Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?

Poll

Well, am I??!

Yes!  I don't give a shit either....
- 6 (16.2%)
No!  Ron Paul's the shit and his campaign will only help but spread liberty!
- 22 (59.5%)
Other
- 9 (24.3%)

Total Members Voted: 13


Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?  (Read 4180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lapafrax

  • Guest

Yep, that's right. I don't care about his candidacy for the Republican nomination.

Why?  Because party politics isn't the right means of spreading liberty.

For one it's hypocritical.  Why oppose the state, then use it to achieve your ends?  Also, libertarians have been involved in party politics for decades and the state has CONTINUED to grow!! It's a futile end, really.
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2007, 04:07:46 AM »



Um,


You got


Yes and No


backwards...
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2007, 04:35:31 AM »

Baby steps. 

State exists, contrary to some of the elitist anarchistic opinion refuting its existance.  It must be dealt with.  You can't deal with it by putting your fingers in your ears and saying "LaLaLaLa" really loud.

Paul would be a good choice, at least at this moment in time, he's superior to everyone else I've seen trying to get involved. 

And, one short thought...  Politically, popularity rules the day when it comes to the way other opponents craft their positions.  If people rally around Paul's issues, it will pave the road for the next generation of presidential nominees, even if he doesnt win.  Its like a legacy, if he gets a good turn-out, those issues will be extremely profitable for the future presidential hopefuls. 



Logged

Andy

  • Verbose.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
  • Ask me later.
    • View Profile
    • My Blawg
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2007, 06:15:26 AM »

Your just jealous, don't worry so am I.

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2007, 06:42:14 AM »

Ron Paul is not spreading liberty through "party politics" or being hypocritical.  He's spreading liberty using his principles and through absence of state intervention.  That is why he votes no on most legislation and would work to get a good deal of legislation that has already been passed repealed.  This is pretty much the only way you're going to get anything done without violence as far as I can see.  I'm not saying he's perfect, nobody is.  His stance on immigration is worrisome, but he's still better then all of the other candidates out there in the major parties.
Logged

lapafrax

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2007, 08:22:29 AM »

Baby steps. 

State exists, contrary to some of the elitist anarchistic opinion refuting its existance.  It must be dealt with.  You can't deal with it by putting your fingers in your ears and saying "LaLaLaLa" really loud.

Paul would be a good choice, at least at this moment in time, he's superior to everyone else I've seen trying to get involved. 

And, one short thought...  Politically, popularity rules the day when it comes to the way other opponents craft their positions.  If people rally around Paul's issues, it will pave the road for the next generation of presidential nominees, even if he doesnt win.  Its like a legacy, if he gets a good turn-out, those issues will be extremely profitable for the future presidential hopefuls. 





I'm against using the state to lessen its size and scope.  All attempts to do this have failed miserably!!
Logged

lapafrax

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2007, 08:24:11 AM »

Ron Paul is not spreading liberty through "party politics" or being hypocritical.  He's spreading liberty using his principles and through absence of state intervention.  That is why he votes no on most legislation and would work to get a good deal of legislation that has already been passed repealed.  This is pretty much the only way you're going to get anything done without violence as far as I can see.  I'm not saying he's perfect, nobody is.  His stance on immigration is worrisome, but he's still better then all of the other candidates out there in the major parties.

How has voting "no" on Congress Bills advanced liberty?  Have more people become libertarian as a result?

And it IS hypocritical.  I mean, you disapprove of the state, right?  So why use the state to achieve your own ends?
Logged

jckeyser

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2007, 09:48:28 AM »

Yep, that's right. I don't care about his candidacy for the Republican nomination.

Why?  Because party politics isn't the right means of spreading liberty.

For one it's hypocritical.  Why oppose the state, then use it to achieve your ends?  Also, libertarians have been involved in party politics for decades and the state has CONTINUED to grow!! It's a futile end, really.

Your point, while made in a somewhat confusing manner, is one that some libertarians have already made. I myself have issues with Ron Paul, but its not really a futile end when you consider that the man has a track record in politics that puts every other politician to shame. At this point, and I fight myself in saying this, if Paul gains the party nomination, to not vote for him would be doing liberty a fairly large disservice by not voting for him. We all know he votes down big government, and that he'll continue to do so no matter what office he holds.
Now as far as his willingness to use the guns of the state to keep immigrants out...
Logged

Taors

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2007, 05:45:42 PM »

At least it's better than some hillbilly getting arrested in NH for not having a driver's license on him while he's driving. The average person looks at that and thinks "craaazzzzzyyyy", while the same person might look at the Ron Paul candidacy and think "he makes a lot of sense, I don't think I can disagree with his position logically". The point is to get Ron Paul in the mainstream. I don't think the FSP or NH Free will ever be in the mainstream.
Logged

Elitist Bitch

  • The 12th Cylon
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2242
  • So say we all.
    • View Profile
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2007, 06:00:04 PM »

So, how about you sit here and whine about how we shouldn't be supporting partisan politics and we'll support Ron Paul despite the fact that he isn't a perfect candidate and try to get him elected and we'll see who gets results first.

We could even take bets on it.

At least Ron Paul and his supporters are trying to get the real issues out to the American public.
Logged
Sometimes, you have to roll a hard six.

wtfk

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2007, 06:16:17 PM »

So, how about you sit here and whine about how we shouldn't be supporting partisan politics and we'll support Ron Paul despite the fact that he isn't a perfect candidate and try to get him elected and we'll see who gets results first.

We could even take bets on it.

At least Ron Paul and his supporters are trying to get the real issues out to the American public.

+1
Logged

Zhwazi

  • Recovering Ex-Anarchocapitalist
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3102
    • View Profile
    • Ana.rchist.net
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2007, 06:17:49 PM »

I care in that I would prefer that Ron Paul win to anybody else. But counting on events like Ron Paul or similar candidates (of which very few exist for any office) to get elected is a feeble long-term strategy for liberty. All it'll do is hold us in a state of legislative suspended animation until 4 or 8 years later when he's done, at which point it resumes, and that's being optimistic about how much effect a libertarian president will have without a libertarian congress to go with.

But other than him being less evil than anybody else, his campaign is no more exciting than anybody else's.
Logged

voodoo

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3748
    • View Profile
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2007, 10:03:43 PM »

A while ago a small boat left New Orleans with a few folks on board - disaffected folks who cared only for themselves.  As they headed north up the Mississippi, they paddled hard and made some headway up the river.  Going was slow, but there was plenty of fish in the river and they could use the strong cypress along the banks to build better paddles and creature comforts on the boat.

After a few years and some tragic setbacks, people began to notice the distance this vessel had traveled and the wealth of the river she plied.  Unhappy in their own lives, some of these people took a chance and joined her crew in search of wealth for themselves.  All enterprising, some brought their families and some brought other people against their will.  There was a lot of disagreement about the morality of using slaves to propel the boat, but the pressing needs of fighting the river's current and expanding the size of the boat to accommodate the accessions to the crew took priority.

Not only were the crew of the boat enterprising, but they also contained some brilliant engineers in their midst.  The forged the resources of the river into machines.  These machines multiplied the crew's ability to use the resources along the river and eased the burdens of every man, woman, and child on the boat.  The machines propelled the boat, made clothes for the crew and their families, and began to harvest the resources along the banks of the river.  Now a full-blown riverboat, the ship accelerated under the power of the steam engine in her bowels.

With less time working on the boat and more time relaxing on the deck chairs, the crew had ample opportunity to discuss the different roles they played.  With the machines performing the real back-breaking labor, the machinists decried the continued use of slave labor.  The stewards, on the other hand, opined that they were the only ones on board who still performed manual labor, and thought it a fine thing that the machinists, who did no labor, would complain about their use of slaves.

At once, the stewards proposed to remove the lashings, split the boat, and go their way alone.  The machinists, fearing starvation and secretly knowing their survival depended on the cooperation of the stewards protested.  They decried the stewards as mutineers and, after a bloody struggle, quelled the rebellion.  As an afterthought, the machinists freed the slaves from bondage to the stewards.

The lives and property destroyed in quashing the rebellion was justified by releasing the slaves.  This was more palatable than admitting that, by doing so, the machinists had cemented the idea that there were no passengers on this ship, only crew.

Following the rebellion, the river boat made more headway in terms of distance and opulence than any boat had ever seen.  Everyone aboard, from the Captain to the youngest cabin boy, had his own head and a chair on the deck.  Yet, as the luxury grew, the differences in grades of luxury became apparent.  The most industrious crew members enjoyed the largest staterooms and gilded deck chairs; younger and less industrious crew could only afford modest staterooms and austere deck chairs.

Then, disaster struck.  Two of the wealthier machinists had convinced the Captain to give them unfettered access to the ship's stores, doling them out to favored crew members on lucrative contracts.  These men convinced the crew that they could borrow against the future of the ship on easy credit.  They were so successful, that the crew had borrowed 25 times more stores than the ship could hold.  The scheme unraveled when a few crew members became suspicious and demanded their "paper profits".

For the first time since it embarked, the ship moved backwards.  It began to drift with the current to the last place the crew had found timber to stoke its fires.  Unable to bear the thought of losing steam, however, the Captain ordered the furnishings broken up and tossed into the furnace to stoke the boiler.  It was not enough.

Then, word came from friendly vessels that unfriendly vessels were on the attack.  Listing along as it was, the river boat did not wish to intercede, but resigned itself to helping its allies as it could.  When, despite their help, the allied vessels became decimated, the riverboat committed its remaining resources to destroying the enemy ships.  It succeeded and, as the last ship left afloat, reaped the rewards of providing the necessary materials to rebuild the other ships.

The flood of wealth on the books of the river boat was astounding.  The crew resolved to divide the wealth equally.  Yet, each time a survey was taken, the industrious and the previously wealthy became more wealthy while the poorest members barely held to the status quo.  A boat-wide debate roiled; how could all crew members increase their wealth simultaneously?

Before long, the officers were convinced that forward progress of the boat was not as important as equality of luxury aboard.  The steam engines produced power for the boat with no seeming effort, so why not remove a few of the paddles and gift them to the least industrious on board.  In this manner, it was reasoned, the forward progress of the boat would continue and a few of the more rickety deck chairs could be replaced.

The boat slowed, and tens of deck chairs that were slated for the burn bin were replaced with a few sturdy, utility chairs.  Still, the disparity between the wealthy and the poorest crew continued apace.  All was not lost, however, for the officers discovered that they could win the favor of the people, divert the structure of the boat to their own means, point the few deck chairs that had been built, and call for further dismantling of the boat.

And, so it continued.  The crew turned its attention to building chairs for the deck using the paddles of the boat.  When they ran out of paddles, they borrowed the paddles of other boats reasoning that the debt would be repaid once everyone had a deck chair to sit on.  The officers, secure in the moral high ground of providing deck chairs for everyone, rationalized more and more abuses of office in the name of providing deck chairs; after all, if that wasn't the purpose of office, why did the crew members keep electing them?

The navigator, a diligent man, noted that the river boat had crawled to a stop.  The ship, he warned, would begin its second slide down the river in 200 years.  A few petty officers agreed with his assessment and were quickly drummed out of the corps.  The mission had changed (for the officers, at least) from moving up the river to providing deck chairs for all who wanted.

As warned, the boat churned the water yet began a slide to the south.  As the boat picked up speed with the river, the officers pooled their intellectual resources and made the hard decisions that countless leaders had made before.  To truly measure the progress of the boat, they would need to change the measurements until they showed progress.  After all, the boat's only heading south a little slower than the current.

Which brings us to today.  The deck chairs are falling apart, the boat's headed south, the railings have long since fallen into the muddy Mississip.  There are no more paddles to put on the wheels and the wood, coal, and oil is flowing towards other boats.  The southern slide is apparent at every gas station and grocery store.  The curbs are being thrown in all around us.  But, it's too late.  Without the providence of WWIII, there is nothing to stop her from grounding.

The question I have is, who do you want at the wheel when it happens?  Whoever it is will be blamed for the entire debacle.
Logged
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."  ~ Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222

Andy

  • Verbose.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
  • Ask me later.
    • View Profile
    • My Blawg
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2007, 12:13:36 PM »

It doesn't matter if you're right and we're blamed for it, everyone already thinks capitalism caused the great depression. If we have a chance to avoid disaster I'd say its worth  the risk of damaging its reputation a little further.

PorkTheOneYouLove

  • Guest
Re: Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2007, 12:18:00 PM »

It would be a regression in the size in government. One thing he can do is pull the troops from Iraq and veto the recurring funds for military operation. The left won't be able to get any new bills passed. The right won't get their war. Ron can't make good on his immigration stance being that the congress will be controlled by the left. So you would be voting for a lock, but with a reduction in military spending.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Am I the only person who doesn't care about Ron Paul's candidacy?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 36 queries.