Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Any other liberals who support Ron Paul?

Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:38:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know, I know, he can't win anyway, but considering how badly Obama is dealing with foreign policy and... well a lot of other stuff, and how utterly fantastic Ron Paul's foreign policy is, I was willing to let the economic policy slide and give my support to Paul. Anyone else feel that way?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:48:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

For me, foreign policy is very important, and Ron Paul's non-interventionism is extremely appealing to me. If social policy is more important to you, then you would obviously stay with Obama.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Cause, gosh dangit, if Ike says it ain't liberal, it ain't liberal, and never can be!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:56:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

And yes, it is a MASSIVE compromise, I'm aware of that, but foreign policy is just that important to me.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:59:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:38:02 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
I know, I know, he can't win anyway, but considering how badly Obama is dealing with foreign policy and... well a lot of other stuff, and how utterly fantastic Ron Paul's foreign policy is, I was willing to let the economic policy slide and give my support to Paul. Anyone else feel that way?

No, I support Keynesian economics too much to give in to Ron Paul. And I thought Obama's foreign policy was pretty good actually.

If I didn't support Obama, my next candidate would probably be Jill Stein (Green party).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:09:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:59:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:38:02 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
I know, I know, he can't win anyway, but considering how badly Obama is dealing with foreign policy and... well a lot of other stuff, and how utterly fantastic Ron Paul's foreign policy is, I was willing to let the economic policy slide and give my support to Paul. Anyone else feel that way?

No, I support Keynesian economics too much to give in to Ron Paul. And I thought Obama's foreign policy was pretty good actually.

If I didn't support Obama, my next candidate would probably be Jill Stein (Green party).

The only reason that I would settle for Ron Paul's economics (which I really do dislike) is because Obama has done nothing to decrease the size of the military, and when it comes to drone strikes he has made it easier to get away with murdering civilians by classifying anyone of fighting age as a combatant and is generally encouraging the same irresponsibility in the military that has gone on for over a hundred years. And if Ron Paul would actually implement his policies to enforce accountability in the military, supporting him would be worth giving up on my liberal economic views for 4 years.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:10:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Want me to define "Classic Liberal" for you?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:13:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Well then given the choices in this election, I would temporarily sacrifice my liberal economic views for my libertarian views.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:14:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:10:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Want me to define "Classic Liberal" for you?

want me to define "Modern Liberal" for you?

Wow, you're full of moot points today
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:28:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:14:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:10:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Want me to define "Classic Liberal" for you?

want me to define "Modern Liberal" for you?

Wow, you're full of moot points today

Your mom's full of moot points.

Anyway--neoliberalism is only a sect of liberalism. Classic liberalism is one, too. The point is valid.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:28:40 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:14:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:10:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Want me to define "Classic Liberal" for you?

want me to define "Modern Liberal" for you?

Wow, you're full of moot points today

Your mom's full of moot points.

Anyway--neoliberalism is only a sect of liberalism. Classic liberalism is one, too. The point is valid.

Wow,...you obviously didn't read the context of the comment. I am well aware that there are different kinds of Liberalism. My point was that classical liberalism is now Libertarianism, and the Liberals that I am referring to are Modern Liberals.

In the context of the preceding statement, LK had no point,....and now it seems you just jumped on the bandwagon and have no point as well.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:40:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:14:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:10:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Want me to define "Classic Liberal" for you?

want me to define "Modern Liberal" for you?

Wow, you're full of moot points today

In that case, the term "liberal" for those political ideologies is a moot point. Just because somebody calls somebody a "liberal" does not mean that they are one. Modern liberals could be better classified as left wing authoritarians.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:44:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:40:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:14:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:10:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Want me to define "Classic Liberal" for you?

want me to define "Modern Liberal" for you?

Wow, you're full of moot points today

In that case, the term "liberal" for those political ideologies is a moot point. Just because somebody calls somebody a "liberal" does not mean that they are one. Modern liberals could be better classified as left wing authoritarians.

What? Modern Liberals are social libertarians....the anti-drug war movement is held by liberals. Separation of church and state - Liberals. SSM - Liberals. Right to abortion - Liberals.

Modern liberals are left wing libertarians. Modern conservatives are right wing authoritarians. This is exemplified firstly in the political compass of DDO....

You're talking for the sake of talking right now.....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:47:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yep, although I speak as someone who is far more concerned with American foreign policy than domestic policy, for obvious reasons. I'd be much more hesitant to do so as an American citizen.

Even where I disagree with Paul (which on economics is pretty much all the time), the fact is he is smart, principled and has a track record of consistently defending his view, even if it's unpopular to do so.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:02:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike, left wing libertarians don't exist.

The increase of State interventionist economic programs ultimately leads to a decrease of personal freedom. The two (economic and personal) freedoms are not completely separate entities....They are directly dependent on each other.

The same thing happens with right wing economic policies: they cannot be authoritarian if used properly.

Also, as much as I appreciate your Ad Hominens, I really don't think they add too much.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:09:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Ron Paul has proven to hold far closer to liberal ideals than Obama.

In fact, many liberals support him. Especially since he got the endorsement of both Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher, liberal icons.

Surveys show he has a better shot against Obama than Romney simply because of how many liberals would support him.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:10:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 10:02:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ike, left wing libertarians don't exist.

The increase of State interventionist economic programs ultimately leads to a decrease of personal freedom. The two (economic and personal) freedoms are not completely separate entities....They are directly dependent on each other.

The same thing happens with right wing economic policies: they cannot be authoritarian if used properly.

Also, as much as I appreciate your Ad Hominens, I really don't think they add too much.

Baseless generalizations. There are socially Libertarian Liberals and Socially authoritarian conservatives. Economic liberty has no consistently direct influence on personal liberty. The Liberal government that lets you worship who want and marry who you want but forces you pay taxes toward social programs is still a socially libertarian state.

I'm tired. You're bludgeoning the ideologies, and your argument is wrought with false dichotomies.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:12:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 10:02:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ike, left wing libertarians don't exist.

The increase of State interventionist economic programs ultimately leads to a decrease of personal freedom. The two (economic and personal) freedoms are not completely separate entities....They are directly dependent on each other.

That doesn't mean that left wing is necessarily against either. AnCom, libertarian socialism, voluntary socialism all fly in the face of that assumption.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:48:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 10:10:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 10:02:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ike, left wing libertarians don't exist.

The increase of State interventionist economic programs ultimately leads to a decrease of personal freedom. The two (economic and personal) freedoms are not completely separate entities....They are directly dependent on each other.

The same thing happens with right wing economic policies: they cannot be authoritarian if used properly.

Also, as much as I appreciate your Ad Hominens, I really don't think they add too much.

Baseless generalizations. There are socially Libertarian Liberals and Socially authoritarian conservatives. Economic liberty has no consistently direct influence on personal liberty. The Liberal government that lets you worship who want and marry who you want but forces you pay taxes toward social programs is still a socially libertarian state.

I'm tired. You're bludgeoning the ideologies, and your argument is wrought with false dichotomies.

You obviously don't understand that when you reduce or centralize economic choices, you ultimately reduce personal and individual liberty. In the same way that economic ideas such as Obamacare reduce individual liberty, the same can be said about other left-wing ideas (redistribution, welfare).

I'm genuinely sorry if you can't understand this.

"Socially authoritarian conservatives" are not truly conservatives- in the sense that they follow free market ideals- because marriage is a voluntary association and should be permitted under free market ideals. Abortion is different because it has to do with rights.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:28:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:47:38 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Yep, although I speak as someone who is far more concerned with American foreign policy than domestic policy, for obvious reasons. I'd be much more hesitant to do so as an American citizen.

Even where I disagree with Paul (which on economics is pretty much all the time), the fact is he is smart, principled and has a track record of consistently defending his view, even if it's unpopular to do so.

This
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:50:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 10:48:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 10:10:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 10:02:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ike, left wing libertarians don't exist.

The increase of State interventionist economic programs ultimately leads to a decrease of personal freedom. The two (economic and personal) freedoms are not completely separate entities....They are directly dependent on each other.

The same thing happens with right wing economic policies: they cannot be authoritarian if used properly.

Also, as much as I appreciate your Ad Hominens, I really don't think they add too much.

Baseless generalizations. There are socially Libertarian Liberals and Socially authoritarian conservatives. Economic liberty has no consistently direct influence on personal liberty. The Liberal government that lets you worship who want and marry who you want but forces you pay taxes toward social programs is still a socially libertarian state.

I'm tired. You're bludgeoning the ideologies, and your argument is wrought with false dichotomies.

You obviously don't understand that when you reduce or centralize economic choices, you ultimately reduce personal and individual liberty. In the same way that economic ideas such as Obamacare reduce individual liberty, the same can be said about other left-wing ideas (redistribution, welfare).

I'm genuinely sorry if you can't understand this.

"Socially authoritarian conservatives" are not truly conservatives- in the sense that they follow free market ideals- because marriage is a voluntary association and should be permitted under free market ideals. Abortion is different because it has to do with rights.

Maybe you don't like socially authoritarian conservatives, but they do exist and they are conservatives. Adherence to capitalism in no way precludes the government from exercising authoritarianism. There could be secret police, execution of political prisoners... doesn't matter if the market is free. Mussolini? Pinochet? Do those names ring a bell?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 12:43:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

Well, considering modern liberals got us into World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and numerous other military adventures, I would say non-interventionism is conservative. It's also conservative as far as economics goes. Austrian Economics (essentially demonstrating how government fvcks up the market) is fundamentally opposed to militarism a la our two socialist, warmongering parties today: Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians prefer peace over paying off the Military-Industrial Complex and their lobbyists.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 12:44:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 12:43:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

Well, considering modern liberals got us into World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and numerous other military adventures, I would say non-interventionism is conservative. It's also conservative as far as economics goes. Austrian Economics (essentially demonstrating how government fvcks up the market) is fundamentally opposed to militarism a la our two socialist, warmongering parties today: Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians prefer peace over paying off the Military-Industrial Complex and their lobbyists.

Also, conservative =/= republican. Republicans, by most standards, are not conservatives.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 12:58:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Depends on what you call "support". Obviously Ron Paul isn't going to win the election, so defining support as "placing my vote for him" then it would be a bad idea.

If you just mean, "believe he would make a good president", then I'd still say no. Even though foreign policy is huge, the economy is the #1 issue right now (although foreign policy does affect the economy in some ways), and if you believe Obama's economic policy is better than Paul's, you would still go for Obama.

I'd love for a non-interventionist president to be elected, but I doubt it'll happen for a long long time.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 11:17:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 11:50:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 10:48:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 10:10:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 10:02:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ike, left wing libertarians don't exist.

The increase of State interventionist economic programs ultimately leads to a decrease of personal freedom. The two (economic and personal) freedoms are not completely separate entities....They are directly dependent on each other.

The same thing happens with right wing economic policies: they cannot be authoritarian if used properly.

Also, as much as I appreciate your Ad Hominens, I really don't think they add too much.

Baseless generalizations. There are socially Libertarian Liberals and Socially authoritarian conservatives. Economic liberty has no consistently direct influence on personal liberty. The Liberal government that lets you worship who want and marry who you want but forces you pay taxes toward social programs is still a socially libertarian state.

I'm tired. You're bludgeoning the ideologies, and your argument is wrought with false dichotomies.

You obviously don't understand that when you reduce or centralize economic choices, you ultimately reduce personal and individual liberty. In the same way that economic ideas such as Obamacare reduce individual liberty, the same can be said about other left-wing ideas (redistribution, welfare).

I'm genuinely sorry if you can't understand this.

"Socially authoritarian conservatives" are not truly conservatives- in the sense that they follow free market ideals- because marriage is a voluntary association and should be permitted under free market ideals. Abortion is different because it has to do with rights.

Maybe you don't like socially authoritarian conservatives, but they do exist and they are conservatives. Adherence to capitalism in no way precludes the government from exercising authoritarianism. There could be secret police, execution of political prisoners... doesn't matter if the market is free. Mussolini? Pinochet? Do those names ring a bell?

Mussolini was a fascist, which is a far left ideology.

You have to learn that a free market ideology, which promotes civil liberties coupled with economic freedom, cannot possibly co-exist with capitalism. Capitalism promotes economic freedom, but that cannot be done without the recognition of personal liberties. The two are intertwined. If you reduce/increase one, the other follows.

For example, in regards to gay marriage, social "conservatives" who "support" free market policies want it banned, while it is a purely voluntary contract that should be allowed in accordance with a free market ideology.

Social "conservatives" are simply authoritarians.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 11:34:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Obama is not a Social Liberal. Obama is either a Populist or a Socialist.

My Aunt is a Social Liberal and she Supported Ron Paul; when he dropped out of the race she turned her support to Obama. My Uncle (married to the aunt I mentioned) was a Classic Liberal who supported Ron Paul, but what he dropped out he supported Obama; due to his wife's influence. That uncle previously voted for Bush. Since he was married to my social liberal aunt, and was in support of Obama, he gradually changed his views from Classic Liberal to Social Liberal.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 11:36:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:10:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 9:05:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:49:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
You seem to forget that Liberals actually have a political opinion. Any "Liberal" that would abandon Obama for Paul is clearly not a Liberal.

Would you consider non-interventionism to be conservative as opposed to liberal?

non-interventionism is neither,...it's Libertarian. Liberals voted for war with Afghanistan,...Democrats put us in both World Wars,...Liberals escalated the Vietnam War.

Want me to define "Classic Liberal" for you?

I believe they are using the term "Liberal" in the sense of "social-liberals"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle