Quote :

"so its confusing why you take offense when i point out that currently, as it stands, he is basically a third party candidate."

It's only confusing because you are consistently getting it wrong and trying your hardest to make sense of something you don't understand. You can drop the whole notion of "third party"

11/8/2012 12:29:11 PM

so basically

dtownral was right, his points were valid, i just didn't read them

k

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 12:33 PM. Reason : my fault, i should have put them in a youtube]

11/8/2012 12:33:21 PM

No basically, you're wrong. I'm saying you're wrong.



But hey.. wrong means right these days.


War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. -1984

11/8/2012 12:41:29 PM

I'm wrong, you just agree with all my points.

got it

11/8/2012 12:44:36 PM

I agree with 0 of your points.

11/8/2012 12:45:38 PM

this

Quote :

"Maybe dtownral will do his homework and realize that Ron Paul is the definition of what GOP's original platform was...."

does in no way counter

Quote :

"Maybe Ron Paul supporters will realize he is a 3rd party candidate now? [Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : i.e. his platform doesn't fit in the GOP's]"

on account of

Quote :

"part of the whole point is how the party has moved on and left these guys behind. so you keep pointing this out, but we are all way past this point in the discussion. his views are not modern GOP views, these guys are a third party now."

which you seem to aknowledge with a conspiracy twist with

Quote :

"One does not merely "move on" from that in a two party system. There are two parties in this country that act like one on every issue. The system is owned."

and

Quote :

"We want our Republican name back."

which then makes your first statement very confusing, because

Quote :

"... so then you do recognize that Ron Paul has been left behind and does not fit in the GOP? You do understand that in all reality he is a third party candidate? Because you make statements where this is the only conclusion, but then your response to my statement makes no sense."

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM. Reason : AND]

11/8/2012 12:49:32 PM

and also,

11/8/2012 1:07:51 PM

Quote :

""... so then you do recognize that Ron Paul has been left behind and does not fit in the GOP? "

Quote :

"Ron Paul is the definition of what GOP's original platform was....""

You're never gonna get it, never gonna get it.

11/8/2012 1:07:53 PM

"Genius"boy:

Quote :

" Limited Government Tight Fiscal Control and Discipline Against all forms of welfare Free Enterprise No nation building No preemptive strikes Non-interventionists"

dtownral:

Quote :

"... and you don't see how they have moved on from that, how those things are not their core anymore? not even some of those things?"

11/8/2012 1:10:50 PM

Quote :

"I don't see a good outcome either way. I think the balanced budget amendments are posturing - no one really believes that they would ever be passed."

Cop. Out.

A balanced budget amendment means a 9% drop in GDP. Businesses don't give a shit if the money they receive from customers is from private or public sources. If it's deficit spending, there's no extra taxes being brought in, and not all public works necessarily crowd out the private sector, so this idea of yours that deficit spending necessarily equates to a drop in private output is groundless.

Don't dodge and retreat into politics. We do counter-cyclical deficit spending now, and have done it for generations. For you to say that switching from what we do now to a 9% drop in GDP would be no worse or better... is insane, it indicates that you're either being super flagrant and careless with your words (Not uncommon for libertarians who are used to their crazy ideas never being tested) or you're stupid/insane yourself.

If you're going to retreat into moderation, and go to vague "Well we gotta balance it somehow..." statements, then please just cut to the chase and say "No, a balanced budget amendment would be a disaster, a 9% drop in GDP will be bad for everyone." so I can turn my focus back to GXB.


[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 1:11:43 PM

Quote :

"... and you don't see how they have moved on from that, how those things are not their core anymore? not even some of those things?"

Am I registered Republican? Yes.
Have I moved on? No.

God you're dense.

11/8/2012 1:21:50 PM

Quote :

"part of the whole point is how the party has moved on and left these guys behind. so you keep pointing this out, but we are all way past this point in the discussion. his views are not modern GOP views"

11/8/2012 1:23:16 PM

You seem to think that because it is at a different spot than where it used to be, we cant move it back.

You think republicans like to fail? Are they dancing around when Romney lost?

Eventually they'll come back to us when they realize we're right and they're wrong.

11/8/2012 1:26:21 PM

so you do agree that

Quote :

"currently, as it stands, he is basically a third party candidate"

11/8/2012 1:32:16 PM

I agree with 0 of your points.


You can drop the whole notion of "third party"

11/8/2012 1:34:59 PM

Quote :

"You seem to think that because it is at a different spot than where it used to be, we cant move it back."

When has the republican party ever embraced gay marriage, climate change, or women's rights? These are far more fundemental parts of the republican idealogy than anything economic. These views have become out of line with the majority of americans, and the republican party will have nothing to offer a presidential canidate but impotence. You should be excited about this. A third party could actually emerge and divorce you from the social conservatism that you so desperately want to get away from.

11/8/2012 2:46:02 PM

Original GOP: "Abolish slavery!"

Modern GOP: "RACE CARD!!"

Original GOP: "Free land for farmers."

Modern GOP: "No such thing as a free lunch!"

11/8/2012 2:51:38 PM

Quote :

"When has the republican party ever embraced gay marriage, climate change, or women's rights? "

Women's rights:

United States v. Susan B. Anthony

On November 18, 1872, Anthony was arrested by a U.S. Deputy Marshal for voting on November 5 in the 1872 Presidential Election two weeks earlier.[18] She had written to Stanton on the night of the election that she had "positively voted the Republican ticket—straight...".

11/8/2012 6:43:30 PM

She embracing the republican party != the republican party embracing her

11/8/2012 6:59:32 PM

What an intelligent thought, jaZon.

11/8/2012 7:02:29 PM

Republicans were the first to support women's suffrage, but I'm curious if you see why that quote doesn't show that?

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 7:07 PM. Reason : Autocorrect]

11/8/2012 7:02:49 PM

I'm curious to why you guys are so blatantly retarded, to be honest

11/8/2012 7:06:17 PM

sounds like a no

11/8/2012 7:07:38 PM

lol, you make arguments for things that, whether right or wrong, are completely unsupported by your actual argument

11/8/2012 7:07:57 PM

You guys need to stop jerking each other off.

11/8/2012 7:08:33 PM

You need to learn how to make a cogent argument.

11/8/2012 7:11:34 PM

lmao.

11/8/2012 7:12:09 PM

Here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Xs7DhIAwQ&sns=em

11/8/2012 7:14:10 PM

Don't you have anything better to do?

Who would you be trolling if I weren't here anymore.

Go troll them or something. I'm too old for these games.

We should all act our ages.

11/8/2012 7:17:24 PM

If I stop posting in this section, will you? I'll make that deal.

11/8/2012 7:30:37 PM

No, you have the freedom to post where ever you wish, as do I.

But we can agree not to communicate or acknowledge each other, if you wish.

11/8/2012 8:29:51 PM

GXB can you point to one other person on this entire subforum that enjoys your posts?

11/9/2012 9:29:24 AM

He gives me a good laugh every so often.

11/9/2012 9:37:19 AM

Quote :

"GXB can you point to one other person on this entire subforum that enjoys your posts?"

Yes. Why?

11/9/2012 10:31:04 AM

Several ‘Ron Paul Republicans’ win closely contested House races
exas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will retire from Congress next year after serving for 12 terms, but several Republicans influenced by the iconic libertarian-leaning lawmaker will be arriving to take his place.

Thomas Massie won the race to replace retiring Kentucky Republican Rep. Geoff Davis, beating Democrat Bill Adkins by 20 percentage points. Massie, an ally of Paul’s son, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, raised nearly 10 times as much money as Adkins, according to the Lexington-Herald Leader.

Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash, who was already vying to be the House’s next “Dr. No” in his first term, was re-elected with 58 percent of the vote. Democrat Steve Pestka had hoped to win the votes of independents and moderate Republicans who might regard Amash as too extreme, but failed to gain traction against the 31-year-old congressman.

In a neighboring Michigan district, Ron Paul Republican Kerry Bentivolio was elected to the House seat formerly held by GOP Rep. Thaddeus McCotter. McCotter, who had failed to gather enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot, resigned from the House amid a petition scandal. Bentivolio beat Democrat Syed Taj.

Bentivolio spent four decades in the U.S. Army, but was painted by opponents as an eccentric. He raised reindeer and was an occasional Santa Claus. He was elected to Congress by a 7-point margin.

Many other candidates endorsed by Ron and Rand Paul, as well as Paul-influenced organizations like Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty, were on the ballot Tuesday, including Texas Sen.-elect Ted Cruz. But these three Republicans most self-consciously identified with the Pauls’ calls for deep spending cuts, auditing the Federal Reserve, and a more restrained foreign policy.

They all raised money from Paul’s vast national network of donors, which helped them remain competitive in their primaries and the general election.

Amash endorsed Ron Paul for president and was one of three Republican legislators — including the Texas congressman and fellow Paul endorser North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones — who did not formally back Mitt Romney for president.

Jones, who once crusaded for “freedom fries” to protest France’s opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq before becoming a fiery antiwar voice himself, was also re-elected. Rand Paul broke with his father and endorsed Romney for president.

“There is no next Ron Paul. He is one of a kind,” Amash told a Ron Paul rally before the Republican National Convention.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/07/ron-paul-republicans-win-house-races/#ixzz2Bmsch6lk

11/9/2012 10:37:56 PM

11/10/2012 8:43:32 PM

What is Ron Paul's position on Israel/Palestine?

11/28/2012 9:15:04 AM

Who's Ron Paul?

11/28/2012 9:32:01 AM

GOOGLE RON PAUL

11/28/2012 12:20:13 PM

lol he's just another hypocrite - libertarianism, ladies and gentlemen

http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/

2/10/2013 1:07:36 AM

hahahahahahahahahaha

2/10/2013 1:36:03 AM

I do not miss that pizza kid

2/10/2013 10:58:25 AM

^^^ Wow. Maybe a true, youthful libertarian will rise up to replace him.

2/10/2013 11:58:13 AM

He also dispersed a good amount of money his SuperPAC raised to his friends. Probably because he never really had any ambition to win the nomination. If he had wanted to actually have a shot at winning, he would have run third party. But he didn't, he just wanted one last payday.

2/10/2013 6:02:07 PM

Quote :

"lol he's just another hypocrite - libertarianism, ladies and gentlemen http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/"

The United Nations has absolutely no control over domain names, so I'm not really seeing how they come into the equation here. It sounds like Ron Paul (or at least, some group of behalf of Ron Paul) has filed a claim with some domain name arbitration organization. Is that "un-libertarian"? Not sure, I think more details would have to come out.

Let's assume that this isn't a one-sided story and that Ronpaul.com is 100% in the right, though. Ron Paul is a man, and any mistakes or bad decisions he makes does not reflect on the broader libertarian philosophy. There is no libertarian "end boss" that you're going to be able to beat and take down the ideology.

Quote :

"Maybe a true, youthful libertarian will rise up to replace him."

No. Stop looking for "the next Ron Paul". Deification of leaders can't save us; political avenues are dead ends.

2/10/2013 6:38:36 PM

There might not be a next Ron Paul, but Gary Johnson is an important figure in the libertarian party for having crossover appeal to dems, unaffiliateds, and those who would be libertarian but for the view that is often extreme.

His version of libertarianism seems to have a more practical and pragmatic bent to it, in a way that makes me think it could someday become a party with a slightly bigger tent than just for purists.

2/10/2013 6:43:39 PM

^^

I can't believe you typed that with a straight face. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Ron Paul (Ron-mother-fucking-Paul, not some group on behalf of Ron Paul) is using WIPO--a UN organization--in an attempt to take ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org from the owners.

Ron Paul does have a legitimate complaint. The problem is that he's allowed the website to exist (i.e., failed to enforce his own trademark) for at least 5 years, even though he's been aware of and personally benefited from (at no cost to himself) the website's existence and the owner's work.

Now that the work is done and the value has been created (by others), Ron Paul wants to harvest the websites, without compensation, using, dare I say, the threat of government violence.

Will the actions of an individual undermine the intellectual basis for libertarianism? No.

Will the actions of an individual undermine broad-based, popular support of libertarianism? Absolutely.

2/10/2013 7:43:22 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul (Ron-mother-fucking-Paul, not some group on behalf of Ron Paul) is using WIPO--a UN organization--in an attempt to take ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org from the owners."

A UN agency, apparently, with no enforcement power of any kind. It's also pretty clear that attorneys representing Ron Paul sent that letter, not Ron Paul himself. I sincerely doubt Ron Paul would have looked at all the domain dispute arbitration groups out there and said, "Hey, let's pick the one associated with the U.N!"

I'll reserve judgment; if Ron Paul actually takes the current domain holder to court, I'll disapprove. We'll see what facts come out and what he has to say for himself.

2/10/2013 8:35:53 PM

yeah, let's all point and laugh at the entire libertarian philosophy because of this trivial bullshit?

i am also interested in hearing from ron paul directly. regardless, his voting record as a congressman speaks for itself.

2/11/2013 12:14:42 AM

Well, sure. It is possible that Ron Paul's lawyers don't actually speak for Ron Paul. That's probably a frequent complaint in appellate courts.

...and WIPO does in fact have enforcement power in this situation (or, more correctly, ICANN has designated WIPO to hear such cases and will follow their rulings). Ron Paul can still file suit in US courts, though his odds are probably better at the UN.

If nothing else, I'm sure Dr. Paul could win a war of lawyer attrition.

2/11/2013 1:22:32 AM