You had a grasp of the topic, then you lost it (as shown by your confusion over my pointing out how far the ideologies of Paul and Obama are from each other), and now you have gained it back. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Printable View
You had a grasp of the topic, then you lost it (as shown by your confusion over my pointing out how far the ideologies of Paul and Obama are from each other), and now you have gained it back. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
There are two solutions to the economic crisis, one is left wing and another is really, really, really, really right wing. McCain will do neither of these.
Still valuable.Quote:
What are consideration and empathy worth if they result in devastating policies?
I think the American people need a new sort of hand to guide them. Their policies may or may not be perfect, but this nation needs a wake-up call of a different sort. You may have already written off their policies as disastrous, but I believe that remains to be seen. I'm sure you know more about economics and politics in general than I do, so I'm not going to argue about whether or not their policies would or wouldn't be worse than the McCain/Palin administration's. However, what I do believe, is that they have a humanistic quality that this country is crucially in deficit of. I think that reform of the social paradigms of the people of a country is as important as reform of its economy. I do not see McCain as a powerful economist, anyway.
If things begin to go too far downhill, there can be changes made in Washington. However, I would be willing to take that chance, to see this country [read as: It's People] move in the type of direction people like Ron Paul and Obama are advocating.
But the left wing has the best record of dealing with the economy. Think Clinton and FDR, there was a lot of prosperity there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Well we're talking about political philosophies, not what these people really do. In the end, Bush, McCain and Herbert Hoover all clun to a "Purist Capitalist" Slogan, meanwhile handing out subsidies to banks. Bush has given tons of subsidies to our industries, but none of which help our people, and he uses "purism" as an excuse to avoid it. The purist capitalist model does not exist anymore, the roots are well in our government in all forms, just not in a way that helps the people.
Ron Paul wanted to cut the roots, Barack Obama wants to change the way they work, either will do compared to the current system.
I supported Ron Paul and there's no way in hell I would ever support either Obama or McCain. Or McKinney, for that matter.
"You just like insulting people personally in every post, don't you? Please get a life."Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
first you tell I'm making things up, then you tell me I just insult people. I did neither. and when I quote you red handed, you tell me to stay on topic so hopefully no one will notice that wasn't making things up. grow up. if you can't handle being criticized for something you said, don't say it!
how is calling someone a terrorist buddy to be taken so lightly as a joke? you sounded serious to me in that thread so I'm sorry I missed your obvious sarcasm
and it is on topic, because you have shown to have some crazy ideas about obama that simply aren't true, and you seem shocked that people would support him like they did ron paul. its very simple. the middleclass man struggling to make a living has felt ignored for eight years. both candidates seemed sympathetic to the needs of that class
WHOO HOO RON PAUL!!!!! I was so in for Ron Paul to be repblican canidate. Damn media kept him down though >.> but he opened my eyes to the glory that is the Liberarian party, GO BOB BARR!!!! Or yea and I relize Ron Paul supporting Chuck, but I like Bob Barr better because he's not as judgemental on gay marriage. Even though Bob Barr is not going to win, Im still voting for him! The Libertarian Party: "Throwing" our votes away since 1971.
Don't worry, The Green Party is to liberals as the Libertarian Party is to conservatives. Some of us throw our votes away to Nader.Quote:
Originally Posted by justme
The president is not commander-in-chief of the economy. I don't look to him to fix the economy - he can't declare war on it or sign a treaty with it. The policies implemented by him will have umpteen skillion unintended consequences as time goes on, well after his administration ends. Both candidates backed the bail-out - blech. I'd love it if the most important decisions we make weren't made it the biggest rush.
Anyway, my point is that most of the talk here is about the economy. But the classic libertarian has two sides - conservative on economics, liberal on social issues! (cookie-cutter, perhaps: see the Nolan chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart)
Here is my argument:
1. The economy is f'd up and everyone is arguing how it got there and how to fix it and there is no clear solution
2. I can see advantages and disadvantages of both conservative and liberal economic policies
3. There are other issues just as important, if not more important, to my happiness as the economy
Conclusion 1: If there are other important differences between candidates, do not choose based heavily on economic policies. Further (and how a Paul supporter might be for Obama):
4. Ron Paul is a libertarian
5. Libertarians are socially liberal
6. Ron Paul is a social liberal
7. The next president will make at least 1, probably 3 Supreme Court appointments (HUGE deal, as it is a split court as of now)
8. There are only two viable candidates: Obama and McCain
9. McCain is socially conservative
10. Obama is socially liberal
11. Social conservatives want to close and regulate paths to keep society in line (boo personal freedom)
12. Social liberals want to open up paths so people can find the one that best suits them (yay personal freedom)
13. #11 is more in line with my happiness than #10 (and, ultimately, I believe for everyone's benefit)
Conclusion 2: Support Paul = Support Obama over McCain
Lots of libertarians supported Paul. Maybe some of the ones that supported Obama had the same rough reasoning as above. I suspect this kind of argument gets to the core of what Oneironaut is saying, with a big wad of "change" thrown in.
"Libertarian" as I have used it is pretty cookie-cutter, as there are many flavors, some of which are not socially liberal. Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn't really seem all that socially liberal (pro-life, anti-separation of church and state, so going from 4 and 5 to 6 in my argument above is a stretch) even though he does favor individual and state rights.
A lot of libertarians that I know are financially conservative but don't care what the hell people do with themselves morally. They probably supported Ron Paul because of his economic policies, grudgingly accepting things like the pro-life position because he was liberal on other social issues. Perhaps McCain is not conservative enough financially (having backed the bail-out) while at the same time having strong socially conservative views. Hence the support of Obama.
I really wonder if people think this stuff through, though. They probably just go with the "feeling that Obama and Paul both really care about them." Good luck on Nov. 4th, folks.
Quick answer to your thread, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I still support Ron Paul and his ideas, he endorsed chuck baldwin..the constitutional candidate...I did not register to vote and I won't vote so it doesn't matter, this isn't a democracy.
But I would much rather not see obama or mccain win, we need someone ELSE...3rd party needs to win...they have never controlled the white house...its their turn, the dems and repubs have fucked it up for long enough, they had enough chances..
Why some people choose to vote for anyone else besides Barack Obama is beyond me. A vote for McBush is a vote wasted. I liked Ron Paul but let's face it...he doesn't have a chance in hell. He wants to shut down the federal reserve...noone is going to fund the campaign that wants to shake up the very nature of their business which is money. 13 days left...Obama's got it in the bag.
I would never vote for obama, sorry...here are a few reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Why some people choose to vote for obama and not a 3rd party is beyond me.
1. he won't end the war in iraq, he will leave 50,000 troops there as a 'peacekeeping' force, he even said it in 1 debate.
2. He is open borders, won't secure the border...wants to pretty much let illegals run free and wild.
3. he is a globalist...will allow the NAU to happen...erasing our sovereignty.
4. Doesn't support 'real' change..doesn't want to abolish the fed or irs...won't shrink government.
5. did i say, he won't shrink government?
6. Won't end the war on drugs
7. voted for the patriot act, probably wont repeal it
8. voted for the bailout
This is why i won't vote for Obama
I would also NEVER vote for Mccain, I repeat. NEVER.
I would vote for bob barr or chuck baldwin, if I was an american with a brain, wait I am.
The democrats and republicans will not fix anything, stop putting them in power DUMMIES.
So let me get this straight...you want a president who WILL end the war on drugs, abolish the federal reserve AND put an end to the IRS?
Guerilla...you're asking for a president but you're in need of a god.
Immigration is what this country is based on, and he plans to increase border patrol for illegals.Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla
Libertarians have never been able to explain to me how they plan to run a country without taxes. They're like the republicans and assume that the money for the government just appears.Quote:
4. Doesn't support 'real' change..doesn't want to abolish the fed or irs...won't shrink government.
Of course not, every time someone votes for McCain, god kills a puppy. Or every time god kills a puppy someone votes for McCain, I forget which way it goes. :tonguewiggle:Quote:
I would also NEVER vote for Mccain, I repeat. NEVER.
http://www.mattcutts.com/images/firefox-puppy1.jpg
/stops killing puppies
I'm not relying on Obama to end the federal reserve, it's going to end itself. It doesn't work the way it was promised, and people are going to find other means.
We don't need a dictator of the proletariat. I don't want a president who's going to try and do everything himself, it'll create a huge backlash and the only way his bills will get through is if he's assassinated like Kennedy. Let the people demand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Gods aren't real, people who would do such that are real, like bob barr or chuck baldwin, but no the masses go and flock like sheep to the dem. and rep. parties every 4 years like sheep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
LEGAL immigration is what this country was based on, not people sneaking through our border, not paying taxes or anything...not contributing to our well being period.
They must be passed through the legal immigration system and block anyone from coming illegally.
You can 'run' the country without taxes, you are so propagandized you think high taxes are required. This couldn't be further from the truth, the truth is...we do not need most of our government agencies...which drain tax dollars like a dope fiend draining his needle.
We do not need:
- The Department of Education
- DEA
- IRS
- FED
- Department of Homeland Security
Every year they keep increasing the funding to these departments, especially the department of education...and if you look at a graph...it shows that every time you increase funding, the schools do worse...this is fact.
Every year since the department of education was enstated has shown lower and lower scores every year, americans are being dumbed down by this department...it must be ABOLISHED.
Also, we spend 10 billion a month in Iraq and afghanistan...if we stopped funding that...and our other overseas bases...we would have TONS of money to spend here to fix this country up.
The Iraqi government is in a 58 billion dollar SURPLUS
We are in a 10.3+ trillion dollar deficit.
We are going broke, and high taxes will accelerate that and make the economy that much worse, so if you want higher taxes, vote for obama and mccain, cause they both will raise your taxes due to their inevitable wars with Iran which they both would start I guarantee you this, the Israeli lobbyists have obama and mccain by the nuts...
Also, reducing taxes increases the money consumers have, which in turn they spend and save more, making the economy flow even better, stimulated by low taxes.
High taxes choke the economy, and put people in bad positions financially, we don't need high taxes to support the pointless ENDLESS and expensive war on drugs, funnelling over 100 billion down the drain, hasn't stopped drugs, NEVER WILL...
Another waste of money is the bureacracy of the department of homeland security...they do not make our security better, they just impose things like the national id card and other insane ideas, and waste more tax dollars.
Any candidate who doesn't meet these specific characteristics will NEVER get my vote period.
Someday things will change, I doubt the IRS is going anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
well guerilla u just have to pick the lesser of the two evils. Neither are perfect and neither have perfect policies but you have to pick the one that you think has the best overall package.
Obama isn't perfect and I was always more supporting hillary but he really is what this country needs. He is the next kennedy, he may not be the most experienced guy in the field but he wants to make a difference. He is surrounding himself with people with experience and who are geniuses just like the great JFK and Reagan.
The question is do you really want palin running this country or being the second in command for this country. I know VP isn't supposed be that big of a deal but she would be the second highest person in the country and if anything were to happen to mcain she would be the president. I could see biden running the country. He may not be the best guy but he could do it, I can't say the same about palin.
Now why mcain picked palin over any other republican is beyond me. What was he thinking???
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceofspades
I'm sorry but I can't do that, I can't vote for someone who is opposite of my own principles, ever...I am very strictly ahereing to my principles.
Voting for ANY two party candidate is selling my self out, going against my own beliefs, and its a vote for the collapse of america and I won't be the one to vote for that, for any two party candidate...ANY.
What if Ron Paul was in the Republican nominee? Wasn't that his goal?
Uhm, he wanted the female Clinton supporters so he brought a woman in without realizing that she's an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by aceofspades
It was his goal, a naive goal...you cannot change the democratic and republican parties, they are hell bent on winning elections and staying in power, they long forgot they were elected to represent US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
But if he was the nominee he would get my vote, but face the reality NO libertarian will win the republican nomination under the current neo-conservative leadership.
Yeah, I seriously doubted it back then. What made you change your mind?
I never changed my mind, all I did was accept the repubs won't change for 1 guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod