Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rand Paul Is the True Threat

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 6:59:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the greatest treason against authentic moral goodness is taking a righteous stance for the philosophically wrong reason. Well, this sanction against the sanctimonious dissimulation of wrapping one's wrong and unenlightened ideological values and positions in the mantle of loftily expounding on doing the right thing most certainly applies, in spades and every other suit in the deck, to the "Honorable" Rand Paul's recent bit of filibustering. That is, congressperson Paul's pretended passion for protecting American citizens from the chilling prospect of murder drones one day being used as high-tech instruments of our government's tyranny over its own population shouldn't be taken at face value. Critical thinking, rather, is what's clearly called for to cut through the pretense of high-mindedness and the ideological BS of the likes of a Rand Paul. Skepticism is absolutely what's in order as we examine his politically-motivated alarmism.

To begin with let's consider the source. Despite the image of a populist that Congressman Paul would like to project, he's nothing of the kind. He is, rather, a pandering politician channeling the sham populism of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party phenomenon is indeed a travesty of American populism, functioning to promote greater license for precisely the sort of capitalists who've treated us all to a global economic crisis; a mock grassroots movement whose main effect has been to help scuttle the growth of genuine populism that economic hard times might reasonably have been expected to generate. To put it in blunt terms, Rand Paul, like equally specious Sarah Palin, is a celebrity of a movement that aims at the utter unfettering of the rich in the guise of limiting government. The zeitgeist that he represents is one that in a mealymouthed fashion espouses and supports the interests of the corporate elite; it only appeals to working-class voters who've been bamboozled by its impersonation of a movement to get big government off of the back of the little guy. It's real and ideologically-concealed goal, however, is the reckless granting of laissez-faire carte blanche to plutocratic fat cats, not the liberation of proletarian underdogs.

Of course Congressman Paul was raised by his no doubt proud political papa in an ideological worldview that especially suited him to the role of Tea-Partyist shill for the capitalist ruling class. Yes, I'm referring to "libertarianism". Let's be equally blunt about this quite intellectually-dishonest political belief system, shall we? Well, the first thing to clarify about "libertarianism" is that it certainly deserves the skeptical quotation marks, as values such as freedom and power to the people aren't its actual orientation in the slightest. The critical and crass truth of "libertarianism" be told, it has an utterly circumscribed and skewed concept of freedom. I.e., one that reduces and distorts freedom into the entitlement of capitalists to flout pro-social values and function free of regulation and legal accountability in the pursuit of obscene levels of capital accumulation. No, it's sadly no exaggeration to say that for "libertarianism" and its adherents "freedom" becomes a mere euphemistic jargon term for capitalist empowerment.

"Libertarianism", that is, is a weltanschauung in which the capitalist represents the archetype, the quintessential role model of Homo economicus that we should all endeavor to emulate. Man is no longer viewed as a social being with socio-ethical obligations that supersede his alleged right to be a self-interested SOB, and any advocacy of viewing him as such is derisively dismissed as pandering to his "herd instinct". Rather, drawing on vulgar Darwinism, humans are portrayed as hardwired by nature and evolution to be somewhat ruthless egoistic and economic individualists. And the ideal socioeconomic system is portrayed as one that recognizes and gives full and licentious scope to our species' selfish and greedy character. In a word, a pure and unregenerate version of capitalism is promoted as the most natural, viable, and prosperous form of life conceivable.

The upshot of all of this is that a Tea-Part "libertarian" such as Rand Paul is coming from a cognitive and ideological place of what I'll term politicized and glorified narcissism. A place of focusing interest inward, on oneself as an autonomous island unto oneself; and on our own narrowly-conceived, autonomous national interests. That is, his brand of "libertarian" individualism naturally translates into isolationism. His is a philosophy that inherently seeks to isolate, i.e. atomize individuals; and one that would disastrously take us back to an era of national isolationism as well. His is a fundamentally anti-social philosophy that abjectly fails to grok the social-relatedness of human beings living together in society, and of national societies in a global big picture in which autonomous national interests are a thing of the past.

In other words, the actual thinking underlying Congressman Paul's anti-interventionist stance is both backward and uncaring. It's not that life-affirming sensibilities are prominent in his psychology and ideology, and that the morally vile practice of using drones to visit death on innocent civilians in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan rubs these ethically enlightened sensibilities the wrong way. Rather, "libertarianism" is characterized by a profound lack of moral caring that on the geopolitical stage manifests as a distinct deficiency of interest in other peoples and in interventionism of any nature. Even genuinely and imperatively humanitarian intervention (if our government ever decided to break from long-standing historical precedent and go in for such a thing, as opposed to imperialism in the sheep's clothing of humanitarian interventionism) would be opposed by "libertarians" of the Congressman's ilk on the callous grounds that it isn't the proper business of the government to be an international do-gooder. Mm-hmm, Paul the younger, like his father, merely lacks sufficient interest in humanity, and can therefore see no reason to be overseas in the first place.

As for his professed and somewhat melodramatic concern about drones one day being used within the borders of the United States against its own citizens, well, the antigovernmentism lurking beneath this concern stems from the same uncaring place as his anti-interventionism. Which is to say that he opposes big government not merely for the genuinely libertarian reason that he's distressed about the way that the growth of the state infringes our freedoms, but rather because the evolution of the state into a social welfare state is antithetical to his vision of a society in which everyone is a totally isolated individual left to fend for himself, to prosper or perish. He simply doesn't like the idea of a government that helps below-the-poverty-line folks at the expense of wealthy capitalists. We're back to his idea of freedom, in which freedom is the freedom of capitalists to always have their druthers, to pay no taxes and to be subject to no regulation. Our current form of government doesn't quite conform to this so-called libertarian vision (of course it almost does, the superrich certainly don't pay anything approaching their fair share of taxes, and big business and finance are hardly adequately regulated) and so Congressman Paul takes up a stance as its staunch foe. And to garner attention to advance his own political career he sounds the "warning" that one day our military technology may be turned against us. It's all just rubbishy "libertarianism", pure and positively simple.

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 7:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conclusion

Is there a legitimate, plausible concern about the possibility of the government one day employing its drones and other murderous military tech against us, sure there is. I certainly don't mean to pooh-pooh this entirely real and present danger. However, if the government ever actually does resort to such heinous measures it will be to safeguard and preserve the plutocratic status quo and power structure of our society, i.e. it will be to save the bacon of the capitalist pigs who rule us and whom our faux champion Congressman is so ideologically disinclined to criticize, tax, or regulate. At any rate, signing on to his "libertarian" tack of railing against and reining in the welfare and regulatory state but allowing the clout and control of the corporatocracy to grow is a sure prescription for a dystopian future in which the government and military utilize their own form of terror to keep an increasingly immiserated public in check for the protection of the capitalist powers that be. Which is to say that it's actually and ironically the Congressman in question and his ideology that presents the very threat that he's trying to incorporate into his own version of fearmongering politics. Please don't fall for his transparently alarmist and "libertarian" shtick; as always, the ones that we should really keep a wary eye on are those who attempt to implant insecurity in our psyches, and those who would further empower the already powerful.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:32:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:17:23 PM, emj32 wrote:
Can't wait til Geo's rebuttal....this is gonna be a fun topic.

I hope so. And I would certainly value your feedback as much as friend Geo's.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 10:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:32:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:17:23 PM, emj32 wrote:
Can't wait til Geo's rebuttal....this is gonna be a fun topic.

I hope so. And I would certainly value your feedback as much as friend Geo's.

I feel that Rand has some true feelings against the administration's supposed want to use drone strikes against American citizens, on American soil, without a trial or due diligence. However, if it were the Romney administration that was supporting these measures, I feel like he would have a more supporting role. In other words, I do agree that Rand went on with his lengthy anti-Obama filibuster in order to positively benefit his current political agenda. With his filibuster, which had a broad range of support from all sides of the political agenda, especially amongst Republicans, he solidified his position amongst the top contenders for the Republican nomination ticket for the next election.

I also seem to agree with you on the issue that Republicans, including Libertarians, focus too much on Obama's actions that are either false propaganda by Fox News, or exacerbated (e.g. Benghazi) by the party and media alike. Unfortunately, this takes away time and effort away from the real issues, as you pointed out, the big corporations that basically bribe/fund, thus run, the congressmen and major political figures that rule over the land. Not to take any glory away from the big banks that basically bankrupted the nation, and continue to crash the economy.

Hopefully this is a sufficient enough response. I only read the conclusion, as your first post was a little too lengthy for my liking :)
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 10:13:53 PM, emj32 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:32:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:17:23 PM, emj32 wrote:
Can't wait til Geo's rebuttal....this is gonna be a fun topic.

I hope so. And I would certainly value your feedback as much as friend Geo's.

I feel that Rand has some true feelings against the administration's supposed want to use drone strikes against American citizens, on American soil, without a trial or due diligence. However, if it were the Romney administration that was supporting these measures, I feel like he would have a more supporting role. In other words, I do agree that Rand went on with his lengthy anti-Obama filibuster in order to positively benefit his current political agenda. With his filibuster, which had a broad range of support from all sides of the political agenda, especially amongst Republicans, he solidified his position amongst the top contenders for the Republican nomination ticket for the next election.

I also seem to agree with you on the issue that Republicans, including Libertarians, focus too much on Obama's actions that are either false propaganda by Fox News, or exacerbated (e.g. Benghazi) by the party and media alike. Unfortunately, this takes away time and effort away from the real issues, as you pointed out, the big corporations that basically bribe/fund, thus run, the congressmen and major political figures that rule over the land. Not to take any glory away from the big banks that basically bankrupted the nation, and continue to crash the economy.

Hopefully this is a sufficient enough response. I only read the conclusion, as your first post was a little too lengthy for my liking :)

You 'feel like' if a republican was in office he'd be acting differently? That's not an argument, he's butted heads with most establishment republicans, there's no reason he wouldn't be against one in the white house.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:17:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can someone translate everything he said into 'normal people english' ?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:21:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 12:17:09 AM, imabench wrote:
Can someone translate everything he said into 'normal people english' ?

Something something capitalist pigs something something
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:40:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I'm gonna do the best I can to translate this into simple words.

At 3/9/2013 6:59:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
Libertarianism is stupid, Rand Paul is a libertarian, therefore Rand Paul is stupid.

Rand Paul claims to be someone kinda on his own, but he's really a tea party person, and the tea party is bad cause their for rich people, and rich people are bad.

Rand Paul was indoctrinated by Ron Paul, and since he was indoctrinated to be a libertarian, that's bad. Libertarianism is bad cause it's good for capitalism.

Libertarianism is bad cause it's a big appeal to nature.

Rand Paul is bad cause he will uproot the social structure, and stop world peace and world governments and stuff, because he's an isolationist.

Rand Paul doesn't believe in intervention because he hates brown people, like his dad.

Him being against drone strikes on Americans, or rather thinking that they will happen, stems from his hate for humanity and libertarianism.

Continued below

I'll do the conclusion aswell.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:42:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 7:00:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

The whole drone threat thing, and it's potential use on Americans is all because of capitalist pigs and Rand Paul/libertarians.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:43:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 12:17:09 AM, imabench wrote:
Can someone translate everything he said into 'normal people english' ?

There you go.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:51:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is philosophically wrong to be against a President having judge, jury, and executioner authority? It is your belief then that we shred the Magna Carta and shred the 5th Amendment.

Rand Paul articulated that the executive and judicial power must be separated, you don't believe in the separation of such powers.

You claim that Rand Paul, the Tea Party and Libertarians espouse and support the interests of the corporate elite. Utterly false. You support the philosophy that has granted special privileges and granted undeserved wealth to corporations and bankers. You support government intervention in the economy, government subsidies, government distribution of wealth. Guess what, the government intervened, gave subsidies, and distributed wealth in favor of the corporate elite.

Free market Libertarians believe the government should stop interfering with the economy and not give bailouts to bankers. When the government gets involved in the economy, it hurts small business because it malinvests, engages in price fixing, and runs counter to the consumer-run free market. You don't want consumers determining value and which company gets what profits, you want government to do that.

Libertarians want every individual to have the ability to achieve prosperity but not every individual has the will, the desire, the work ethic, or the creativity to pursue prosperity. You don't acknowledge that fact.

You suggest that individualism is selfish and egotistical. False. You are a collectivist fascist that denies the individual. You want to trample the individual at the whims of the mob rule of majority, the collective. You want everyone to be a herd, that is correct. A big collective of clones, of total equality, equal identity and no uniqueness. You want equality of income but the results of such attempts results in everyone equal in poverty and equal in slavery.

You have no understanding of the fact that the individual must work on themself, water their own garden, provide for themself, be prosperous in order to treat their fellow man with respect and dignity. If you can't respect yourself, how can you respect others. Notice that individuals who have deteriorated, have no motivation, are depressed, empty, they don't treat their fellow man with respect. They possess jealousy because they themselves aren't fulfilled. If the individual fulfills himself, he can treat others as individuals with respect and kindness.

You don't understand the common phrase "different strokes for different folks." Some people like to be lazy, accept their simple living conditions, and live the lifestyle they choose. Some people are ambitious and want extravagant living conditions. You want to force both of them to live a life they don't want in the name of anti-humanistic equality and fascist collectivism.

Rand Paul stands up for the right of every individual to pursue prosperity, live freely, and maintain their property. Rand Paul is a man who stands up to Goldman Sachs, your boy Obama receives socialist favors from Goldman Sachs and does what they say. The free market and Capitalism are the opposite of a government interfering with the economy. Let human beings trade freely.

Rand Paul's position is not a position promoting fear. You believe that drone strikes are not a real concern for Americans. Utterly false. Obama has already dropped a hellfire missile on a 16 y/o American boy's head who was looking for his murdered father in Yemen. Obama drone strikes civilians at weddings. You think that only happens overseas, but Obama's National Defense Authorization Act defines the United States to be a battlefield with the laws of war apply with no due process. Given that definition, Obama could conceivably drop hellfire missiles on Americans on U.S. soil given the actions he's already taken.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:52:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conclusion

You are false.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:21:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 7:00:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

Is there a legitimate, plausible concern about the possibility of the government one day employing its drones and other murderous military tech against us, sure there is. I certainly don't mean to pooh-pooh this entirely real and present danger. However, if the government ever actually does resort to such heinous measures it will be to safeguard and preserve the plutocratic status quo and power structure of our society, i.e. it will be to save the bacon of the capitalist pigs who rule us and whom our faux champion Congressman is so ideologically disinclined to criticize, tax, or regulate. At any rate, signing on to his "libertarian" tack of railing against and reining in the welfare and regulatory state but allowing the clout and control of the corporatocracy to grow is a sure prescription for a dystopian future in which the government and military utilize their own form of terror to keep an increasingly immiserated public in check for the protection of the capitalist powers that be. Which is to say that it's actually and ironically the Congressman in question and his ideology that presents the very threat that he's trying to incorporate into his own version of fearmongering politics. Please don't fall for his transparently alarmist and "libertarian" shtick; as always, the ones that we should really keep a wary eye on are those who attempt to implant insecurity in our psyches, and those who would further empower the already powerful.
Regardless of ideology. You do see the extreme potential for misuse of drone strikes on american soil right?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 3:06:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:21:36 AM, tmar19652 wrote:

Regardless of ideology. You do see the extreme potential for misuse of drone strikes on american soil right?

I view the military as little more than the glorified goon squad of the economic and political Establishment that under the ideological cover of bourgeois democracy rules our plutocratic polity in the interest of the systematic furtherance of its own security and hegemony. I'm under no illusions whatsoever about the armed forces being authentic protectors of the common people and their vaunted civil liberties; rather, I recognize that they and the whole national security state that has grown into existence since WWII exist to protect our society's power structure and power elite, and that if need be our power elite will turn the military and its lethal tech against American citizens with little if any compunction. However, Rand Paul's particular version of antigovernmentism, which is the basis of his professed concern about the prospect of drone strikes on American soil, stems from a quite different ideological place (the desire to totally unchain the capitalist beast), and as my OP makes clear, I find it to be more of a realistic threat to our freedom and safety than that presented in the foreseeable future by military drones.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 3:57:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:51:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It is philosophically wrong to be against a President having judge, jury, and executioner authority?

Never said that. I merely critically analyze where the Congressman is coming from ideologically, and find it to be a quite disturbing place that imperils our freedom a good deal more than the Obama administration's drone policy.

It is your belief then that we shred the Magna Carta and shred the 5th Amendment.

Oh my, are you one of those exceedingly retro rightists who wraps his paleo politics in irrelevant but hallowed documents such as the Magna Carta?!

Rand Paul articulated that the executive and judicial power must be separated, you don't believe in the separation of such powers.

Did I say anything of the kind? If you actually read the OP you know full well that I didn't, ergo I must conclude that you're attempting to wantonly misrepresent my views. Shame on you. Be advised that such intellectual dishonesty does nothing to enhance the credibility of your professed "libertarianism".

You claim that Rand Paul, the Tea Party and Libertarians espouse and support the interests of the corporate elite. Utterly false.

Utterly and verifiably true. That is, their positions, abolishing regulation and reducing or eliminating taxes on the corporate elite, would most certainly and plainly be in its interest.

You support the philosophy that has granted special privileges and granted undeserved wealth to corporations and bankers.

Nope. Recall that I'm a "commie" who given my philosophical druthers would abolish the whole and endemically rotten system of special privileges and economic supremacy enjoyed by corporations and bankers.

You support government intervention in the economy, government subsidies, government distribution of wealth.

The government and our public institutions do enjoy a bit of relative autonomy and can indeed be made to do some small measure of good; such as regulating corporations and redistributing wealth, via social welfare programs, to the needy.

Guess what, the government intervened, gave subsidies, and distributed wealth in favor of the corporate elite.

That's because the imprudent trend (to put it mildly), over the last few decades (and Obama certainly hasn't reversed this quite bipartisan trend) has been in the direction of deregulation and the excessive empowerment of the corporate establishment. All under the cover of your sort of anti-big government, free-marketarian philosophy, I might add. When are you market fundamentalists going to begin to take a measure of responsibility for the economic havoc you've wrought? Yes, that's a rhetorical question, the answer is of course never, given the extent of your ideological disconnect from reality and a sense of social responsibility.

Free market Libertarians believe the government should stop interfering with the economy and not give bailouts to bankers.

Because you would completely unfetter bankers, business elites, and exploitative bosses.

When the government gets involved in the economy, it hurts small business because it malinvests, engages in price fixing, and runs counter to the consumer-run free market. You don't want consumers determining value and which company gets what profits, you want government to do that.

Actually, I'm a whacky anarcho-communist who ultimately would like to abolish both the capitalist system and government and genuinely empower the people.

Libertarians want every individual to have the ability to achieve prosperity but not every individual has the will, the desire, the work ethic, or the creativity to pursue prosperity. You don't acknowledge that fact.

No, you are ideologically resistant to assigning the lion's share of fault to the capitalist system, and therefore would prefer to shift it over to individuals, which of course causes you to fall into the lame and libelous error of blaming the victim.

You suggest that individualism is selfish and egotistical.

Well, there most certainly is an egoistic and selfish variant of individualism that often attempts to mask itself with the political ideology of "libertarainism".

You are a collectivist fascist that denies the individual.

Abject name-calling. Shame on you.

You want to trample the individual at the whims of the mob rule of majority, the collective. You want everyone to be a herd, that is correct. A big collective of clones, of total equality, equal identity and no uniqueness. You want equality of income but the results of such attempts results in everyone equal in poverty and equal in slavery.

Reductionist rubbish. You and your ideology, on the other hand, would prefer a form of free-marketarian life that would predictably and promptly deteriorate into a Nietzschean state of affairs in which capitalist ubermenschen would have license to lord their superiority and economic power over the rest of us.

You have no understanding of the fact that the individual must work on themself, water their own garden, provide for themself, be prosperous in order to treat their fellow man with respect and dignity. If you can't respect yourself, how can you respect others. Notice that individuals who have deteriorated, have no motivation, are depressed, empty, they don't treat their fellow man with respect. They possess jealousy because they themselves aren't fulfilled. If the individual fulfills himself, he can treat others as individuals with respect and kindness.

Notice the effects on human dignity and character caused by the poverty and unemployment visited by your vaunted capitalist system and elite.

You don't understand the common phrase "different strokes for different folks."

Sure I do. "Communism" is in fact all about liberating human beings from the control of capitalism's dynamics and elite, liberating then to genuinely and optimally actualize their individual personalities and potentialities.

Some people like to be lazy, accept their simple living conditions, and live the lifestyle they choose. Some people are ambitious and want extravagant living conditions. You want to force both of them to live a life they don't want in the name of anti-humanistic equality and fascist collectivism.

More blaming the individual and neglecting the sociological big picture of capitalism.

Rand Paul stands up for the right of every individual to pursue prosperity, live freely, and maintain their property. Rand Paul is a man who stands up to Goldman Sachs, your boy Obama receives socialist favors from Goldman Sachs and does what they say. The free market and Capitalism are the opposite of a government interfering with the economy. Let human beings trade freely.

Both Obama and Paul, Democrats and Republicans, are punks of the plutocracy in their own ideologically divergent ways.

Rand Paul's position is not a position promoting fear.

Oh yeah?!

You believe that drone strikes are not a real concern for Americans.

Never said that.

Obama has already dropped a hellfire missile on a 16 y/o American boy's head who was looking for his murdered father in Yemen. Obama drone strikes civilians at weddings. You think that only happens overseas, but Obama's National Defense Authorization Act defines the United States to be a battlefield with the laws of war apply with no due process. Given that definition, Obama could conceivably drop hellfire missiles on Americans on U.S. soil given the actions he's already taken.

I'm no fan of Obama. Actually, in my view his use of drones and whatnot makes him a murderer who belongs in prison (with all of his living predecessors, of course). Reread the OP and you'll find that it is in no way, shape, or form a defense of ole Barack. It has to do with the ideological perspective that Paul is coming from, and its lack of respectability.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 3:59:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:52:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Conclusion

You are false.

I would beg to disagree with that accusation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:45:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:04:33 PM, Lizard wrote:
Some of the forum debates are even better than the actual debates!

I agree.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:54:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Basically a good thing done, but coming from a capitalist pig is a bad thing. As if a constitutional approach to government will be worse than what we have now because the constitution doesn't set forth some obscure realistic socialist utopia.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:02:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 10:13:53 PM, emj32 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:32:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:17:23 PM, emj32 wrote:
Can't wait til Geo's rebuttal....this is gonna be a fun topic.

I hope so. And I would certainly value your feedback as much as friend Geo's.

I feel that Rand has some true feelings against the administration's supposed want to use drone strikes against American citizens, on American soil, without a trial or due diligence.

Yes, but do these feelings come from a place of moral caring or respect for people's civil liberties, or from his antigovernment/pro-capitalist perspective?

However, if it were the Romney administration that was supporting these measures, I feel like he would have a more supporting role. In other words, I do agree that Rand went on with his lengthy anti-Obama filibuster in order to positively benefit his current political agenda.

Yes, you recognize this because you have a functioning brain in your cranium, and you don't behold the world from an ideologically-skewed "libertarian" perspective, which is about all that it takes to recognize something so patently plain.

With his filibuster, which had a broad range of support from all sides of the political agenda, especially amongst Republicans, he solidified his position amongst the top contenders for the Republican nomination ticket for the next election.

Yep. But of course it's a dastardly thing to impute such self-serving political motives to such a noble and patriotic public servant. We naughty critical thinkers should hang our heads in shame.

I also seem to agree with you on the issue that Republicans, including Libertarians, focus too much on Obama's actions that are either false propaganda by Fox News, or exacerbated (e.g. Benghazi) by the party and media alike. Unfortunately, this takes away time and effort away from the real issues, as you pointed out, the big corporations that basically bribe/fund, thus run, the congressmen and major political figures that rule over the land. Not to take any glory away from the big banks that basically bankrupted the nation, and continue to crash the economy.

Yes, FOX News indeed presents a laughably biased picture of politics and current events in which Obama and "liberals" have quite the monopoly on malfeasance, and this serves quite nicely to distract us from the misdoings of conservatives and the corporatocracy that they staunchly champion.

Hopefully this is a sufficient enough response. I only read the conclusion, as your first post was a little too lengthy for my liking :)

Oh well, perhaps when you have a few moments you might read the rest of my little anti-Paulist rant, but I do nonetheless appreciate your feedback.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:05:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 3:24:14 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
*rubs hands*

Care to elaborate?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:10:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:50:19 PM, lewis20 wrote:

You 'feel like' if a republican was in office he'd be acting differently? That's not an argument, he's butted heads with most establishment republicans, there's no reason he wouldn't be against one in the white house.

So we should give him kudos for being an ideological hard-liner who doesn't play well with fellow Republicans who don't adhere to his fringe "libertarian" viewpoint?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:12:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 12:21:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 12:17:09 AM, imabench wrote:
Can someone translate everything he said into 'normal people english' ?

Something something capitalist pigs something something

Translation of your translation: "I'm a libertarian and don't like your critique of my idol and ideology so I'm going to deride it".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:24:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:54:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Basically a good thing done, but coming from a capitalist pig is a bad thing.

I would assert that promoting a form of antigovernmentism that would further excessively empower our society's already thoroughly and plutocratically over-empowered economic elite is a genuinely and seriously bad thing.

As if a constitutional approach to government will be worse than what we have now because the constitution doesn't set forth some obscure realistic socialist utopia.

Ah, gotcha! So you and your fellow rightists are really such staunch constitutionalists precisely and mainly because a society strictly based on the original constitution would be a society shorn of anything that you would describe as "socialism", i.e. of any social safety net for the needy and any public regulation of corporate greed. That is, advocating strict constitutionalism is merely an indirect and dishonest angle of approach to promoting your own free-marketarian utopianism. Mm-hmm, you kind of inadvertently let that slip and I just wanted to make sure that we all take note.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:32:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As for the "libertarian's" allegedly high-minded principle of nonaggression, which some might use to rationalize Paul's position, it actually amounts to nothing more than the "libertarian's" withdrawal into his own little autistic world of economic self-interest and his refusal to take up arms for anything other than its defense. "Libertarians" are most certainly not enlightened Gandhian pacifists. They're merely extreme examples of the kind of atomized individualist produced by late 20th-21st-century American suburban culture, who can't be bothered to go to war for any cause other than the protection of their freedom to not give a damn and their ideologically-sanctified right to own private property. In fact, the "libertarian's" stance of opposition to military interventionism, i.e. his isolationism, is quite simply his application of this (nonclinical) autism to foreign policy matters. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being too decent to use America's military might and tech (items such as murder drones) against Third-World peoples. I'm sorry for possibly sounding a wee bit harsh, but in the interest of complete and critical honesty I must opine that there's simply nothing, in terms of integrity, about the "libertarian's" position that is at all legitimate. He's utterly consistent to a fault, the fault of excessive, shortsighted, and irresponsible privatism, on the personal and geopolitical levels.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:44:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Charles what do you identify as politically?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:51:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:32:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:17:23 PM, emj32 wrote:
Can't wait til Geo's rebuttal....this is gonna be a fun topic.

I hope so. And I would certainly value your feedback as much as friend Geo's.

Charles you don't value any kind of critique, you've never been wrong so how could someone critique that? You value reassuring feedback and observations of your verbosity to the point of incomprehensibility.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:39:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 5:44:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Charles what do you identify as politically?

A humanistic anarchist-communist.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.