Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2627282930 286>
Author
Message
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 12:09
http://bloom.bg/JNtoDp

Cool back and forth between Krugman and Ron.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33270
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 12:13
Oh yeah I saw that a couple of days ago, I can't believe I used to think Krugman was god.

Though to be fair Krugman was more of a liberal spokesman than economist...I never cared back then but reading his stuff now, god damn it's soo amazingly biased and harsh.
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote manofmystery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 18:55
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

http://bloom.bg/JNtoDp

Cool back and forth between Krugman and Ron.
 
 
The back and forth about the Roman empire was simply amazing.  I'm biased but Krugman was clearly outclassed and looked uncomfortable.  Almost thought the second Paul segment (when he was just interviewed by the host alone) wasn't planned but by Krugman's request. 
 
Anyway, a couple things:
Great article about phase changes and why Paul shouldn't be counted out yet:
Also, a website with the current/correct delegate totals (no projections):
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31784
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 20:25
My wife and I watched that video.  I think the professor had some appeal, but he has too much faith in a failed system.  He kept harping on how a lack of government intervention caused the Great Depression.  I showed just last week that recessions are normal and they happen.  Business is cyclical.  The question is this: How is the recession handled?  Hoover and Roosevelt (Republican and Democrat, respectively, in case you are keeping score) prolonged it with interventionist policies.  Those who think FDR was the savior of the economy need to answer this: Why did the recession of 1937 happen if FDR "fixed" things? 

Also, nice licking the balls of your editor by asking the obligatory question about Paul dropping out and endorsing Romney.   Paul won't leave until Texas is counted, and hopefully will run third party.

f**k Rs and Ds.
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote manofmystery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 21:01
Running third party would destroy everything Ron Paul is trying to do.  He knows from first hand experience that 3rd parties are DOA and that taking over the republican party is what has to be done (this doesn't discourage Paul supporters from running as dems in dem districts, of course).  I agree with the f**k both parties sentiment but it's impractical if you want to actually change anything.  Had I realised this sooner, myself, I'd have soldiered through my disgust, not plastered facebook with republican party hatred, switched parties earlier, and become a delegate.  Libertarians have the opportunity to take control of one of the "two" parties who's current, ancient, voting base won't be around much longer and they should be occupying any position they can within it whenever an opening presents itself.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31784
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 21:10
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Running third party would destroy everything Ron Paul is trying to do.  He knows from first hand experience that 3rd parties are DOA and that taking over the republican party is what has to be done (this doesn't discourage Paul supporters from running as dems in dem districts, of course).  I agree with the f**k both parties sentiment but it's impractical if you want to actually change anything.  Had I realised this sooner, myself, I'd have soldiered through my disgust, not plastered facebook with republican party hatred, switched parties earlier, and become a delegate.  Libertarians have the opportunity to take control of one of the "two" parties who's current, ancient, voting base won't be around much longer and they should be occupying any position they can within it whenever an opening presents itself.


I don't agree.  Paul will never take over the Republican Party.  Republicans and Democrats are the same, only they differ on how money should be spend.  Paul says, "f**k military, f**k welfare," and that alienates (and ironically, brings together) both sides.  He is the true "moderate" candidate, and yet, NOT moderate at all. 

He should run third party and get into the debates.  That would be a show, ladies and gentlemen.  Here is Obama and Romney hugging and kissing, and there will be Ron Paul explaining to the American people how they are the ones who are going to get the STD.


Edited by Epignosis - May 03 2012 at 21:11
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 21:46
Will they invite him to the debates? Did they invite Perot back in the year when he run? Or any other third party candidates? I didn't live here back then so I don't know. 
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31784
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 21:53
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Will they invite him to the debates? Did they invite Perot back in the year when he run? Or any other third party candidates? I didn't live here back then so I don't know. 


I was a teenager and therefore more interested in boobs at the time, so I don't know either.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: 1950s Suburbia
Status: Offline
Points: 13477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Finnforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 22:01
I'm still more interested in boobs than Ross Perot.  But I'm pretty sure he was in them.

Merry Christmas!



Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31784
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 22:04
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

I'm still more interested in boobs than Ross Perot.  But I'm pretty sure he was in them.


Oh don't misunderstand me, Jim.  I'm still interested in boobs- they just aren't much interested in me
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 22:12
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

I'm still more interested in boobs than Ross Perot.  But I'm pretty sure he also has them.
Shocked
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33270
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 22:31
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Will they invite him to the debates? Did they invite Perot back in the year when he run? Or any other third party candidates? I didn't live here back then so I don't know. 


I was a teenager and therefore more interested in boobs at the time, so I don't know either.


I was 4 years old, but thanks to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#1992_presidential_candidacy Yes, Perot was in the debates.



"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33270
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 22:40
I tend to agree with Rob, if you want to keep spreading the message, keep running.
I don't think it would destroy Paul's work.
Besides, maybe it's just the fact that I came from the other side...but I really would like to see limited government become a transcendental idea, over "bringing the Republicans back".

I'm in the FB group "Blue Republican" which are Democrats/Independents who registered Republican to vote Paul in the primary. It's morphed into more of a general "Liberals for Ron Paul" movement.
Got over 12K members and I spoke with the creator (actually a British guy who has become an American citizen) and he was talking about how he thought "Blue Republican" was subversive to the 2 party system, thus more appealing than something like "Democrats for Paul".

A bit idealist but we'd like to see less emphasis on the 2 party bullsh*t and have both camps dedicated to limited government.


Edit: It brings me back to Krugman, as Rob said...there is appeal but what he says is all wrong.
I still consider myself 'liberal' I believe still in what I used to, just the means have changed. Because progressivism is a failure, limited gov actually espouses what liberals should believe in, and would do so successfully.


Edited by JJLehto - May 03 2012 at 22:45
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote manofmystery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 23:32
It simply serves no good to break and run 3rd party considering how well he is doing getting his people in various positions of power within various state's party.  It would also essentially ruin any chance Rand would have in 2016.  We have a large enough movement to take over a slumbering giant but not to form our own party or lift the libertarian party.  Let us be logical, not emotional.
 
Also, if you want the message to continue on into the debates (should Paul's delegate strategy not come through) then work hard to get Gary Johnson 15% in the polls.  It's my understanding that if a 3rd party candidate hits this number in national polls (I'm guessing networks use their own polls or affiliate themselves with Rasmussen/Zogby) then they are invited to the debate stage.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33270
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 23:42
Works for me.
Besides Paul is of course doing better than we are told.

"Paul has 0 chance anyway because you need to win 5 state delegations to be represented at Tampa. Naturally that won't happen"
Well if you wanna believe those retarded internet loser 14 year olds.... he has managed that
http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/05/ron-paul-flix-daily-news-may-3-2012-ron-paul-is-on-the-ballot-5-state-delegations-won/
Seems to have left off Minnesota which I know Paul has won


Edited by JJLehto - May 03 2012 at 23:50
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote manofmystery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 23:48
FauxNews even admitted he'd be on the ballot in Tampa:
Trick is not letting Romney reach the magic number.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33270
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 23:50
Ah I treat Fox as the devil so I never knewLOL

edit: Obviously Paul is the big name who's made the most attention, but I like Gary Johnson a lot myself.
Regardless of what happens this November there's GJ and Rand to continue the movement. Hopefully some more local/state guys will step up as well.


Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2012 at 00:01
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31784
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2012 at 18:04
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33270
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2012 at 18:22
I'll be frank, I'm still not completely sold on all that.
Obviously there are super wealthy (who are that wealthy) because they've crated jobs, they've invested in society, made something all that. To deny they exist is just dumb...or maybe a partisan Democrat  ; )

All though? I do think some super wealthy just move money around for themselves and others and don't really help society at all...but I don't believe we should try to siphon all their wealth.
Not that it'd work anyway because the siphoners are just gunna keep it for themselves or f**k it upLOL

I also have to question his point...is he claiming that the banks "made mistakes" but it was really people flocking to take their money that caused it? I mean that's true...but sounds like he's letting mass irresponsibility slide

wait?? He wants more government? He wants a bailout program?

The "exotic" investments didn't cause the problem, people did? 
Soooo it's fine to take a low income family who was denied a bank loan, but have an option for them to buy an insanely expensive house? It's all good, the problem was those pesky people that were scared about their money and didn't behave as usual?

He wants more people to take risk...but he wants the bailout as an option? Well it'll certainly create more risk, and we'll bail them out every time? Is this what he wants?

Rob unless I missed something, why did you post this? Confused


Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2012 at 18:24
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31784
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2012 at 18:31
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

I'll be frank, I'm still not completely sold on all that.
Obviously there are super wealthy (who are that wealthy) because they've crated jobs, they've invested in society, made something all that. To deny they exist is just dumb...or maybe a partisan Democrat  ; )

All though? I do think some super wealthy just move money around for themselves and others and don't really help society at all...but I don't believe we should try to siphon all their wealth.
Not that it'd work anyway because the siphoners are just gunna keep it for themselves or f**k it upLOL

I also have to question his point...is he claiming that the banks "made mistakes" but it was really people flocking to take their money that caused it? I mean that's true...but sounds like he's letting mass irresponsibility slide

wait?? He wants more government? He wants a bailout program?

The "exotic" investments didn't cause the problem, people did? 
Soooo it's fine to take a low income family who was denied a bank loan, but have an option for them to buy an insanely expensive house? It's all good, the problem was those pesky people that were scared about their money and didn't behave as usual?

He wants more people to take risk...but he wants the bailout as an option? Well it'll certainly create more risk, and we'll bail them out every time? Is this what he wants?

Rob unless I missed something, why did you post this? Confused


To confuse you terribly.  Evil Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2627282930 286>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.406 seconds.