US Presidential Elections 2008

[Epicurus]

So who will you vote for if you would have the chance, and maybe you could tell why?

The poll became kind of a propaganda for Paul but for me its justified, just to name one justification: he has actually read the constitution. *::) Thats enough reason but more importantly he will follow it. Now that sounds naive but just to picture you the neo-con working camps, where they force people to build tanks. And ofcourse the income tax rate would be 95%, so the US would be able to spread its empire. Not to mention living in 1984, the book that is.

The rest of the republicans are just neo-cons or as stupid as the democrats ( Avarage democrat voter tells you what she wants, shes to the left: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )wich will lead to excactly the same politics.

Rudy is a hero, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I didn't bother to post any videos with Paul debating or such because if your an american you should have already noticed them and his ideas, and there are to many good ones.

[ShaiGar]

I am an australian, Your thread makes the assumption that everyone in here is an American.

In Australian Politics I vote Labour every time. They've done more for the country and they actually represent the most amount of people.

Liberal represents platocrats and big business
Labour represents unions, working families, students
Greens represents idiot hippies
Nationals represent the Liberal Party under pretense of serving the farmers/graziers
Family First represents the seventh day adventist church
Democrats represent people who want to donkey vote.

November 27th I'm voting Labour, Next election term i'll be voting for me. I'd have run in this election but I want everything prepared, and a full term to start my campaign.

[Epicurus]

I am an australian, Your thread makes the assumption that everyone in here is an American.

In Australian Politics I vote Labour every time. They've done more for the country and they actually represent the most amount of people.

Liberal represents platocrats and big business
Labour represents unions, working families, students
Greens represents idiot hippies
Nationals represent the Liberal Party under pretense of serving the farmers/graziers
Family First represents the seventh day adventist church
Democrats represent people who want to donkey vote.

November 27th I'm voting Labour, Next election term i'll be voting for me. I'd have run in this election but I want everything prepared, and a full term to start my campaign.It just assumes you have some sort of view on it. Strangely Im not an American myself, I just tought I would make a thread about it. Maybe a little thin topic for such a small forum tough.

Good luck with the next election, if you go out as a libertarian that is, wich isn't very likeley huh. :P

[ShaiGar]

I am an australian, Your thread makes the assumption that everyone in here is an American.

In Australian Politics I vote Labour every time. They've done more for the country and they actually represent the most amount of people.

Liberal represents platocrats and big business
Labour represents unions, working families, students
Greens represents idiot hippies
Nationals represent the Liberal Party under pretense of serving the farmers/graziers
Family First represents the seventh day adventist church
Democrats represent people who want to donkey vote.

November 27th I'm voting Labour, Next election term i'll be voting for me. I'd have run in this election but I want everything prepared, and a full term to start my campaign.It just assumes you have some sort of view on it. Strangely Im not an American myself, I just tought I would make a thread about it. Maybe a little thin topic for such a small forum tough.

Good luck with the next election, if you go out as a libertarian that is, wich isn't very likeley huh. *:P [smiley=veryangry.gif] *[smiley=knife.gif]

Libertarian? Not likely. That's my personal philosophy, but I'd run as "The Empire of Shai Gar" an imperialistic political party seeking to name me as emperor, and INTJ's INTP's as the aristocracy in a non hereditary system... or as The Australian Conservative Party.
But thanks.

[thegnat]

i've heard that Australian Conservatives are like American Liberals and Australian Liberals are like American Conservatives.

Is this true?

Are you all backwards down there? :P

btw I would probably vote democrat as I couldn't vote for any Republican after Bush. And they tend to be less skeptical of global warming and generally more environmentally friendly. Plus my other views like on abortion and stuff align more with the Democratic Party.

If I had my way I'd do away with the whole system and put only the smartest scientists governing us so that there would be research before decisions were made.

[ShaiGar]

Australian conservatives join the Liberal Party. My Australian Conservative Party is called that because if john howard calls himself liberal then I can call myself Conservative.

Yeah I believe in the democrats "let people choose for themselves" approach, I'd vote Nader, but then for Democrats.

[Kfbr]

Problem with people like Ron Paul is that the media has turned him into sort of a whack job. He isn't and I would definitely vote for him if he had a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination.

I classify myself as a "closet libertarian" because of how negatively people view the party. I'm a registered Democrat and working on keeping my appearances because I hope to run for office one day. As of the candidates that will actually make the nomination, I'm hoping for Obama. He seems like the kind of guy that can unfuck our image abroad.

[brewmaster]

Problem with people like Ron Paul is that the media has turned him into sort of a whack job. *He isn't and I would definitely vote for him if he had a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination.

I classify myself as a "closet libertarian" because of how negatively people view the party. *I'm a registered Democrat and working on keeping my appearances because I hope to run for office one day. *As of the candidates that will actually make the nomination, I'm hoping for Obama. *He seems like the kind of guy that can unfuck our image abroad.

The media certainly has done damage or completely ignored Dr. Paul, but he has non-mainstream momentum like I've never seen. Yesterday he brought in 3.8 million, which is more than any of the other candidates so far in one day. The record is held by Kerry the day he accepted the nomination which was 5.4 million.

The reality is that he is the most dangerous candidate to the status quo in Washington, so the people in power are terrified of him. Unfortunately, I predict that if he does take the nomination of the GOP or becomes elected, he will follow the fate of the Kennedys.

Even though I think Paul is the man for the job, Obama is fantastic, and I agree he could fix the image abroad, and the image of the Democrats within the U.S. Sen. Clinton is just too fake and plastic, not to mention further right than Bill, something the people at faux news fail to see.

[mind_wander]

Hey, I don't mind Hilary wins or Rudy [He is INTJ afterall]. So, how about this question? Let just say, Rudy did win the election, how many INTJ will start celebrating? I mean, hey there is some INTJ's already or formally in office. How about an INTJ president? I mean, not everyone will understand how INTJ mind works, but hey its first time for everything. Maybe, he will help make it a better place [secondary pick].

[brewmaster]

From everything Giuliani has said in the debates so far have proven to me that he is a hack. Continuing on the same fear mongering wastefullness the republican party has become. He like all his republican counterparts (besides Paul), are just as bad as bush, some just might be bush lite.

I would never celebrate the winner of an election just because they happened to be the same MBTI perosonality type as I. The benefits of being an INTJ aside, it is no guarantee that I will agree with them.

On the other hand, is he really an INTJ? If he really believes the shit he says then he's either totally deluded, or his brain is wired some bizarre way that lead him to ridiculous conclusions. Or he's lying and trying to gain the presidency for powers sake which would make him an ENTJ....... I guess.

[mind_wander]

who said, you can't lie to get gain a vote ?

[OneBadMother]

I am not sure who I would vote for, to tell the truth. I can't trust a word that comes out of a politician's mouth, so I guess I'll vote Obama in order to make some presidential history.

[brewmaster]

who said, you can't lie to get gain a vote ?

Nobody. However I have no respect for anyone who would do that. Besides, once they go down that road its going to be hard to know what they really stand for, particularly if they are of low intelligence and start believing their own BS.

[Tarrick]

I hope to vote for Thompson or Huckabee (considering that either of them seem to have a chance of winning the nomination). I CAN vote for Giuliani, but it's too liberal for my tastes.

If Ron Paul were to make it, I could vote for him. But his radical stance of isolationism puts me off: He would not have had us enter WWII.

[Santana28]

Ron Paul supporter here, 110%

The thing about Paul is - this "wait and see" attitude is precisely what is wrong with this country today. If you believe in something, then you should be willing to stand up for it. Even if you don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning - that is EXACTLY why you should vote for him in the Primary. And despite what the media has been telling you, he actually DOES have a very good chance of winning this thing. Look at his fundraising trends. Look at his active support. Look at his boot-on-the-ground Straw Poll record (hint, he's beating everyone). Look at the polling numbers of the previous nominees at this point in time in the previous election years. These are all symptoms of one thing - that his support is REAL.

For anyone who is interested in Barack Obama - here's a tidbit for you. Go to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and look at the "Top Contributors" list for all of the presidential candidates. Compare Obamas with that of Guiliani, Hillary, Edwards, McCain, the other supposed "Top Teir" candidates. This info comes off of the FEC.GOV report. Then compare it with that of Ron Paul's. You might be surprised to see who is exactly funding your particular candidate.

Now as any good INTJ would, you have to think about WHY these entities would throw their support behind certain candidates. And then you have to examine these entities role in the election itself (media, polling, foreign and domestic policy, etc).

I initially would have been comfortable with an Obama nomination. But after doing the research... there's no way in hell i would vote for him. Not to mention, the fact that his wife is a high ranking CFR member. Look up that as well. You'll be appalled, if you are anything like me.

Now is NOT the time for apathy. People are dying right now and we only have one shot at changing things.

[Santana28]

I hope to vote for Thompson or Huckabee (considering that either of them seem to have a chance of winning the nomination). I CAN vote for Giuliani, but it's too liberal for my tastes.

If Ron Paul were to make it, I could vote for him. But his radical stance of isolationism puts me off: He would not have had us enter WWII.

Ron Paul is not a "radical isolationist" - he is a non-interventionalist... theres a big difference there. Switzerland vs. North Korea is a good example.

Again - consider where you are getting your information from. Its easy to manipulate perception...

[Charlie Mc.]

So who will you vote for if you would have the chance, and maybe you could tell why?

The poll became kind of a propaganda for Paul but for me its justified, just to name one justification: he has actually read the constitution. ::) Thats enough reason but more importantly he will follow it. Now that sounds naive but just to picture you the neo-con working camps, where they force people to build tanks. And ofcourse the income tax rate would be 95%, so the US would be able to spread its empire. Not to mention living in 1984, the book that is.

The rest of the republicans are just neo-cons or as stupid as the democrats ( Avarage democrat voter tells you what she wants, shes to the left: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )wich will lead to excactly the same politics.

Rudy is a hero, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I didn't bother to post any videos with Paul debating or such because if your an american you should have already noticed them and his ideas, and there are to many good ones.

I absolutely would vote for Ron Paul. I totally believe that both parties are equally useless. Sure Ron Paul is running as a republican, but you only need to watch him in a debate to know he does not resp resent the standard party line.

BTW last week, I saw Ron Paul posters in downtown Seattle. What other republican candidate would people put posters up for in Seattle?

[Tarrick]

Ron Paul is not a "radical isolationist" - he is a non-interventionalist... theres a big difference there. Switzerland vs. North Korea is a good example.

Again - consider where you are getting your information from. Its easy to manipulate perception...


I heard him himself on Sean Hannity's radio show. And that's what he came off as. Sure we would trade with people, but we wouldn't help them if they were in trouble. It's rather disturbing to me that he would sit and let Britain or Australia or other country burn if the conflict didn't directly involve us.

[ShaiGar]

I'd be in favour of that.
Rather annoyed that Australia gets involved in every american war since World War Two. I'd accept america leaving us to our own devices if we didn't have to fight alongside them.

[Tarrick]

You sure about that? Japan wasn't going to stop with China and Korea, ShaiGar.

[rocksteady]

You sure about that? Japan wasn't going to stop with China and Korea, ShaiGar.
that's a slippery slope, hence dr. pauls reasoning for wanting to get off of it completely. Who dictates what wars we fight? since WWII, all the wars we have fought have been for less than noble intentions. We stopped the Nazi's, enough is enough, we can't police the world, and the world will be a safer place if we stop.

[Tarrick]

that's a slippery slope, hence dr. pauls reasoning for wanting to get off of it completely. Who dictates what wars we fight? since WWII, all the wars we have fought have been for less than noble intentions. We stopped the Nazi's, enough is enough, we can't police the world, and the world will be a safer place if we stop.

Mayhaps, but where do you draw the line? What if another of our close allies faced oblivion? Paul stated that we should not have entered the war, at least in to the Europe theater. I'm not going to say that every war we've been in has been justified, but to say we should cut it off completely sits ill with me.

[rocksteady]

Mayhaps, but where do you draw the line? What if another of our close allies faced oblivion? Paul stated that we should not have entered the war, at least in to the Europe theater. I'm not going to say that every war we've been in has been justified, but to say we should cut it off completely sits ill with me.

whats wrong with waiting until we are attacked? do you really have that little faith in our defense systems? I say an unjustified war is the biggest travesty of all.

[Tarrick]

whats wrong with waiting until we are attacked? do you really have that little faith in our defense systems? I say an unjustified war is the biggest travesty of all.

I'm not talking about us; I'm talking about our allies. And if you propose that we sit and wait until all of them are dead and gone, and then when them enemy come for us, then we fight....well, I'm sorry but I cannot even begin to support that.

[Aestheticbend]

I'm not talking about us; I'm talking about our allies. And if you propose that we sit and wait until all of them are dead and gone, and then when them enemy come for us, then we fight....well, I'm sorry but I cannot even begin to support that.

You are right Tarrick. Even though I am an anarchist and will not vote, Dr. Paul's foreign policy is not particularly intelligent. If you see suffering and murder becoming commonplace it only makes sense to try to stop it if you have the means. The way that intervention is currently done is reprehensible, but the concept of intervention itself is moral, as the protection of life and liberty from force should be something that Paul would like to protect. I do not feel that any individual has the duty to protect another, but it is morally permissable as an individual or as a concensual group to try to protect someone of they are being attacked. Using retaliatory forces against the perpetrators of such crimes is perfectly fine.

[rocksteady]

I'm not talking about us; I'm talking about our allies. And if you propose that we sit and wait until all of them are dead and gone, and then when them enemy come for us, then we fight....well, I'm sorry but I cannot even begin to support that.


See the whole concept of defining allies bothers me, and it bothered our forefathers as well

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

[Santana28]

Hey Tarrick, check out this article. It is actually a rebuttal to an editorial that Dr. Paul wrote himself to explain his position on Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionalism. You might find it interesting.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. the+same+foreign+policy+the+Founding+Fathers+would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700

[Sey.Naci]

Oh goodie! A Ron Paul forum! (well, sort of)

As a Canadian, I cannot vote for RP. However, I confess to having been glued for the past couple of months to another forum which is dedicated to grassroots action supporting The Man.

Have sent my American friends who live here the video "A New Hope," which was produced by a RP supporter. Wish there was something more I could do.

Canada needs a Ron Paul. Alas, our current "leaders" are either


wishy-washy, blow-in-the-wind types who haven't the backbone to act according to their own or their party's purported principles. The NDP's Jack Layton and the Liberal Party of Canads's Stephane Dion fit this profile. Or they are
micro-managers who are fearful of the media and a free press, and who insist on "controlling the message" - as espoused even by other members of their own party - from on high. This describes our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

[Santana28]

LOL... <~~~ RonPaulForums.com member, same username :)

[rocksteady]

< ron paul supporter & made multiple donations

he seems to be the logic & ration candidate, his campaign is really the first time that I have ever been active in politics, he is just so refreshing!

i also find is absolutely crazy that many people think the constitution is outdated, and yet still get their daily advice from the bible, nuts!

[Jay]

Even though he dropped out of the race, I'd probably vote for Stephen Colbert. Just for giggles.

However, I'm Canadian, so I won't be voting anyway.

[ShaiGar]

You sure about that? Japan wasn't going to stop with China and Korea, ShaiGar.

Australia is strong enough to fight our own wars. Ask Nomad on the strength (if not legions) of the Australian army. If we lose our country in a war, we deserve to lose it.

[bucolic_]

Hey, I don't mind Hilary wins or Rudy [He is INTJ afterall]. So, how about this question? Let just say, Rudy did win the election, how many INTJ will start celebrating? I mean, hey there is some INTJ's already or formally in office. How about an INTJ president? I mean, not everyone will understand how INTJ mind works, but hey its first time for everything. Maybe, he will help make it a better place [secondary pick].

Rudy may be an INTJ, but that doesn't mean he's not a raging idiot.

Journalist : What are your thoughts on abortion rudy?

Rudy : Well...it's funny you should mention abortion, because I was in New York on 9/11....(goes off on emotional rant about how he saw the towers fall, etc etc)

[Santana28]

Australia is strong enough to fight our own wars. Ask Nomad on the strength (if not legions) of the Australian army. If we lose our country in a war, we deserve to lose it.

Exactly. Unfortunately for America, if we lose our country in a war it will be because we've spent decades pissing off other countries, provided insurgents with weaponry and training to be later turned against us, and have over-extended our military in bases and countries all across the globe in foreign affairs that have nothing to do with protecting American citizens.

::sigh::

[DroppedG7]

If you like Ron Paul add myspace.com/vadershine good info daily


w00t for Paulitics

[Nomad]

Australia is strong enough to fight our own wars. Ask Nomad on the strength (if not legions) of the Australian army. If we lose our country in a war, we deserve to lose it.

Had no desire to tangle whatever with the Australian Army. They are not big, they don't have the best weapons or technology, but boy howdy are they tough. I've seen them self sufficient and operational on ground that scorpions and camels won't venture into. I've seen them come through a three day sandstorm, clothes shredded, half blind and say to us, "Right then. No movement these three days, had some bad weather. We've drunk dry. Have you some water? If not, a proper pint will do."

Mind you, we had been sent to recover their bodies and complete their mission. I feel really, really bad for their enemies.

-Nomad

[ShaiGar]

Aye :( My dad is an army chaplain, and I've met a lot of infantry units, and even our SASR. I know that at some point in my imperial career I'll have to go up against australias military might, and that's not something I am looking forward to.

Hopefully I'll just become Emperor peacefully.

boy howdy are they tough. I've seen them self sufficient and operational on ground that scorpions and camels won't venture into.

I cannot, and will not, speak for city australians, but that's pretty much what every normal (bushie) australian is like. The army training just enhances it. That's why I'm pretty much willing to let australia go it alone in a war, if we get invaded they're fighting 21 million soldiers, not 50,000, after all, what decent person is going to let the anzacs be ashamed of us? Also of course, if Australia gets into a war of its own accord, then it's retarded and deserves to fight alone. If we get wiped out that's a lesson to the rest of the world "don't be an idiot".

[Tarrick]

So if Australia gets attacked for no reason by some country...say China for kicks, then that's Australia's fault? Because they have resources that China wants and wouldn't surrender them unconditionally?

[ChilaK]

Joe Biden. What can I say? I'm a pragmatist. On either side of the aisle he has the big picture in mind at all times and the actions that need to be taken to favorably adjust that picture. Whether it be millitary operations, balances of power, diplomatic strategy, or on the homefront: getting better healthcare and education for more Americans in a way that takes advantage of rather than bucks the system in place- he's got the plan.

Perhaps equally endearing to my INTJ soul, he just says what he thinks, often getting himself into "trouble" with those who can't take the heat.

As per Ron Paul- good guy- and hey, who needs roads and schools anyway? :) JK

[Santana28]

As per Ron Paul- good guy- and hey, who needs roads and schools anyway? :) JK

You do realize that the federal income tax has absolutely NOTHING to do with building roadways and schools, don't you?

[ShaiGar]

So if Australia gets attacked for no reason by some country...say China for kicks, then that's Australia's fault? Because they have resources that China wants and wouldn't surrender them unconditionally?

Yes, our fault for not investing in ICBM Technology, and either Buying, or Making Nuclear arms.

We export enough uranium, we should keep some for our own military use.

[Tarrick]

Yes, our fault for not investing in ICBM Technology, and either Buying, or Making Nuclear arms.

We export enough uranium, we should keep some for our own military use.

You guys don't have nukes? :stunned:

[ShaiGar]

Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

We must be the only nation on earth that abides by it. And we have some of the largest uranium deposits.

[rocksteady]

I hope to vote for Thompson or Huckabee (considering that either of them seem to have a chance of winning the nomination). I CAN vote for Giuliani, but it's too liberal for my tastes.

If Ron Paul were to make it, I could vote for him. But his radical stance of isolationism puts me off: He would not have had us enter WWII.

FYI, I just watched the interview and this information is absolutely false.

interview here: (fox news w/ neal cavuto) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

in short, paul says he would enter world war 2 no question, germany declared war on us, the logical response was to respond in kind.

[Tarrick]

Than he changed his answer. I heard him say that on live radio.

[Santana28]

Tarrick, keep in mind that it is difficult to explain an entire foreign policy in one soundbite you heard over the radio. One thing which goes without argument about Ron Paul is that he is a man of principle and has steadfastly maintained his positions over his entire 25+ career in congress. I encourage you to read his own words on the subject at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. if you have any questions. Unlike most other politicians, Dr. Paul's positions don't sway with the political winds.

Dr. Paul believes in a strong national defense. He has no issue with war - but believes they should be fought and declared in the methods laid out for us in the Constitution. If Germany declared war on us, which they did, Dr. Paul would have responded. But just because one country declares war on another country we shouldn't be expected to join right in and get involved either. Our military is to defend American interests first and foremost - not act as a police force among all nations.

[Tarrick]

It was about a 10 minute interview and he was arguing about foreign entanglements. He state that he would have attacked Japan because they attacked us, but Germany did not, so he would not have attacked them.

[Santana28]

okay... and your point is?

seems like you would rather argue the validity of one 10 minute soundbite than investigate the true meaning behind the statement.

don't forget the reason why germany declared war on us in the first place - because we had been funding, arming, and clandestinely supporting all of the nations already engaged in combat against germany up to that point.

in Dr. Paul's world Germany would have had no reason to declare war against us in the first place. But thats the past, and we can't change it now. All we can do is look to the future and think about what our role as a nation should be.

[Tarrick]

That's not my point. Dr. Paul was/is perfectly willing to let Britain burn at the hands of Nazi Germany, along with the rest of Europe when Germany was in clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles, so long as they didn't declare war on us at that point.

As Ben Franklin said it "We must all hang together or we will all hang separately." We live in a international and interdependent world and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Can you want it to change? Sure. But blanketly and completely removing ourselves from any situation where an ally is threatened is in direct context to what Franklin was taking about.

[Santana28]

That's not my point. Dr. Paul was/is perfectly willing to let Britain burn at the hands of Nazi Germany, along with the rest of Europe when Germany was in clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles, so long as they didn't declare war on us at that point.

As Ben Franklin said it "We must all hang together or we will all hang separately." We live in a international and interdependent world and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Can you want it to change? Sure. But blanketly and completely removing ourselves from any situation where an ally is threatened is in direct context to what Franklin was taking about.

Uh... dont quote me on this, but i am pretty sure Franklin was referring to his fellow revolutionaries and not the entire world when he said that.

There's nothing wrong with having fair, balanced, unbiased international relations. Thats where the phrase "Friend to all nations" comes in handy - the only thing being "blanketedly" removed is favoritism and supporting some nations above others. America as it was originally founded was never intended to entangle itself in the affairs of other nations. Friendship and trade with all; hostility with none - do you think that is an impossible goal? Would you want it any other way?

The American people should be able to privately support, finance, fight for, whatever whoever they please - with their own private resources, on their own private time. The American government, however, should not be obligated to use the resources of the entire American people to take sides and create "allies" and "enemies" and you guessed it - WAR along with it. Objectively looking back upon the past century of warfare, leads me to agree that the founders had it right all along.

Live, and let live. And don't go about pissing people off and giving them reasons to want to get back at you.

[Radamisto]

Definitely Ron Paul. He is the only candidate an anarchocapitalist could support, isn't he?

[Epicurus]

Definitely Ron Paul. He is the only candidate an anarchocapitalist could support, isn't he?I guess you could vorte or support some libertarian party candidate also, but they don't have a chance especially with Paul running for the republicans.

[Epicurus]

Hey, I don't mind Hilary wins or Rudy [He is INTJ afterall]. So, how about this question? Let just say, Rudy did win the election, how many INTJ will start celebrating? I mean, hey there is some INTJ's already or formally in office. How about an INTJ president? I mean, not everyone will understand how INTJ mind works, but hey its first time for everything. Maybe, he will help make it a better place [secondary pick].I think Usama bin Ladin is interesting to as a person and hes probably an intj, hope he takes control of the US, he will be sucha good leader. Oh I forgot he is an islamist and have other cultural beliefs wich doesn't make him able to compete with other terrorist like George W Bush or some of them running for presidency wich might just be advocating terrorism and will use it when in power like Giuliani, damn but he would make sucha good president.



Rons standing on non-intervention isn't any different than legalizing drugs or whatever, the principle is the same, the result is the same in ways, if you get what I am trying to say. Liberty is all the same in its different aspects of expressing itself, what you want and will end up is having changed other people with its ''superiority''. Very perfectionistic but seriously I don't think any sane person would want to follow a label on a nation wich says ''ally'' and then die for the fuckers who called the next Hitler (any socialist or other collectivist ellected) to power through democratic ellections. If you want to die you should do it for freedom, because you will, and will die more if you follow the path wich gives you bad reputaition and generates bad relations and so it goes amongs other nations due to having to say that you protect your allies or things the like. There will be greater need for responsibility, diplomacy and keeping good relations with everyone, and generally taking care of your own country.. If you are lucky it will take a few hours untill people will abandon the nation lines drawed on the map and become citizens of the world and so damn peacfull, etc. etc. etc.

[rocksteady]

Uh... dont quote me on this, but i am pretty sure Franklin was referring to his fellow revolutionaries and not the entire world when he said that.

There's nothing wrong with having fair, balanced, unbiased international relations. Thats where the phrase "Friend to all nations" comes in handy - the only thing being "blanketedly" removed is favoritism and supporting some nations above others. America as it was originally founded was never intended to entangle itself in the affairs of other nations. Friendship and trade with all; hostility with none - do you think that is an impossible goal? Would you want it any other way?

The American people should be able to privately support, finance, fight for, whatever whoever they please - with their own private resources, on their own private time. The American government, however, should not be obligated to use the resources of the entire American people to take sides and create "allies" and "enemies" and you guessed it - WAR along with it. Objectively looking back upon the past century of warfare, leads me to agree that the founders had it right all along.

Live, and let live. And don't go about pissing people off and giving them reasons to want to get back at you.

couldn't have said it better myself! words can be twisted, it's the spirit that is what's important. You either agree people should live in autonomy, or you believe people need to be intrude in the affairs of others. I agree with Santana that history makes a great case for leaving people alone.

[banzai]

I probably won't vote, because the chances are heavily in favor of the likeliness that my vote will not make a difference, enough so that the consideration required as well as the action of voting is not worth the contrary possibility that it will.

I will type a run-on sentence about it, though. ;)

[Myrak]

I'm an Aussie, but if I was an American I'd vote for Ron Paul. Paul or Obama would be a refreshing change. Hell, if either of them wins it'd restore some of my faith in US politics.

Regarding our Australian election just passed, I am immensely glad Labor won out over Howard's 11 year reign. And not only that, but Howard lost his own seat too, which would make for quite interesting history trivia that he himself was so intent on pushing into the school system. heh

[jethro1104]

Definetly Ron Paul. Seems like most of the other cantidates are bought off by special interests. I don't trust Clinton, and am sure I don't want to see another Clinton in the White House. Guilliani I can't vote for with his opinions on gun control, abortion, and illegal immigration. To me the most important issue I want to see addressed is the problem of illegal immigration. What is it about these politicians that they don't understand about the word "illegal". Ron Paul has my trust. He is a strict constitutionalist, he doesn't dodge issues, and he brings hope for a better goverment.

[rocksteady]

it'd restore some of my faith in US politics.


I probably won't vote

Hmm, can you see why these two things are linked? A defeatist attitude is by nature unproductive, things don't change unless people make them. Cure the apathy, do some research on Ron Paul please.

rocksteady added, 2 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

To me the most important issue I want to see addressed is the problem of illegal immigration. What is it about these politicians that they don't understand about the word "illegal". Ron Paul has my trust. He is a strict constitutionalist, he doesn't dodge issues, and he brings hope for a better goverment.

Not a huge issue for me, but it's easy to see why the current men in power are not doing a whole lot about it, the idea of a peasant class is something that fits their ideology quite well.

[Oversphere]

I won't be voting, as there's practically no chance that my single vote will make a difference. Also, adding to the vote count is practically an endorsement of this absurd system. Why should I lend legitimacy to a system in which I have absolutely no influence and no representation?

I sometimes listen to talk radio while driving. I've been hearing a lot of talk about Mike Huckaby lately. Apparently he has taken the lead in one of the pre-primary Iowa polls. In case you're not aware, he's a Baptist preacher and a Republican primary candidate. I grew up here in Jesusland (the southeast), and I can guarantee that a Patriotic Baptist Preacher will do well in this part of the country. I'm actually kinda worried about it. I know a thing or two about Baptists. If you think Bush is a 'tard (I do), just wait until we have a Baptist preacher commanding the army and police.

[rocksteady]

I won't be voting, as there's practically no chance that my single vote will make a difference. Also, adding to the vote count is practically an endorsement of this absurd system. Why should I lend legitimacy to a system in which I have absolutely no influence and no representation?

I sometimes listen to talk radio while driving. I've been hearing a lot of talk about Mike Huckaby lately. Apparently he has taken the lead in one of the pre-primary Iowa polls. In case you're not aware, he's a Baptist preacher and a Republican primary candidate. I grew up here in Jesusland (the southeast), and I can guarantee that a Patriotic Baptist Preacher will do well in this part of the country. I'm actually kinda worried about it. I know a thing or two about Baptists. If you think Bush is a 'tard (I do), just wait until we have a Baptist preacher commanding the army and police.

Google ron paul

[Oversphere]

Google ron paul

No need. I'd like to see him win. Unfortunately, he won't. See the first paragraph in my previous post.

[Santana28]

No need. I'd like to see him win. Unfortunately, he won't. See the first paragraph in my previous post.

Oversphere... you don't vote to chose a winner. You vote to make your opinion count towards something. You vote to stand up for what you believe in. You vote because you can, and because people fought and died to provide that privilege for you. You vote because you are a thinking person who actually cares - and because tens of thousands of people will walk into a voting booth in total ignorance and choose the first name that they heard on TV.

No one ever has a chance if they're not willing to stand up and do something about it.

Whats more important to you? Choosing the "winner" - or supporting what you believe to be right?

[rocksteady]

No need. I'd like to see him win. Unfortunately, he won't. See the first paragraph in my previous post.

Ability to win should be last on the list of reasons to vote for someone. Defeatism is rampant in America, and is a large part of our sickness as a country.

[Oversphere]

Oversphere... you don't vote to chose a winner. You vote to make your opinion count towards something. You vote to stand up for what you believe in. You vote because you can, and because people fought and died to provide that privilege for you. You vote because you are a thinking person who actually cares - and because tens of thousands of people will walk into a voting booth in total ignorance and choose the first name that they heard on TV.

No one ever has a chance if they're not willing to stand up and do something about it.

Whats more important to you? Choosing the "winner" - or supporting what you believe to be right?

You hit a nerve. Let the ranting begin!

People have fought and died for lots of individual reasons, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. For example, when I was in the military, there was a small chance that I would have the opportunity to fight and die. Had those circumstances arisen, I would have fought and (perhaps) died for a paycheck and to stay out of prison. I have no doubt that lots of folks have fought and died for those and various other less-than-honorable reasons. I don't buy into the idea that the military is full of uniformly righteous and superior individuals. I KNOW otherwise. I get tired of hearing people include that unquestioned assumption in their self-righteous arguments. I would have expected better from a "rational". Feel free to question my "honor".

The fact that "tens of thousands of people will walk into a voting booth in total ignorance and choose the first name that they heard on TV" is one of the reasons that I choose to not vote. Most people never question the status quo, and thus any real change requires a massive social movement. The odds that a massive social movement will happen to coincide with what I want from a government are nil. The current system and social climate make it virtually impossible for a candidate whose beliefs coincide with mine to be elected. Therefore, I see a vote for Ron Paul not as support for his beliefs, but as an endorsement of the status quo. The inherent presumption in our form of democracy is that, if you have a vote, you have a say. If your views fall outside the mainstream, that simply isn't true. I don't intend to provide support for the notion that it is true.

[melon]

I won't be voting, as there's practically no chance that my single vote will make a difference. Also, adding to the vote count is practically an endorsement of this absurd system. Why should I lend legitimacy to a system in which I have absolutely no influence and no representation?

You're right: your vote will not make a difference unless the vote is split _exactly_ 50/50. Thinking that one's vote will change the outcome is irrational. However, the reason for voting is that, in a democracy, every citizen has a responsibility to participate. Thousands have died in order to defend the democracy system that we have today, and it isn't unreasonable to honor that by taking a half-hour each year and voting. If everybody thought that voting was too much of a hassle, we would have a monarchy system. And what system would you suggest that would be better than a democracy? If you were given more representation, that would mean that another citizen somewhere would be given less representation. To quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." :)

Anyways, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. I won't be old enough to vote in the primaries (I turn 18 in October), but I'll be able to vote in the general elections. If Ron Paul doesn't win in the primaries, I'll write him in.

[Santana28]

oversphere... i wasn't attempting to goad you into voting by pulling your heartstrings about the troops dying today for our "supposed" rights. I know better than that. The people who fought and died for your right to vote, whom i was referring to, were the founding Revolutionaries of this nation. Perhaps i should have made that more clear.

And if you hadn't already noticed...there IS a massive social movement underway. But it is being overtly suppressed by the media. If you dont take the first step and open your eyes, then you will never see it.

That choice is up to you. I will not argue for long with someone who chooses not to care.

[Epicurus]

...

You might aswell get yourself a barrel and eat onions the rest of your life. Sure the ''mindless side'' uses the protect your country-arguments and pretty much anything else more easilly and empty, gain more votes, support, etc. But its not like you are seen an put out as anything else than someone who hasn't gotten in to politics, or a danger to democracy, and so on. I get your point and agree more than a lot, but I don't see how it is better in any way.



As to people saying that it is worthless to vote for Ron Paul or anyone else because he/they doesn't/dont' stand a chance, and instead on the ones who have better chance, that is just dumb. You only have one vote, so its not going to get better voting for the winner than the looser, it doesn't matter in the big picture one vote more or less. If its like communist-side versus neocon-side, Hillary versus Giuliani who only have a chance, or anything like that...why don't we just remove those other candidates to let the loosers votes count aswell on those two sides, cholera vs plague that would be much better. If you don't have any plan in getting the jews at federal reserve printing you out some tons of money, or if you don't have interests in terrorist organizations who get US government money in their hands, or if you don't have any other little evil plan wich Ron Paul will spoil, then I don't see why you should vote for anyone else than him.

Anyway Ron Paul is atleast making himself more than count in strawpolls and in getting money pumped in for him. But maybe thats just the evil Libertarian-Nazis or big corporations doing that.

[Oversphere]

More platitudes to refute! You'd think this was an SJ forum. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You're right: your vote will not make a difference unless the vote is split _exactly_ 50/50. Thinking that one's vote will change the outcome is irrational. However, the reason for voting is that, in a democracy, every citizen has a responsibility to participate. Thousands have died in order to defend the democracy system that we have today, and it isn't unreasonable to honor that by taking a half-hour each year and voting.


A bunch of dead soldiers bestow no future responsibility on anyone. That's an idea that politicians use to manipulate the masses, and it has led to the escalation of a lot of wars and the continuation of a lot of lost causes. For example, it has been used to justify our continued presence in Iraq. I may or may not agree with the motivations of a given individual soldier, but the fact is that I didn't ask any of them to do what they did, and they would have done it regardless of my opinion. As I said before, I reject the notion that all or even most soldiers have similar motivations or even similar goals. They're doing a nasty job for a paycheck.

If everybody thought that voting was too much of a hassle, we would have a monarchy system. And what system would you suggest that would be better than a democracy? If you were given more representation, that would mean that another citizen somewhere would be given less representation. To quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." :)

I think you missed my point. I'm not everybody; I'm just one guy. That's the root of my beef with democracy. If I was given more representation, that would mean I'd have SOME representation, cause right now I have none. I can't argue with Winston Churchill on his point. I'm not smart enough to reengineer society, at least not yet. I'm no Carl Marx.


Anyways, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. I won't be old enough to vote in the primaries (I turn 18 in October), but I'll be able to vote in the general elections. If Ron Paul doesn't win in the primaries, I'll write him in.

Have fun with that. I suppose I can see the appeal of voting for a guy whose views coincide with your own, despite the fact that he has no chance. It's kinda like buying a lottery ticket. If you don't buy one, there's no point speculating about what you would do if you won the lottery.

Oversphere added, 22 Minutes and 51 Seconds later...

oversphere... i wasn't attempting to goad you into voting by pulling your heartstrings about the troops dying today for our "supposed" rights. I know better than that. The people who fought and died for your right to vote, whom i was referring to, were the founding Revolutionaries of this nation. Perhaps i should have made that more clear.

Well, my response was sort of designed to goad someone with an SJ style mindset (note my dismissal of the concept of honor). I'm sorry I underestimated you.

And if you hadn't already noticed...there IS a massive social movement underway. But it is being overtly suppressed by the media. If you dont take the first step and open your eyes, then you will never see it.

That choice is up to you. I will not argue for long with someone who chooses not to care.

I'm not sure which massive social movement you're referring to. The only one that immediately occurs to me is the Neocon movement. It's got a lot of blatantly obvious fascist characteristics. We've got the executive power grabs, suspension of civil liberties, hero worship of guys with mustaches and government jobs (military and police), reverence toward nationalist symbols, a renewed interest in our culture's cohesive mythology...

You've nailed it on my choice to not care. It was a conscious decision I made a few years ago. I used to follow politics fairly closely. At some point, I realized that despite what politicians say, nobody is representing my interests beyond the point that they happen to coincide with the interests of the privileged class. I've decided that my only interest in immediate political events is in trying to anticipate the changes and act or react accordingly.

[rocksteady]

As I said before, I reject the notion that all or even most soldiers have similar motivations or even similar goals. They're doing a nasty job for a paycheck.


uh during peacetime maybe, remember that thing called the world war? if you don't think millions of men died for freedom then, then I have to call you an idiot. You respond like a somewhat ignorant defeatist. If you are unaware of the probably one of the most interesting grassroots political revolutions to happen in recent memory, you are not a reliable source of information. The paul campaigns influence will be felt for quite some time, regardless of weather he wins or loses. You think those 30,000 people who donated to him one ONE DAY are going to shut up if he loses? Paul's supporters are educated and motivated, a great recipe for revolution :)

[Oversphere]

uh during peacetime maybe, remember that thing called the world war? if you don't think millions of men died for freedom then, then I have to call you an idiot. You respond like a somewhat ignorant defeatist. If you are unaware of the probably one of the most interesting grassroots political revolutions to happen in recent memory, you are not a reliable source of information. The paul campaigns influence will be felt for quite some time, regardless of weather he wins or loses. You think those 30,000 people who donated to him one ONE DAY are going to shut up if he loses? Paul's supporters are educated and motivated, a great recipe for revolution :)

Remember, you're talking to an INTJ. Your opinion concerning my idiocy means nothing to me. When it comes to personal judgements, only my opinion and the opinions of the select few folks who I know and respect count.

If all those guys were fighting for freedom, I gotta wonder why they bothered with the draft. You'd think they would have all volunteered to fight for FREEDOM.

What led you to believe that I'm unaware of the Ron Paul campaign and its supporters? The fact that I don't consider it a revolution or a mass cultural movement? Get a grip.

[Nomad]

They bothered with the draft in WW2 because it was not possible to induct and train all the volunteers they had at once. Lines went for miles in some places. Most were told to go home and wait for their draft notices. Special commissions were set up within draft boards in order to weed out those who attempted to enter the military by lying about some disqualification.

There was a surplus of volunteers in WW2.

-Nomad

[rocksteady]

You are right Tarrick. Even though I am an anarchist and will not vote, Dr. Paul's foreign policy is not particularly intelligent. If you see suffering and murder becoming commonplace it only makes sense to try to stop it if you have the means. The way that intervention is currently done is reprehensible, but the concept of intervention itself is moral, as the protection of life and liberty from force should be something that Paul would like to protect. I do not feel that any individual has the duty to protect another, but it is morally permissable as an individual or as a concensual group to try to protect someone of they are being attacked. Using retaliatory forces against the perpetrators of such crimes is perfectly fine.

so you would continue attempting to police the world? Even when history has proven to us multiple times that this is folly? You really trust corrupt government officials to make the best choices in the lives of a person 3,000 miles away? I do not. We can trade, we can help, we can send the red cross, but it is not the job of our government to send our military into every little fight that goes on in this world.

(little late but valid concern)

[Lucid]

so you would continue attempting to police the world? Even when history has proven to us multiple times that this is folly? You really trust corrupt government officials to make the best choices in the lives of a person 3,000 miles away? I do not. We can trade, we can help, we can send the red cross, but it is not the job of our government to send our military into every little fight that goes on in this world.

(little late but valid concern)

Agreed.

And Santana is right, Franklin was referring to the fellow revolutionaries when he said the quote about hanging together of hanging separately. They were committing treason when they broke away from British rule. If the revolution had been unsuccessful they would have been hanged.

I don't think we have any business telling other countries what to do until we can get our shit together at home. Also, the more time and resources we spend policing the rest of the world, the less we have to fix our own problems.

And the line between "preemptive strike" and "unprovoked attack" is very thin indeed. And easily blurred and distorted.

[Santana28]

Oversphere... like i said, i have no intentions on arguing with someone who has chosen not to care. But for the record i have to interject and say that choosing not to care seems much more of an INFJ decision, than that of an INTJ. From my experience it is pretty much impossible NOT to care... unless you just happen to be an anarchist, which might explain a few things :)

Here's how i look at everything - break it down to the lowest common denominator. Simplest terms. Not everything has to be complicated... I happen to think that having a minimal, orderly government is preferable over complete chaos. Having that established, i care about what would go about making the "perfect" governmental system. In the absence of that, i have to examine reality and consider what most closely aligns to my "ideal" and what can be done to reach that "ideal" through means available. I look at the current state of our government, and the past - and i see workable possibilities which are worth supporting. I also see a wide variety of things which i consider absolutely counter-productive and which, in my opinion, should be worked against. So in my logic... if i were to "not care" - than i would be judging these things meaningless to me. And they obviously shape my life and my vision of the "ideal"... so i have no choice but to care.

Personally, i'd rather argue with someone who was passionate about something i was against, than someone who has no opinion... ;)

[Santana28]

hahaha :laugh:

are you meaning to tell me that you thought adding the poll options..
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
et cetra

Would be too complicated for you? :thumbsup:

Haha... i believe they are already under option #2 :)

[Oversphere]

Oversphere... like i said, i have no intentions on arguing with someone who has chosen not to care. But for the record i have to interject and say that choosing not to care seems much more of an INFJ decision, than that of an INTJ. From my experience it is pretty much impossible NOT to care... unless you just happen to be an anarchist, which might explain a few things :)

Let's not argue, then. We'll DISCUSS the issue from different perspectives. ;D I think it would be more accurate to ascribe a specific type to a decision-making style, rather than to the decision itself. While I generally have nothing against INFJ style decision making, it isn't my style. In this case, I'm choosing to IGNORE MY FEELINGS on the issues (caring about politics), because realistically, my feelings on the issues are irrelevant. Regardless how I feel about those issues, and regardless of the actions that those feelings motivate me to take, there is a very slim chance that my individual actions will result in any change or prevent any change. I think that, from my individual perspective, my efforts are better utilized trying to observe trends, make predictions, and respond to the changes (when appropriate). You may call it defeatist, but I prefer a more positive euphemism, like "realistic".

Here's how i look at everything - break it down to the lowest common denominator. Simplest terms. Not everything has to be complicated... I happen to think that having a minimal, orderly government is preferable over complete chaos. Having that established, i care about what would go about making the "perfect" governmental system. In the absence of that, i have to examine reality and consider what most closely aligns to my "ideal" and what can be done to reach that "ideal" through means available. I look at the current state of our government, and the past - and i see workable possibilities which are worth supporting. I also see a wide variety of things which i consider absolutely counter-productive and which, in my opinion, should be worked against. So in my logic... if i were to "not care" - than i would be judging these things meaningless to me. And they obviously shape my life and my vision of the "ideal"... so i have no choice but to care.

I think we have similar ideas about what would constitute an ideal government. We seem to have two fundamental disagreements:

1. Whether or not our efforts in influencing politics have a significant chance of making a difference.
2. Whether or not our idea of an "ideal government" is feasible.

I answer "negative" on both counts, and apparently you answer "positive".

Personally, i'd rather argue with someone who was passionate about something i was against, than someone who has no opinion... ;)

While I completely agree with the insinuation that I'm not passionate about politics, I think it's clear enough that I have opinions. I think the real problem is that I don't subscribe to a cohesive ideology (I used to, until I realized that they're all unrealistic, intellectually dishonest garbage), and I have yet to form my own (I'm working on it). From the perspective of an ideologue, it might be unpleasant to discuss ideas with the likes of me, because I'm free to criticize any ideology, but I have no ideology of my own to defend. I understand the sentiment, but at this point in my philosophical development, I'm just not an easy target. I'm sorry that I don't fall neatly into a category, but that's a fundamental reason behind my choice to not care.

[Hypomanic]

Haha... i believe they are already under option #2 :)

Lol. Well I hope you know Ron Paul is going to lose. No contest, he's not even in the running.

[brewmaster]

Lol. Well I hope you know Ron Paul is going to lose. No contest, he's not even in the running.

He likely will, because the entire institution is against him. Even if he was winning the contest would be rigged against him. If they didn't rig it they would simply do away with him like they did with Kennedy, Kennedy, King etc. It's unfortunate, but you are right, not because he will lose outright, but because they fear him so much he will lose.

[rocksteady]

He likely will, because the entire institution is against him. Even if he was winning the contest would be rigged against him. If they didn't rig it they would simply do away with him like they did with Kennedy, Kennedy, King etc. It's unfortunate, but you are right, not because he will lose outright, but because they fear him so much he will lose.

well this is unfortunately true, but I believe the movement will live on, the idea of true freedom is fresh in a lot of young people's minds regardless who becomes the next president.

* rocksteady added to this post, 2 minutes and 19 seconds later...


While I completely agree with the insinuation that I'm not passionate about politics, I think it's clear enough that I have opinions. I think the real problem is that I don't subscribe to a cohesive ideology (I used to, until I realized that they're all unrealistic, intellectually dishonest garbage), and I have yet to form my own (I'm working on it). From the perspective of an ideologue, it might be unpleasant to discuss ideas with the likes of me, because I'm free to criticize any ideology, but I have no ideology of my own to defend. I understand the sentiment, but at this point in my philosophical development, I'm just not an easy target. I'm sorry that I don't fall neatly into a category, but that's a fundamental reason behind my choice to not care.

This philosophy based on the presumption of your knowing the true personal motivation of every soldier in American history?

[brewmaster]

Cheers, I hope you are right. He has a lot of support, especially here in my hopelessly neo-con red state. I hope no matter what his legacy lives on.

[Hypomanic]

He likely will, because the entire institution is against him. Even if he was winning the contest would be rigged against him. If they didn't rig it they would simply do away with him like they did with Kennedy, Kennedy, King etc. It's unfortunate, but you are right, not because he will lose outright, but because they fear him so much he will lose.

You're paranoid. Ron Paul won't win because he'll lose outright. No one fears him. No one knows about him. Voting for him is a waste of a vote, he's not a real candidate. Just ask your parents what they think. Many 'independents' end up like Ralph Nader. He ran twice and lost both times. Ron Paul is only running to steal votes from some of the main candidates. It's political strategy. Of course he's got your vote, he says everything you want to hear.. that's exactly why he'll be running and fail and he'll waste your vote like the republican party intended.

[Oversphere]

well this is unfortunately true, but I believe the movement will live on, the idea of true freedom is fresh in a lot of young people's minds regardless who becomes the next president.

* rocksteady added to this post, 2 minutes and 19 seconds later...



This philosophy based on the presumption of your knowing the true personal motivation of every soldier in American history?

Do you actually read through my posts, or just catch a phrase here and there? I specifically DO NOT PRESUME to know the motivations of each individual soldier. I reject the common presumption that all or most of them have the same (presumably noble, if they're American) motivation. Furthermore, I went on to explain that the motivations for their actions confer no obligation on my part (nor on the part of the vast majority of individuals), since I didn't ask them to do anything, and since they made their choices without consulting me. Every soldier operates independently of me, and I of him, just like any two unconnected individuals.

[brewmaster]

You're paranoid. Ron Paul won't win because he'll lose outright. No one fears him. No one knows about him. Voting for him is a waste of a vote, he's not a real candidate. Just ask your parents what they think. Many 'independents' end up like Ralph Nader. He ran twice and lost both times. Ron Paul is only running to steal votes from some of the main candidates. It's political strategy. Of course he's got your vote, he says everything you want to hear.. that's exactly why he'll be running and fail and he'll waste your vote like the republican party intended.

meh, I disagree. But you have an interesting take on the situation.

[Hypomanic]

meh, I disagree. But you have an interesting take on the situation.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[Santana28]

you guys are funny.

Hypomanic - back up what you say and your reasoning behind it. I personally can't tell the future and thus i can't state something as concretely as you do. Perhaps you know something i dont? Please do me a favor and explain the details behind your conclusions.

[Lucid]

It's likely that Ron Paul will lose because he's a third party. He doesn't seem to be getting a lot of (good) publicity and most people will vote either for a democrat or a republican. Especially since politics have become so polarized recently and the last administration was... well the way it was. People who may have been more moderate before will be more likely to vote democrat (because after the last 8 years any democrat is better than a republican in their opinions) or republican (because we must support the troops, and somehow we do that by sending them to their deaths).

But as I think someone earlier mentioned, you shouldn't vote for a candidate simply because they are most likely to win (how backwards is that), but because you agree with that candidates political views.

I don't think it's a conspiracy (those who do give the government far to much credit, in my opinion), just a longstanding republicrat or democran mentality. Which is too bad. Hopefully it will change soon.

[Santana28]

It's likely that Ron Paul will lose because he's a third party. He doesn't seem to be getting a lot of (good) publicity and most people will vote either for a democrat or a republican. Especially since politics have become so polarized recently and the last administration was... well the way it was. People who may have been more moderate before will be more likely to vote democrat (because after the last 8 years any democrat is better than a republican in their opinions) or republican (because we must support the troops, and somehow we do that by sending them to their deaths).

But as I think someone earlier mentioned, you shouldn't vote for a candidate simply because they are most likely to win (how backwards is that), but because you agree with that candidates political views.

I don't think it's a conspiracy (those who do give the government far to much credit, in my opinion), just a longstanding republicrat or democran mentality. Which is too bad. Hopefully it will change soon.

How can i give relevance to anything you have said, when the very first words are not factual?

Ron Paul is a serving 10 term REPUBLICAN congressman. His constituents have voted him in as a REPUBLICAN senator. He is most certainly NOT "3rd party," nor is he running as such. The media likes to constantly insinuate that he is, because thats the impression they want the average non-thinking person to have when they see his name. It is simply not factual.

In all fairness, he is the only true "Republican" on the stage - someone who represents and supports the values the Republican party as originally founded. If you insist on bringing up his Libertarian nomination in 88 and conclude that such a run is incompatible with his congressional career, than i encourage you to investigate the goals and values of the traditional Republican party before it was hijacked by corporate, military, and globalist interests and compare it to the Libertarian Party platform.

Thank you.

[rocksteady]

Just ask your parents what they think.

Lol, I love that you imply that my parents can somehow set me straight on the idea of ron paul winning. As if they are automatically more qualified than me!

[Lucid]

How can i give relevance to anything you have said, when the very first words are not factual?
Ron Paul is a serving 10 term REPUBLICAN congressman. His constituents have voted him in as a REPUBLICAN senator. He is most certainly NOT "3rd party," nor is he running as such. The media likes to constantly insinuate that he is, because thats the impression they want the average non-thinking person to have when they see his name. It is simply not factual.
In all fairness, he is the only true "Republican" on the stage - someone who represents and supports the values the Republican party as originally founded. If you insist on bringing up his Libertarian nomination in 88 and conclude that such a run is incompatible with his congressional career, than i encourage you to investigate the goals and values of the traditional Republican party before it was hijacked by corporate, military, and globalist interests and compare it to the Libertarian Party platform.

Thank you.

Your post came across as being very emotional. You should calm down a bit because you are attributing to me arguments that I am not making and viewpoints I do not hold.
It seems that this is something you've experienced frustration with in the past, and I understand that politics can be an emotional topic for some.

That being said, I certainly didn't mean to imply that I didn't want him to win or don't think he can. I was trying to explain why many people don't.
I personally don't have any opinion on the Ron Paul matter.

However, you're correct about the third party bit. I'll be happy to restate: It is unlikely that Ron Paul will win the election because he is perceived by most people as having non-mainstream views.

If you insist on bringing up his Libertarian nomination in 88...

I don't insist on bringing up anything. I don't give a crap if he ran as part of the Antarctic Rooster Liberation Front in 88. I'm just saying, "here's what some people think." Not that I, myself, am one of those people. If I were, I would have said so. I do not generally start paying close attention to candidates until the primaries because I don't get to vote in any of the primary elections myself.

I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing if he did win. I am neutral on the Ron Paul issue. It seems like you're getting really upset at the very idea of people suggesting that he won't win. Obviously this is an issue you feel strongly about, but whether people think he'll win or not isn't worth getting upset about. You think he has a good chance of winning and if that's the case then all the people who didn't believe it will be wrong. Their loss.

[Santana28]

I dont have time to respond as i am off to work in 2 minutes...

however, i dont know where you are getting that i am being "emotional" and "getting upset" about this topic. i'm not... are you?

it is something i am passionate about. its something i have thought through and i believe in my personal opinions and what i have stated. i also believe that it is our *first* responsibility in all things to make sure we have the knowledge needed in order to judge things. i dont take it lightly - and nothing is more annoying than talking to someone who bases their opinions on false/faulty/flawed information and is unwilling to accept criticism when it is pointed out. if my logic is flawed - tell me. don't accuse me of being emotional. as an INTJ, you should be willing to re-examine your logic and information if it is challenged as unfactual. i'm willing to discuss my reasonings behind my positions (at a later time) - are you?

i'm far from "emotional," however.

[Lucid]

I dont have time to respond as i am off to work in 2 minutes...

however, i dont know where you are getting that i am being "emotional" and "getting upset" about this topic. i'm not... are you?

it is something i am passionate about. its something i have thought through and i believe in my personal opinions and what i have stated. i also believe that it is our *first* responsibility in all things to make sure we have the knowledge needed in order to judge things. i dont take it lightly - and nothing is more annoying than talking to someone who bases their opinions on false/faulty/flawed information and is unwilling to accept criticism when it is pointed out. if my logic is flawed - tell me. don't accuse me of being emotional. as an INTJ, you should be willing to re-examine your logic and information if it is challenged as unfactual. i'm willing to discuss my reasonings behind my positions (at a later time) - are you?

i'm far from "emotional," however.


It seems like you think I'm making some kind of argument against Ron Paul and so you made all these very passionate arguments against me. The thing is, I'm not arguing against Ron Paul. I was just stating why he probably won't win. I don't think it's a bad thing to be passionate about politics, but I do get frustrated when people attribute arguments to me that I'm not making.

I've already amended my statement, so I'm not sure why you think I'm unwilling to accept criticism. I was mistaken about a point of fact and corrected myself when you pointed it out.

I'm not "accusing" you of being emotional. It's not necessarily a bad thing and I didn't mean it to be some kind of insult (which is how you seem to have taken it). You say it's something you're passionate about. To me, that would indicate that you have strong emotional feelings about the subject. This isn't a bad thing. It's nice when people are passionate about their beliefs. But I think it might be leading you to assume that I'm saying something that I'm not, namely making an argument against Ron Paul.

We can certainly discuss your positions at a later time. I have no position on Ron Paul (which is what I've been trying to tell you), so I imagine it will be a brief conversation. The reason I have not made a decision about him is because my knowledge is very limited. What I do know of him is that he's not very mainstream. This was why I thought he was 3rd party.

I have already corrected my statement. Here it is again, copied from my prior post:
"However, you're correct about the third party bit. I'll be happy to restate: It is unlikely that Ron Paul will win the election because he is perceived by most people as having non-mainstream views."

[rocksteady]

I personally don't have any opinion on the Ron Paul matter.

I'll be happy to restate: It is unlikely that Ron Paul will win the election because he is perceived by most people as having non-mainstream views." That's just my opinion.

I can see why Santana is feeling some frustration. Your initial statement was uninformed, and you've done a bit of mildly condescending backtracking, but yet stick by your initial sentiment. It just so happens that many of the statements you made display a lack of an in depth understanding of the current political climate, and your views can be considered somewhat offensive to someone who takes politics seriously and actively supports an honest candidate. I hope this helps you understand the differences you guys may be having.

[Lucid]

It just so happens that many of the statements you made display a lack of an in depth understanding of the current political climate, and your views can be considered somewhat offensive to someone who takes politics seriously and actively supports an honest candidate.
Which you follow with,
I hope this helps you understand the differences you guys may be having.

Wow. So much for that “most polite message board” bit, huh?

I can see why Santana is feeling some frustration. Your initial statement was uninformed, and you've done a bit of mildly condescending backtracking, but yet stick by your initial sentiment.

Yes it was uninformed. And I admitted to and corrected the error. This is condescending backtracking? Saying, “you’re right, I’m wrong and I’m happy to restate” is condescending backtracking?

Quite frankly, saying "Ron Paul is a republican Lucid, go look it up," would have been more than sufficient.

Was the condescending part when I say she seems to be very emotional about it? I guess I could see that, although I certainly didn’t mean for it to be condescending. I don’t think being emotional about politics is a bad thing (as I stated above).
The reason it seemed emotional was that she seemed to jump to the conclusion that I was against Ron Paul and really (it seemed to me) jumped down my throat about it. Also, she seemed a bit condescending herself.
I wasn’t against Ron Paul, but think it’s unlikely he’ll win because of his non-traditional views (which is why I thought he was third party) and so I was really frustrated. But it was never my intention to talk down to her. Probably the same is true of her.
Also, the party he's part of doesn't affect my opinion of how his views might affect his chances of being elected. So no, I didn't change my standpoint.

It just so happens that many of the statements you made display a lack of an in depth understanding of the current political climate, and your views can be considered somewhat offensive to someone who takes politics seriously and actively supports an honest candidate.

Well I’m sorry you disagree with my political views. But I do pay attention to politics. I haven’t followed the Republican candidates very closely because I generally don’t vote Republican and we haven’t had the primaries yet. And I don’t get to vote in the primaries. If you disagree with me that American politics seem to be very polarized lately and that people often vote the way they do over one issue or simply because any candidate of Party X is better than any candidate of Party Y then I will be happy to discuss that with you.
Or did you mean it was offensive because I was wrong on one point? Usually, when people are wrong about something, I don't get offended; I just tell them that they're wrong. And being wrong about one thing, doesn't usually mean they "display a lack of an in depth understanding of the current political climate," as you put it.
In the meantime, don’t criticize me for being mildly condescending if you’re going to turn around and do the same thing yourself.

In the future I will be much more cautious about admitting when I am wrong and trying to make my position clear to someone who seems to have misunderstood it, lest I be accused of backtracking.

In light of your approach to this, you've been added to my ignore list. Because I was enjoying having such a polite message board.
*EDIT: So I guess we won't be discussing politics. Or anything else. Although it will mean that the next time you make an honest mistake and admit it, I won't be there to insult you like you were me.

Santana, if I came off as condescending, I apologize.

[rocksteady]

Hey, I apologize if I came off prickish, but you guys were going back and forth and it didn't seem to be going anywhere. Wasn't meant as a personal attack or anything, sorry it came off as such. Politics can get a bit personal at times. When your candidate get constantly bashed by the media, it's easy to get defensive. :undecided:

[Santana28]

argh..never enough time. i'll post more after i sleep for 3 or 4 hours.

i apologize if i came across as condescending towards anyone - that wasn't the intention. to be bluntly honest - i have not one ounce of concern in my body who anyone on here supports or does not support. your decisions are yours - and mine are mine. what does concern me, and i care (passionately, in my own way) about is that if one is willing to step forward and make a judgement statement about something (and thats not mandatory - people have a right not to care... so long as that decision has been carefully thought out :) - that that person must also be willing to respect the importance of the subject itself and to judge it in the same manner of importance and carefulness.

i could have probably said that in a more concise fashion, but thats not one of my strengths.





Santana28 added to this post, 5 minutes and 36 seconds later...

and the subject of politics is always a touchy subject because we all want to believe that we are making the best decision according to our values - and when someone challenges (most people's) very judgement and thought processes, it is almost as if they are attacking the very substance of that person as being flawed. the fact that someone interprets the very questioning to be an attack reveals that the person has, to some degree, doubts about their decision or decision making process. i've learned much more about people's opinions in this thread by the tone of the responses than the very words contained within them.

most people who care enough to consider politics choose not to air their choice in public for that very reason... the more you care, the more likely you are to take being questioned personally.

i am not afraid of what people think about my decision. what i care about is 1) achieving the goal, and 2) maintaining the correct thought processed to make an accurate decision.

if my logic is off, please tell me now :) Thats how i look at it.

We could have this entire conversation (or at least the one it has morphed into) without mentioning the name or party or platform of any candidate at all.

[Oversphere]

I listen to political talk a lot more than I engage in it. I've noticed a very common tendency in political thought that I consider a flawed thought process. People tend to ignore the difference between goals, and means by which to accomplish goals. It seems that most people don't distinguish between the two. This leads to a lot of misunderstandings, semantics-based arguments, straw-man arguments, questioning of morals and motives... lots of fun stuff for talk radio types, I guess.

So, for example, if your goal is to construct an economic system that creates the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people, Libertarianism may be the best idea you've heard, but you should honestly consider its drawbacks and consider modifications, as well as totally different ideas. Any objections to ideas should be based on their effect on that goal, or perhaps on some other goal, but not on their deviation from some Libertarian ideal. Libertarianism is a means to accomplish a goal, not a goal in itself. I'm not suggesting that anybody posting in this thread is making this error (I'm too lazy to go back and look for it right now). Libertarianism was just a convenient example.

[Lucid]

i apologize if i came across as condescending towards anyone - that wasn't the intention. to be bluntly honest - i have not one ounce of concern in my body who anyone on here supports or does not support. your decisions are yours - and mine are mine. what does concern me, and i care (passionately, in my own way) about is that if one is willing to step forward and make a judgement statement about something (and thats not mandatory - people have a right not to care... so long as that decision has been carefully thought out :) - that that person must also be willing to respect the importance of the subject itself and to judge it in the same manner of importance and carefulness.

I completely understand your concerns about a judgment statement. I didn't think I was making one. Just sharing an (obviously) uneducated guess based on what little I do know. Since my opinion on whether someone will get elected or not has no bearing on anyone else's opinion or their chances of actually being elected, I didn't think my comment would be taken as seriously as it seemed to have been.

For the record: I do pay attention to politics. When I vote I research all the issues and the candidates (even for offices like county treasurer) and go in with a little list on how to vote on which issues that I prepare in advance. However, I don't look closely at every candidate running in the primaries because (as I'm sure you're sick of hearing me say) I can't vote in the primaries.

When people accuse me of lazy voting or not taking the time to understand the issues, it upsets me a great deal. I find those accusations to be insulting and inaccurate. At the same time, I am human and prone to mistakes.

I understand that politics can be an emotional topic and I didn't mean to give the impression that I was taking a stance for or against any particular candidate, party or platform. The fact that what I was saying appeared to be taken that way was supremely frustrating. (That bit was in bold not because I'm saying it in an angry way, but because I think it's probably the most important point I want to make with this post, and wanted it to be noticed even if nothing else was.)
The reason I'm not taking a stance (at this time) for or against any particular candidates is (partially) because I have not done sufficient research (at this time) to feel that I am knowledgeable enough to do so responsibly.

[Lucid]

Hey, I apologize if I came off prickish, but you guys were going back and forth and it didn't seem to be going anywhere. Wasn't meant as a personal attack or anything, sorry it came off as such. Politics can get a bit personal at times. When your candidate get constantly bashed by the media, it's easy to get defensive. :undecided:

It's ok. Politics can be a touchy subject and it can be easy to read things into statements that aren't there.
The problem was that you seemed to be jumping to the same conclusions that Santana was. This may have been due to defensiveness about the subject in general, poor explanations on my part, or some of both.
Also, you seemed to be inferring from my uninformed state about one particular candidate, an apathetic and ignorant stance about politics in general. I felt this to be unwarranted and offensive.
If you were offended at my ignorance of one candidate, it would serve everyone better to politely correct me and educate me on the subject, rather than making accusations. Although I can see how, at the time, you might not have seen any attempt to inform me as likely to be successful.

So yeah. Apologies all around.

The thing about the ignore button is that I can still see when someone I ignore posts something... and it makes me curious. :irked: Although I'm glad I read your response.

[Santana28]

It's ok. Politics can be a touchy subject and it can be easy to read things into statements that aren't there.
The problem was that you seemed to be jumping to the same conclusions that Santana was. This may have been due to defensiveness about the subject in general, poor explanations on my part, or some of both.
Also, you seemed to be inferring from my uninformed state about one particular candidate, an apathetic and ignorant stance about politics in general. I felt this to be unwarranted and offensive.
If you were offended at my ignorance of one candidate, it would serve everyone better to politely correct me and educate me on the subject, rather than making accusations. Although I can see how, at the time, you might not have seen any attempt to inform me as likely to be successful.

So yeah. Apologies all around.

The thing about the ignore button is that I can still see when someone I ignore posts something... and it makes me curious. :irked: Although I'm glad I read your response.

what conclusion was i jumping to?

and i just noticed what Hypomanic's issue is.... he/she's not an INTJ ;) hehe

[Lucid]

what conclusion was i jumping to?

and i just noticed what Hypomanic's issue is.... he/she's not an INTJ ;) hehe

That I was taking a stance against Ron Paul, it seemed.

[Vayate]

Ron Paul is my second choice after Fred Thompson. Paul is great in that he's a libertarian, but his desires to do things like eliminate the IRS are defeated by my "does it work" check. While I don't think he will be able to accomplish anything of that nature, it's little details like that that cause me concern.

imo a Thompson/Paul ballot would be a definite winner though.

[Santana28]

Ron Paul is my second choice after Fred Thompson. Paul is great in that he's a libertarian, but his desires to do things like eliminate the IRS are defeated by my "does it work" check. While I don't think he will be able to accomplish anything of that nature, it's little details like that that cause me concern.

imo a Thompson/Paul ballot would be a definite winner though.

why do you believe that doing with the IRS is something that can't be done? Ron Paul's positions aside... there seems to be a movement in that direction already. Have you heard of the "Fair Tax" proposal? Are you aware of the controversial details surrounding the income tax?

you're right... no one can just wave their hand and make things happen. But if the will of the people leads one direction - change will follow.

what do you like about Fred Thompson?

[brewmaster]

What I love about Dr. Paul is that he has acknowledged the fact that he will never come close to putting all of his policies into action. He realizes that he has to work with the gov. as it is. Despite all of his beliefs, no matter how right or contitutionally relevant they are, he still has to contend with the gov. as it exists now. I cannot give references for this because I have forgotten where I have read them. However, he believes that he can at least move the government closer to what it should be not what it has become.

He knows that he cannot get rid of the IRS, the USDA, the etc.. outright. It will have to become that way through subtle change, simply because too much of the Am. world depends on it. So much of the opposition to him has brought up that he wants to do these things without listnening to what he has to say, because it is easier to use that to discredit him, than to realize that he is moderate in what he knows he can accomplish. He is nearly the perfect NT candidate. He can see the perfect picture, yet realizes the amazing blocks to it that exist, and instead of forcing the U.S. into some unrealistic picture, is willing to work with the system to move us closer to an ideal society.

People are afraid of him because he has stated his idealistic goals, and they attack them for being too far. But no one has actually heard his words.

The thing I like most about Thompson is his acting on 'law and order' he is a tool and nothing more. The decline of the Republican party started with an actor, and if Thompson were elected it would continue that decline with another actor.

[Santana28]

the great thing about electing someone like Dr. Paul as President - the veto pen :)

and most politicians in washington are playing the "political" game - they'll draw the lines and pick sides eventually. dont forget the american people - if "Ron Paul" Republicans start getting elected to public office in growing numbers... it will snowball. they've already proven that they don't mind changing their positions so long as it keeps them in the game.

Dr. Paul has already changed the tone of this election considerably, if judging solely by the topics of debate and the phrasing of positions that the other candidates have grasped onto.

[rocksteady]

why do you believe that doing with the IRS is something that can't be done? Ron Paul's positions aside... there seems to be a movement in that direction already. Have you heard of the "Fair Tax" proposal? Are you aware of the controversial details surrounding the income tax?

you're right... no one can just wave their hand and make things happen. But if the will of the people leads one direction - change will follow.

what do you like about Fred Thompson?

Isn't Huckabee (Iowa Frontrunner) pushing for the Fair Tax? And why is abolishing the IRS such a bad idea? The math has been done, and even if you get rid of all the income from the IRS, you still have the same amount of money to run the country as you did in 98-99, were we doing so terrible back then? The IRS is just basically a cash cow that enables government to continue growing in size.

[Kirkaine]

I'm an Australian, not an American, but I have been following the race closely.

I don't really agree with your neo-con view, there are some good small government, traditional conservatives in the race, especially Fred Thompson.

I like Ron Paul's Libertarian views, but Thompson seems to be a man who can actually win. Look at his experience. Actor, senator, trial lawyer. He seems to be a candidate who can really communicate his viewpoint well. I've heard him referred to as "The Second Coming of Reagan", and it doesn't seem too far off.

[Santana28]

I'm an Australian, not an American, but I have been following the race closely.

I don't really agree with your neo-con view, there are some good small government, traditional conservatives in the race, especially Fred Thompson.

I like Ron Paul's Libertarian views, but Thompson seems to be a man who can actually win. Look at his experience. Actor, senator, trial lawyer. He seems to be a candidate who can really communicate his viewpoint well. I've heard him referred to as "The Second Coming of Reagan", and it doesn't seem too far off.

Okay, i dont mean to offend you - but how much of Mr. Thompson have you actually seen firsthand, that wasn't related to his film career? Have you seen him at the debates? The man can barely form a coherant sentence, let alone state an opinion. Just because he has been referred to as the "Second Coming of Reagan" does not make it so. He has spent more time as a lobbyist for special interests, military/industrial corporations, and the Council on Foreign Relations than he did during his entire 1.25 term senate stint.

Mr. Thompson is about as far away from "Traditional" conservatives as they get. Thats why we call them "Neo-Cons" - they're big government Democrats masked in conservative values.

Sorry. I have seen Mr. Thompson firsthand, and how anyone can consider him "presidential" after seeing him in real life, i'll never know.

[Tsuru]

I've never been able to comprehend how "he's more electable" is a valid reason. It's that exact sentiment that got Bush into office TWICE and that worthless blob of human jello John Kerry as the democratic nominee last time.

[karen]

Personally, I favor Bill Richardson

[Santana28]

"electable" is a term that the media concocts to help sway the mind of those who prefer not to think for themselves.

[jdc127]

Here we go again. Didn't Einstein say something like, The mindsets which create the problems cannot solve them?

I have said for many years that I would be in politics if I couldn't so intuitively sense how broken of a system it is.

[rocksteady]

Here we go again. Didn't Einstein say something like, The mindsets which create the problems cannot solve them?

I have said for many years that I would be in politics if I couldn't so intuitively sense how broken of a system it is.


I believe in the next 4-8 years, libertarians are going to do their best to fix it, regardless if Paul gets the nomination or not, the seed has been sown...

[Capt57]

Hillary Clinton, misunderstood INTJ

"Hillary Clinton is an introvert. I'm quite sure about this. My best guess is that, in Myers-Briggs terms, she is an INTJ (details below). This explains a lot about how the world regards her and why the press seems to find her so problematic."

Here is the full article:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rocksteady]

Hillary Clinton, misunderstood INTJ

"Hillary Clinton is an introvert. I'm quite sure about this. My best guess is that, in Myers-Briggs terms, she is an INTJ (details below). This explains a lot about how the world regards her and why the press seems to find her so problematic."

Here is the full article:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

her introversion never bothered me, it's her goddamn ideas and policies and double talk that piss me off!

[Capt57]

her introversion never bothered me, it's her goddamn ideas and policies and double talk that piss me off!

Just pointing out the blog for others;D Have not made up my mind personally. Will look more into Ron Paul.

[Santana28]

yeah..i can see hillary as an INTJ. one of the evil vicious malevolent ones that scheme to take over the world ;)

[jdc127]

No offense folks, but the ramifications of libertarianism SUCK as a moral, poltical or philosophical theory. Selfishness and narrowmindedness are two words that come to mind... Look into it, please.

(SUCK as in: let's just ignore or marginalize any effect that society has on the individual in their ability to support themselves and make other choices; let's just look after our own property and I'll be DAMNED if any government is going to require me to make miniscule and almost unoticeable contributions to the fabric of society; let's not require seatbelts because it's paternalistic and "big" government... That kind of shortsighted, selfish BS.)

[Capt57]

No offense folks, but the ramifications of libertarianism SUCK as a moral, poltical or philosophical theory. Selfishness and narrowmindedness are two words that come to mind... Look into it, please.

(SUCK as in: let's just ignore or marginalize any effect that society has on the individual in their ability to support themselves and make other choices; let's just look after our own property and I'll be DAMNED if any government is going to require me to make miniscule and almost unoticeable contributions to the fabric of society; let's not require seatbelts because it's paternalistic and "big" government... That kind of shortsighted, selfish BS.)

Your right, it seems like a great idea for the young and capable but what about the vast amount of others in society? Remember 50% of the people you know and meet are below average. Should we get rid of horrible social institutions like public library s and the post office? What about a guy like Eliott Spitzer; not necessary? Our society is already moving toward a greater divide between the rich and poor. How would a flat tax not help the rich?

[rocksteady]

No offense folks, but the ramifications of libertarianism SUCK as a moral, poltical or philosophical theory. Selfishness and narrowmindedness are two words that come to mind... Look into it, please.

(SUCK as in: let's just ignore or marginalize any effect that society has on the individual in their ability to support themselves and make other choices; let's just look after our own property and I'll be DAMNED if any government is going to require me to make miniscule and almost unoticeable contributions to the fabric of society; let's not require seatbelts because it's paternalistic and "big" government... That kind of shortsighted, selfish BS.)


aka I don't want to do it on my own, I prefer the governments help.

Most libertarians don't propose tearing down the fabric of society, just lessening our dependence on the government. We realize it's positive contributions when they are there. RP has proposed phase out plans, so people have plenty of time to learn independence.

And those that absolutely need help? How about the charity from your fellow citizens, and not relying on the government? If you can't depend on citizens to provide help for those in need, what kind of society are you living in? Seems to me socialist societies are more self-serving than libertarian ones.

[Santana28]

Your right, it seems like a great idea for the young and capable but what about the vast amount of others in society? Remember 50% of the people you know and meet are below average. Should we get rid of horrible social institutions like public library s and the post office? What about a guy like Eliott Spitzer; not necessary? Our society is already moving toward a greater divide between the rich and poor. How would a flat tax not help the rich?

huh? well the fact that 50% of the people are "below average" tells me that we need to change the direction we're moving in. why don't you think that a society which revolves around individual responsibility rather than social welfare would fix a problem like this?

you guys need to read of on libertarianism more than you have, you're showing a very short-sighted interpretation of the most basic quotes and you should at least understand what you're talking about before attempting to pass judgement on it IMHO.

[Capt57]

you guys need to read of on libertarianism more than you have, you're showing a very short-sighted interpretation of the most basic quotes and you should at least understand what you're talking about before attempting to pass judgement on it IMHO.


"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." To this end, Libertarians want to reduce the size of government (eliminating many of its current functions entirely).;D

What country comes closest to this idea right now?

[jdc127]

Actually, I have spent a fair amount of time discussing this and other ethical interpretations in philosophy and sociology classes. In fact I am taking more of those right now.

BTW: I am not trying to imply that adherents of the philosophy are themselves inherently selfish or shortsighted, but the ethical ramifications of the philosophy are.

Further, when any sociological system tries to define its tenets and then to apply them by focusing on the indiviualistic interpretations of society, it denies that we live in a completely interdependent, relative and emergent society/world.

Say you were born black, hispanic, or even white. You were born to a single mother or a poor working class family in an urban ghetto or a tiny rural area. There is no decent educational system, job training or even decent jobs close to where you live. What if you or your parents/siblings have physical or mental health problems and no access to health care? What if those problems are directly and indirectly caused or contributed to by society at large? (BTW more often then not, they are.)

Can you honestly say that you would not see any systematic repression by the racist society you live in? What about the unfair advantages conferred upon those who are rich, priveleged and often white because they are born into those things? Wouldn't it kinda piss you off when someone says, "Get a job and quit whining. You don't need the help of society at large, go ask your equally poor neighbors. Oh, and you just need to work harder."

The American dream and the equality of opportunity it implies are hugely obscene myths that are propagated to maintain elements of social control and used as justifications by the selfishly inclined. I am not saying that working hard and making the right choices don't sometimes pay off, but in reality many people find themselves in a situation where no matter what they do they will probably never gain access to better opportunities for themselves or their families. This being said, how can they help anyone else?

I agree that the choices we make are fundamental, but equality of opportunity never has and never will be absolute or can even be said to exist (in the forseeable future).

[1OFMANY]

I am a big fan of how successfull the US has been in the last 200+ years. We must be doing something right. Capitalism/ free trade and some protection for the little guy will always be a better bet than the options put forth thus far.

If there is one thing that people should be screaming about in the US is our horrible education system. Start sowing the seeds of innovation now so we can continue to reap the harvests in the future imo.

[Santana28]

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." To this end, Libertarians want to reduce the size of government (eliminating many of its current functions entirely).;D

What country comes closest to this idea right now?

right now? gosh, i dont know. perhaps iceland or the netherlands?

we've strayed far from this path... and if you look at how successful America was in the first 100+ years, and look at the results of the last 100+ years, i think its given that we have been more successful and productive with less government oversight than more.

i definitely think the FEDERAL government has moved way, wayyy beyond where it should be. if states want to regulate things, thats fine. but many of the things the federal government has taken upon itself should be left to the states, IMHO.

[elsdfr]

For anyone not in the US this debate has Ron Paul talking.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

First I've heard of him and I have NFI about US politics. :S

He's probably got too much common sense for politics... do the people want the truth?

At least he can admit to the people that the countries broke and they stuffed up. Plus a dollar/gold standard... now that would be interesting!

[Julian]

I know this is primarily a Ron Paul thread, but I still have to throw my support in for Obama.
It would be a pleasure to vote for the man.

I will admit that I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but I think he is far too radical to actually be elected. In my opinion, Americans tend to hate too much change at once, even if it might be good for them.





Julian added to this post, 5 minutes and 19 seconds later...

If there is one thing that people should be screaming about in the US is our horrible education system. Start sowing the seeds of innovation now so we can continue to reap the harvests in the future imo.

As someone going to school to be a Science/History teacher, I couldn't agree more.

[Llen]

NBC News just announced Obama as the winner of the SC Primary by "a substantial margin." (Will amend post as soon as percentages come in.)

[BlueTopaz]

I think they're all crooks and liars. That being said, I like Obama. Don't know why, just like him. Ha, that's a woman voting for you. ****takes tongue out of cheek****

[Julian]

That was an awesome win yesterday, and if you haven't seen his equally awesome victory speech, here you go.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I hope he holds his own on Super Tuesday, and takes the nomination this August. If Hillary takes it, I will not be voting democrat this time around,the Clintons are far too slimy for my tastes.

[elsdfr]

"RON PAUL IS CRAZY!!!"... apparently.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Santana28]

"RON PAUL IS CRAZY!!!"... apparently.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

you know... i can't believe anyone on this board would have posted something like this here. i am seriously offended - and i'm not offended easily. this is a blatant propaganda piece which "assumes" point after point without producing *one* piece of corroborating evidence. i am not offended because this is directed at Ron Paul - i would be offended if this smear were directed at any particular candidate. you cannot simply look at Dr. Paul's voting record without looking at his political philosophy - and it goes much further than the Libertarian Party, The Constitution Party, or the Republican Party. This is the same mindset that assumes that Barack Obama speaks for all black people of the world because he is half black, or Hilary Clinton speaks for all women because she is a woman.

but i suppose this video speaks for itself - if you would allow THIS guy's opinion in sway your vote, then your support is probably not worth having in the first place.

but if you would actually like to hear Dr. Paul's political philosophy, reasons for voting, authored legislation, and stances on the issues - direct from him - please feel free to visit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. or To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

and if you'd like to consider that Dr. Paul isn't a totalitarian anarchist freedom-hating communist nazi anti-environment monster... try checking them out. otherwise, check your facts.

[elsdfr]

Right or wrong it was just a follow up post to my one which I thought showed some of his positives... a counter argument perhaps?

Be offended for all I care and don't worry, you won't be getting my vote but thanks for the links anyway.

Plus if you want somewhere to spout your political agendas I'm sure there are better places.

[Santana28]

Right or wrong it was just a follow up post to my one which I thought showed some of his positives... a counter argument perhaps?

Be offended for all I care and don't worry, you won't be getting my vote but thanks for the links anyway.

Plus if you want somewhere to spout your political agendas I'm sure there are better places.

what counter argument? there were no facts in that rant - just assumptions off the wall!

"ron paul voted this way, and if he did that then that means he is [fill in the blank]"

i don't care about your vote - i care about the propagation of useless falsities and i'd like to see a discussion on political issues at least pertain SOMEWHAT to facts.

i'm not spouting any political agendas - i'm offering myself up to answer any questions or provide further information (FACTUAL) information. what do YOU have to offer besides this drivel? and moreso, how much of it have you verified for yourself firsthand?

[elsdfr]

I think you're overreacting, I put "apparently" at the end implying it was someones view, sketchy at most and you'll see by the video replies many people counter it well.

I'd appreciate it if you can tell me where he stands on aborotion and creationism.

[Santana28]

I think you're overreacting, I put "apparently" at the end implying it was someones view, sketchy at most and you'll see by the video replies many people counter it well.

I'd appreciate it if you can tell me where he stands on aborotion and creationism.

certainly. i'll PM you.

i may be overreacting, but there were a LOT of inaccuracies in that video, not to mention the too-numerous-to-count assumptions. i don't appreciate when people given bad info.

[Anon722]

Surely this results wont be biased... lol

[ElGuyay]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you're voting for anyone else, you're just throwing your vote away.

[Bossy Mom]

After Super Tuesday (yesterday), I don't know who I am going to vote for now. I don't want to vote for McCain, and I will not vote for Hillary or Obama. I may have to vote the way I am always threatening to vote - Libertarian.

[Santana28]

After Super Tuesday (yesterday), I don't know who I am going to vote for now. I don't want to vote for McCain, and I will not vote for Hillary or Obama. I may have to vote the way I am always threatening to vote - Libertarian.

i'll be writing in Ron Paul if need be. this ain't over yet by a long shot.

[Bossy Mom]

This is for all you people who like Obama: putting aside all his vacuous platitudes, what does he stand for? What are his plans if he becomes President? His foreign relations plan? His plan for Iraq and the Middle East? His economic plan?

I can't understand what he stands for nor what he plans to do.

I just know I won't be voting for him.

PS - There is no excuse to be offensive to others on this forum.

[1OFMANY]

Ron Paul is no way even a remote possibility. Its McCain for me, even though his stance on immigration is idiotic at best. its something I can agree to compromise on.

McCain is going to be our next president :) woohooo.

[Santana28]

Ron Paul is no way even a remote possibility. Its McCain for me, even though his stance on immigration is idiotic at best. its something I can agree to compromise on.

McCain is going to be our next president :) woohooo.

there is no way McCain will win... the plan has been all along to get a Dem in the whitehouse (hillary specifically). follow the money - its pretty obvious if you look at it.

Ron Paul is the only Repub that has a chance against a Dem - and the only one who can say that he had the foresight to vote against the war and the "patriot" act and all of these other things the Dems have failed to stand against. why do you think the Repub party and the media have made such an obvious effort and squelching him at every turn?

There is still a chance, btw. McCain is in debt, and Huckabee will drop out soon either from lack of funds or for a VP deal. Ron Paul still has cash, and he's still in the race. None of the delegate totals announced thus far as guaranteed to McCain by ANY means.

This has always been a battle between the TRUE Republican party and the NeoConservative Party.... and there really is no difference between the NeoCon and NeoLib parties we have these days. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote you won't regret... unless you're only interested in supporting the "winner" (who you will of course denounce for doing nothing they said they would and regret voting for 2 years later).

[Colette]

I want to see a face-off between Clinton and McCain. And I think my money's smart, and talking, too ;)

[Julian]

This is for all you people who like Obama: putting aside all his vacuous platitudes, what does he stand for? What are his plans if he becomes President? His foreign relations plan? His plan for Iraq and the Middle East? His economic plan?

I can't understand what he stands for nor what he plans to do.

I just know I won't be voting for him.

PS - There is no excuse to be offensive to others on this forum.

Check out his website for his positions and plans on any of the major topics.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The reason he doesn't get into details during debates is because they are not set up to allow an intelligent candidate to actually speak, they are set up for meaningless sound bites. They are the dumbed down, American Idol version of a debate. The reason you don't here about his detailed plans at his rallies is because that's not what people are there for. They are there to be inspired, to hear a great speaker talk about bringing the country together after 8 trying years of red and blue hating each other, nothing getting done, and people getting more cynical and apathetic to our democracy everyday.

On the issues, I like his plan to get us out of a war that he was against from the beginning, before it was cool. His health plan, with affordable insurance for those who want it and benefits similar to what members of congress have, is much more realistic and feasible than Clinton's "force everyone to buy insurance" plan. On education I like his idea to reform No Child Left Behind and actually fund the thing. I really like this because I'm a pre-service science teacher so his commitment to education is huge to me. I also love that his campaign is extremely grassroots and he refuses to take money from lobbyists and PACs, unlike Clinton.

Another main reason I support Obama is because he is the only democratic candidate that can get elected versus McCain, who just solidified his nomination, this fall. The conservatives may be divided on the idea of McCain right now, but against Clinton they will unite and turn out in droves to vote against her. I, and many other independents like me, will vote against her. She can only win with the democratic base and is far too divisive to bring this country together, or be elected.

Oh, and he stands for change, in the best way possible.





Julian added to this post, 6 minutes and 45 seconds later...

Ron Paul is no way even a remote possibility. Its McCain for me, even though his stance on immigration is idiotic at best. its something I can agree to compromise on.

McCain is going to be our next president :) woohooo.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'd say you couldn't be more correct.

[Santana28]

i'm sorry, with the current dire strait our economy is in - i will never be able to trust ANYONE who continues proposing endless social programs and overseas assistance without addressing the current state of government bloat. that includes Mr. Change. at best - he's terribly, terribly naive. at worst - he's going to destroy any prosperity this country has left and not apologize for it because he is working for "social good."

[Colette]

The reason he doesn't get into details during debates is because they are not set up to allow an intelligent candidate to actually speak, they are set up for meaningless sound bites. They are the dumbed down, American Idol version of a debate. The reason you don't here about his detailed plans at his rallies is because that's not what people are there for. They are there to be inspired, to hear a great speaker talk about bringing the country together after 8 trying years of red and blue hating each other, nothing getting done, and people getting more cynical and apathetic to our democracy everyday.


Or...could it be that he actually has nothing to say; except some lame attempts at imitating Martin Luther King and/or Jesse Jackson, and flashing his shiny white teeth around to the camera crews? :)

[Julian]

Or...could it be that he actually has nothing to say; except some lame attempts at imitating Martin Luther King and/or Jesse Jackson, and flashing his shiny white teeth around to the camera crews? :)

It's always a possibility, only time will tell. I think he's our best chance though.





Julian added to this post, 49 minutes and 33 seconds later...

i'm sorry, with the current dire strait our economy is in - i will never be able to trust ANYONE who continues proposing endless social programs and overseas assistance without addressing the current state of government bloat. that includes Mr. Change. at best - he's terribly, terribly naive. at worst - he's going to destroy any prosperity this country has left and not apologize for it because he is working for "social good."

I hear what you're saying, and you're right the government is bloated and has way too much power over personal lives. That being said, I'm also a realist. Things are not going to change over night, and right now there are only three real possibilities for president this November. My personal opinion is that Obama>McCain>Clinton for a leader that will represent our country for the next 4 years from these possibilities.

And as for the economic issues, the president doesn't really have any direct control over the economy but often gets blamed for it (I bet Bush wishes he did right now, add recession to his legacy). No social program has ever cost anywhere near what this war is costing us, so stopping that will go a long way to helping our economic health. We might actually have money for "evil" social programs with change to spare. I don't think the government does the best job managing these programs, but I also don't want to be tripping over hobos and starving children every time I go to my mailbox (which is basically what happens in parts of the world with no social programs).

And I'm not say Paul (I'm almost positive that's your horse ;)) wouldn't be an interesting president that would definitely bring about change in the way government works. He would, but he has almost no chance of being elected. The majority of people think he's kind of a nut. They want change, but not such a huge dose at once.

Oh and who the heck buys a blimp with their record contributions, a blimp for godsakes. Now if he bought me a blimp...

[Santana28]

It's always a possibility, only time will tell. I think he's our best chance though.





Julian added to this post, 49 minutes and 33 seconds later...



I hear what you're saying, and you're right the government is bloated and has way too much power over personal lives. That being said, I'm also a realist. Things are not going to change over night, and right now there are only three real possibilities for president this November. My personal opinion is that Obama>McCain>Clinton for a leader that will represent our country for the next 4 years from these possibilities.

And as for the economic issues, the president doesn't really have any direct control over the economy but often gets blamed for it (I bet Bush wishes he did right now, add recession to his legacy). No social program has ever cost anywhere near what this war is costing us, so stopping that will go a long way to helping our economic health. We might actually have money for "evil" social programs with change to spare. I don't think the government does the best job managing these programs, but I also don't want to be tripping over hobos and starving children every time I go to my mailbox (which is basically what happens in parts of the world with no social programs).

And I'm not say Paul (I'm almost positive that's your horse ;)) wouldn't be an interesting president that would definitely bring about change in the way government works. He would, but he has almost no chance of being elected. The majority of people think he's kind of a nut. They want change, but not such a huge dose at once.

Oh and who the heck buys a blimp with their record contributions, a blimp for godsakes. Now if he bought me a blimp...

who tells you who the "possibilities" are? who determines them?

the president has the ability to turn around the direction of the economy. by abolishing bloated departments, ending our occupation of 130 nations around the world which does nothing to "protect" us and wastes TRILLIONS of dollars, by doing away with the income tax and giving the american citizen their hard earned pay instead of taking it from them and redistributing it.

the sad thing is... most people want every single piece of change that Paul would bring. but they dont see it. they would rather take it wrapped in an obvious, predictable, controllable package. people say they dont want "politicians" and "lobbyists" and all that jazz - its a lie. they do. because it is comfortable for them. it is all they have known.

i, personally... was against the blimp. if anything can destroy momentum - an arrogant display of fundraising ability and wasteful spending is one of them. the blimp was a stupid idea, and a waste of half a million dollars that could have been spent printing materials or airing TV ads.

as over 3/4 of the people on Ron Paul Fourms have tested as either INTJ or INTP, or ENTJ or ENTP, i think it is safe to say that intuitive thinkers support Ron Paul. we are probably america's best and brightest. unfortunately, we don't speak the same language as those who prefer not to think for themselves... "change, change! hope, hope!"

[gillyweet]

i'm very much in the clinton camp, even though i don't live in america! she's an INTJ!

clinton seems to be able to put plans into action and change when needed. while i tend to get the feeling that obama is a lot of talk and may not be able to produce results.

i think it's got to do with experience.

hah!