Y'all need to call in the D & D's resident multiple alias detective, SamFisher. Of course I am SamFisher so that might complicate things.
Also, glynch misspells words when he gets excited. False's spelling, excited or not, is simply too good. He's not glynch. Do people seriously think he is? I haven't read the entire thread. I've been too busy trying to track down Republicans on this board. Most are in hiding. I don't consider basso or tinytexxx real Republicans. For their own perverse reasons, they find fun in doing what they do here. In my opinion, they don't belong in a political party. A smart political party wouldn't have them.
Talking about being humor challenged. Just in case this is necessary I was not really a follower of Ron Paul before.
I missed this. Welcome to the forum, False. We can always use another reasonable poster in the forum.
they lost all the arguments obama being weak on foreign policy iraq bailouts etc, etc, etc. when they win an arugment call me.
If by socialism you mean less rights, I agree. The Bush and Obama administrations have eroded our rights to the bone. There are also entire social stratus of people becoming more and more dependent on the government.
K, why are democrats/Obama socialists. Please go look up the definition of socialism first. Please think about those things in relation to previous administrations and social programs in place previously. Then come holla atcha boy, I'll be here.
actually, its very true and you are doing it again in this very post. again, ive given you an answer over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. i directly answered your post that you are linking to. but as i said, you keep telling me that im ignoring the issue or that you have yet to see a "good answer". http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5564069&postcount=146 you vote for the party you identify the most with and for me its libertarians, but you continually tell me that my reasons for voting for libertarians are not valid or that im ignoring things. it doesnt matter if i tell you over and over and over and over again that i dont fully agree w/ all the libertarian positions, but you will keep telling me that im ignoring or being nonsensical. meanwhile, we have democrats here that will straight up refuse to discuss the more unsavory elements of obama and you seem to give them a pass on it...you certainly dont hold them to the same standards that you seem to want to hold me to. i dont know why the term "moderate libertarian" bothers you so much. it doesnt seem that complicated to me...a "moderate" L/D/R (take your pick) is someone who identifies w/ a party, but does not fully embrace all their positions. and again, there are people in this very thread saying they are "moderate republicans", but i dont see you harping on them for it...hmm. you also constantly tell me that being against the current system is not a valid reason for supporting paul, but as i said, lots of people voted for obama in 2008 b/c they were unhappy w/ the current system and i dont remember you telling those people that their support for obama was not valid or nonsensical.
The problem is that "libertarianism" is not normally seen as a moderate party or ideology. It is sort of like saying I am a moderate Nazi or moderate Communist. If someone is a moderate regarding foreign policy they don't vote libertarian. If someone is a moderate regarding government spending and government regulations they don't espouse libertararianism. Hey if you want to water down libertarianism to: "I don't like the government interfering with my life more than is moderately necessary", we are all libertarians, but it doesn't have much to do with Ron Paul, the libertarian party or their various think tanks controlled by the Kochs and a few other uber rich guys.
Nope. The very thread we are re-referencing (Is Ron Paul Fringe or whatever) is a great example of discourse. We agree and disagree repeatedly in that thread. Because it's not a good answer, unfortunately. It's a good post (and I thank you for it now as I did then), but it meanders and does not address my fundamental question at all: How do you determine which regulation is good or bad, particularly when the party's mantra is biased against regulation? Or, as I wrote then: Your reasoning is valid. But you do seem to be ignoring things - namely that the economics and deregulation proposed by libertarians is weighted heavily in favor of massive corporate power. Sorry, but I jut can't seem to get over that and many libertarians flat out ignore it, as I have written earlier in another productive conversation with you - well, until you accused me of defending the current system like I was a two party crony...oh wait look what we have below... I've been quite hard on mcmark. Because libertarian positions are typically black and white. A platform that decries regulation muddies the waters when it says "some regulation is ok" without explaining how those choices will me made, and by who!!! It's the same story with other policy positions. For example, Paul made a fool of himself in regards to Obamacare, because he presents no clear solution when presented with the concern that his ideas would lead to the uninsured dying in the streets. In fact, he's applauded for it by his libertarian supporters. Sure, it's ideologically pure, but the practical implementation is avoided - and rightly so because it's untenable. I don't recall having the opportunity. That being said, there is some rationale to the "vote against two-party hegemony" - what I don't understand is how these issues will be fixed with Paulite policies. Again, I've written to you about this before: I agree with Paul/libertarians on many things. But on some issues (economy, regulation) they're not making sense, IMO. This does not mean, as you have repeatedly accused, that I'm defending the status quo. It just means I don't think libertarianism is a good or clear solution.
yes. and you are doing it again in this post. i answer your questions and you tell me im ignoring or that my answer is not valid. i cant believe you keep dredging up this 2 year old argument...this is so f***ing stupid - also, it has absolutely nothing to do w/ the thread. i disagree, unfortunately. i did answer your "fundamental question" - you can keep saying i didnt, but that doesnt change the fact that i did. as i have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, its not up to me to make that determination. again, this is so f***ing stupid - you keep reposting snippets from this 2 year old argument and expect different answers. all im going to do is repost what i said 2 years ago...what is the point of all this? we have discussed this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. as i have continually said, i disagree w/ your premise and would point out that the actions actually taken by R's and D's have resulted in economics and deregulation weighted heavily in favor of massive corporate power...again, you are blaming libertarians for things R's and D's are actually doing. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EouKQBPkD-g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
totally idiotic. so glynch/false...what was the point of bringing up my name in a thread i wasnt even posting in? you seem to do this quite a bit. you start these arguments w/ me, run away and then call me out by name in a different thread (that i wasnt even posting in). your obsession w/ me is just bizarre and borderline creepy. and i find it amusing how false/glynch chided me for my lack of "introspection" or "substantive opinion" regarding a topic i had no interest in, yet he does not seem to mind glynch/false doing whatever it is he is doing. i have yet to see glynch/false offer any kind of "substantive opinion" on his own thread, but false/glynch does not seem to have a problem w/ that.
