It's not just you. I've said it before... you and them (or even me, if I've done it) can continue to do it. But, I think it's good to be called out on it. I've seen it on threads about the economy somehow swaying into threads on global warming or even gay rights. That sort of thing. For you, it's typically something along the lines of "I'm gay, I work in porn and..." then some sort of victimization. And that's all well and good,... but, why not do it in a thread that's about that topic? Instead of this one.
This is what I meant by victimization. Everyone is not after you. And you're certainly not being singled out. In my opinion, you should quit the "woe is me" nonsense. Everyone is victimized in one way or another.
To give you an example, while and after obtaining my PhD in economics, I was discriminated against a multitude of times. Here's how: in order to get into the program, minority students are given preference as are women. White men are not given that slight advantage. Ok. That may seem fair. But, that's one time. It gets extended. So, here's the kicker - there's more minorities (particularly, Asians in math subjects like economics) wanting to obtain higher level degrees in mathmatical subjects like econ than other fields of social science. But, many schools count the number of minorities/females by higher level (social sciences rather than direct fields like econ, poly sci, etc). In other words, the school needs a certain amount of minorities, and almost all of them were in math-related programs (like econ). I was one of five white men who started in my program. So, white men are not only biased against in the original application process, but also bias against in my field because it's heavily math oriented (which favors certain nationalities who tend to do better in that subject matter). If you got a degree in poly sci it was relatively equal men/female and there were much less minorities. Anyway, I was the "victim" of bias again when applying for grants based on the color of my skin and my sex. One of the white males I went to school with dropped out (in my opinion) because he didn't get a grant and spent too much time outside of the program (working), in order to properly compete. Two white men completed the program, 5 white women and 10 minority students. Finally, if I finish, which I did, I apply for a job and get biased on again based on the color of my skin and my sex by the company/school/gov't that is hiring me.
To this above... I respond - "waaah" to myself. It sucks. But, guess what,... it's life. And my overarching point for bringing this up is that I don't go into every single thread and talk about it. You may receive unfair treatment, but... my advice,,... don't bitch about it all the time. Here or there, fine... but, all the time?
This wasn't a thread on Ron Paul's ideology. That's the point. Look at the title. Look at my first post. It was on polls. I get and understand you don't like him. That's fine. Start a thread on it or comment on the hundred discussion his positions. And feel free to mention for the billionth time that you are gay and you do porn. Like I said from the get-go, for me - personally, I don't care. I think you should look at that and say that's real equal rights. I think the gov't should get the f out of marriage entirely. Unless, they can properly explain why they are there to begin with.
Let's correct this one too. You were going on and on for pages about a topic unrelated to the original one in the thread, which was on Ron Paul's polling in South Carolina.
I don't care if you post here or NASCAR. I honestly think half the problem with the polarization in the US politics is what you typed right there. Those people at the NASCAR forum "may" have a prejudice against people like you... and guess what, you have evident prejudice against them. Who's better? I say... once again... I don't care. Make a thread about it. Discuss it. I will skip that one.
I didn't need an example of bait/troll. I have seen many of them. I'm tired of seeing threads on subjects that deserve attention derailed by single-issue people with an agenda to plant their one-issue seed in every debate, relevant or completely not relevant.
But, once again, I'm not stopping you. Keep on doing what you're doing if it makes you feel good. I'll keep saying to myself, "not another post by this dude on the same f'ing subject victimizing himself".
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Oh great, now you've made it a gay porn thread!
Yeh, I cut off the "porn" aspect before it was brought up (I think). Because, after reading about 100 or so posts by POD on his porn background, I knew it was coming. It's predictable.
The gay thing, that took care of itself about 50 posts back and has continued til' ummmm now.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="