jo mama: You give no specifics, other than an elimination of corporate welfare. How is this going to be accomplished under the libertarian purview? Three or four posters have supplied a fairly wide perspective of various libertarian ideologies, all of which you have "disagreed with" sans any actual rebuttal. I'm sorry, but at the moment I am not convinced of your argument, because you have presented none. Your transparent avoidance of my questions is becoming...suspicious.
im not avoiding anything. i have been all up in this thread since page 1 yo. i have given several specifics about things libertarians and ron paul would do differently which would actually help real americans rather than our corporate overlords. controlling spending, which neither republicans or democrats will ever do. truly ending our wars in iraq and afghanistan - how many private contractors are in iraq right now under obama? reigning in our global empire and global military presence/foreign interventions. investigating and prosecuting those who authorized torture. eliminating corporate welfare. eliminating no-bid contracts. putting a check on the ties b/t government and the corporate/financial world, be it halliburton or goldman sachs. scaling back of the police state/surveillance agencies. now on the flipside, you have made a series of very generalized statements about libertarianism (which are incorrect imo) and you have not provided any detailed analysis other than to say its "unbridled capitalism". imo, i have been much more detailed in my posts than you have. saying "libertarians want to deregulate everything" or "libertarians want unbridled capitalism" is hardly "a wide perspective" - they are very generic statements and they are not even accurate - i put as much effort into responding to those posts as those who write them. and what is suspicious to me is when republicans and democrats go around demonizing libertarians for things that their own parties are actively engaging in.
Ignoring that you have again not stated how any of the above are to be accomplished, why are these statements incorrect? This is, fundamentally, what I am asking. Libertarianism in the United States is undeniably associated with capitalism, and with vastly reduced government power. What do you think this will result in?
No - I am just trying to figure out what the heck jo mama thinks libertarianism is and how it will function.
generalized statements such as libertarians are for "unbridled capitalism" and want to "privatize everything" are imo misrepresentations and are way too "simplified" to really even take seriously. and again, i must point out the hypocrisy of those who support republicans and democrats calling libertarians corporatists. what do we have right now if not a corporatocracy? and i did not realize i was supposed to explain in detail how paul would carry out all his proposals...but i will throw you a bone here which is paul and barney franks proposal to cut the pentagon budget by 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years - that would go a long way to getting our spending under control and providing us w/ resources we need here at home. i dont see nobel peace prize winner president obama getting onboard w/ this program, do you? also note that paul, a "right-wing-fringe-wacko" republican from texas can work w/ a gay democrat from new england on calling for a dramatic reduction in military spending. you dont see bi-partisanship like that much these days. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html a true free market where people are held responsible for their actions and the notion of "too big to fail" is scorned. and all this "government power" we have right now has been working real well for us, hasnt it?
i think i have a pretty good 'ideat'. thanks though! are you ready to present any evidence that ron paul is a dishonest liar yet? still waiting on that...
you have been unwilling and unable to provide any evidence that supports your regurgitated rhetorics that he is honest. where is the evidence ?
You have nothing but Ron Paul talking points. I am talking libertarian ideology, and you are talking about campaign promises from a lone "constitutionalist" with a lot of great ideas but little in the way of results. While I certainly agree with much of Paul's rhetoric he has done nothing to enact it - he's basically an obstructionist. More to the point, much of the system he advocates would only further some of the most intrinsic problems to out capitalist government. Only your last two statements seem to be addressing the topic at hand, and they represent some of the most audacious of libertarian talking points, and another in the long line of not-so-subtle potshots at the status quo that is supposed to magically justify libertarian politics. In reference to those two statements, the first is vague to the point of sloganeering, and the latter only exposes the libertarian's typical swing-and-miss history: regulation was working quite well until it was dismantled starting in the 80s and culminating in the Bush white house. The libertarian ideology you promote above: a return to a "true" (wtf does that mean) capitalist free market with a lessening of government authority is flawed. In the face of numerous critiques, your only response is to point out the problems with the current system. That's not justification, it's a red herring.
you have an actual link for that? i can do the same thing - watch... what is funny is that you had a whole army of people looking for anything to discredit or tear down paul with and the best that anyone could come up w/ was some random rantings from a photocopied and handed-out newsletter 20 years ago that had ron paul's name on the front of it. is that really all you have? and lets contrast the 'racist' ron paul's rhetoric regarding the mosque near ground zero w/ many of the democratic leaderships - he actually defends their rights to have their mosque.
saying libertarians want to "privatize everything" and "deregulate everything" are talking points too - and not even accurate. it certainly isnt for lack of trying on his part. unlike most people in congress, he likes to be able to actually read a bill before he votes on it. as he says, to do otherwise would be immoral. i dont agree with that. your problem is that you are projecting the most extreme views on libertarianism over the whole movement. while im sure there are some who want to "deregulate and privatize everything", mainstream libertarians do recognize the need for some regulation and even some social programs, just not to the degree that we have now. limited government does not = no government.
What do you expect one congressmen to do? You said it when you called him a lone constitutionalists. He certainly is alone with not much support on capital hill. He is outnumbered and really doesn't have any power to do anything. Maybe it's because most people haven't heard Dr Paul's rhetoric. They are all still blinded into this two party system of Republicans vs Democrats. What more can Ron Paul do? I think he has achieved a lot by getting his message out through the internet. More and more people are joining his cause and if we get more like minded individuals in office maybe he will have the means to enact some of his rhetoric that you agree with.
anyone w/ any common sense can tell you that it is up to the accuser to prove their charges - you called paul a dishonest liar and offered no proof - when asked for proof you demand that others prove he is not a liar. try that in a court of law. :grin: this is the exact same line of thinking that said saddam had to prove he did not have WMD's. its just stupid. but since im such a nice guy i will give 5 examples of pauls truthiness - i dont think you are very smart so i will make it easy for you and cite only examples from post #64. so here are 5 examples of ron pauls truthiness - now, do you have any examples of him being a dishonest liar? just one?
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlGc9EhhbBk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlGc9EhhbBk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (Fox Business News, March 22): "Just think about it. 16,500 armed bureaucrats coming to make this program work. If it’s a good program and everybody liked it, you wouldn’t need 16,500 thugs coming with their guns and putting you in jail if you didn’t follow all the rules.” Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law? A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
did you play all your racecards yet? :grin: that ominous music has certainly made me change my tune! you have a 2:33 video which only has paul on it for about 15 seconds. you dont even get to hear the interviewers full question and all you get is a few seconds of paul explaining his position. is this the best you can do?
All fair points (I'd argue the first statement predominantly true, but the implication that it is universal is, no doubt, false). Why? I would like to see some sort of specific doctrine or accepted method that illuminates the "moderate libertarian" agenda. Note that this inquiry jives perfectly with the other 2/3rds of my last post that you conveniently ignored.
