| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 8:15 AM
Location: Poland
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| gnosis wrote: | | So how can you accuse people who don't go libertarian party of "betraying their principles", when the libertarian party itself has betrayed its own principles? |
Because he can always write in Ron Paul?
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2375
Local time: 1:15 AM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | So how can you accuse people who don't go libertarian party of "betraying their principles", when the libertarian party itself has betrayed its own principles? |
Because he can always write in Ron Paul? |
Ron Paul is a Republican. Talk about betraying principles!
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 8:15 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Ron Paul is a Republican. Talk about betraying principles! |
We're talking about voting for principles, not voting for a party.
If Ron Paul, or whatever person holds the same principles you do, how is voting for him betrayal of your principles?
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2375
Local time: 1:15 AM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Ron Paul is a Republican. Talk about betraying principles! |
We're talking about voting for principles, not voting for a party.
If Ron Paul, or whatever person holds the same principles you do, how is voting for him betrayal of your principles? |
If Ron Paul held the same principles as I do he wouldn't be a member of the Republican party. Ron Paul is for overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a human reproductive rights issue for me.
Women should have the liberty to choose not to have a child, which is a right that Ron Paul wants to give states the power to take away.
Also:
| Quote: |
I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for homes school parents or students. |
Don't these kids have a right to at least be exposed to the truth, rather than be brainwashed by religious parents?
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert
Last edited by gnosis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 8:15 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | If Ron Paul held the same principles as I do he wouldn't be a member of the Republican party. |
So not being in the Republican party is a principle in and of itself for you?
| Quote: | Ron Paul is for overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a human reproductive rights issue for me.
Women should have the liberty to choose not to have a child, which is a right that Ron Paul wants to give states the power to take away. |
I said IF.
IF IF IF IF, for crying out loud.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2375
Local time: 1:15 AM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | If Ron Paul held the same principles as I do he wouldn't be a member of the Republican party. |
So not being in the Republican party is a principle in and of itself for you? |
After the last eight years, yes it has become a principle in and of itself for me. It wasn't always, but that party's actions have made it so for me. Maybe if the party changes in the future my stance will also change.
| Quote: |
IF IF IF IF, for crying out loud. |
IF he held the same principles, then it wouldn't be. But he doesn't. He holds some of the same, sure. Obama holds more of the same principles I do. Not because he is a Democrat mind you, I also despise quite a few Democrats. That's why I do my best to expose and oppose those individuals while I am a member of the party.
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2421
Local time: 10:15 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Ron Paul is a Republican. Talk about betraying principles! |
We're talking about voting for principles, not voting for a party.
If Ron Paul, or whatever person holds the same principles you do, how is voting for him betrayal of your principles? |
If Ron Paul held the same principles as I do he wouldn't be a member of the Republican party. |
A party isn't a principle, and while the parties are often associated with certain principles those principles aren't distinguishable enough for that statement to make sense. He's playing the "you've got to be in a big party to get elected" game, same as others who, in whichever party, share your principles.
| gnosis wrote: | | Ron Paul is for overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a human reproductive rights issue for me. |
You might want to look closer at that.
There are three distinct positions one could take on Roe v. Wade, not two. Pro-life libertarians aren't considered pro-life and pro-choice libertairans aren't considered pro-choice because they both take the third position and agree on one point that puts them at odds with the other two positions.
Those who are part of the Pro-Life movement want to overturn Roe v. Wade and establish pro-life as the federal policy.
Those who are part of the Pro-Choice movement want to preserve Roe v. Wade and establish pro-choice as the federal policy.
Libertarians on both camps want to overturn Roe v. Wade and establish absolutely no federal policy on abortion.
That's an important distinction that often people fail to grasp. Overturning RvW doesn't necessarily have to get rid of abortion. I put it as "overturning RvW the good way" versus "overturning RvW the bad way."
What the pro-choice crowd doesn't realize is that they've lucked out way beyond what they deserve. Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices are Republican Appointees. Some of those that Democrats count as "on their side" are actually Republicans.
They turned against their party of origin. Had they voted party line, there would be Federal Pro-Life.
If you are against libertarians (both the pro-life and pro-choice libertarians) you are saying it is so important to keep it on the federal level that you would rather have federal pro-life than state pro-choice. Seriously, that's what you are saying. Opposing libertairans means your priorities are: 1) Federal Pro-Choice, 2) Federal Pro-Life, 3) State Pro-Choice.
Some choicer you are by putting a pro-life option ahead of a pro-choice option!
| gnosis wrote: | | Women should have the liberty to choose not to have a child, which is a right that Ron Paul wants to give states the power to take away. |
Do you think he would appoint justices who want to mandate federal pro-life or would appoint justice who want to send it back to the states? Think carefully.
| gnosis wrote: | | Quote: | | I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for homes school parents or students. |
Don't these kids have a right to at least be exposed to the truth, rather than be brainwashed by religious parents? |
Of course, the entire homeschooling movement is defined and composed of nothing more than one very vocal subset within the movement. It's unfortunate that they get all the press because you are busy shutting the doors that would enable greater educational opportunities for non-fundie (and even atheist) homeschool parents who simply think the local schools suck ass.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 12:15 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Ron Paul is a Republican. Talk about betraying principles! |
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | We're talking about voting for principles, not voting for a party.
If Ron Paul, or whatever person holds the same principles you do, how is voting for him betrayal of your principles? |
| gnosis wrote: | | If Ron Paul held the same principles as I do he wouldn't be a member of the Republican party. |
Not necessarily. He knows that the election laws favor the demopublicans and republicrats. It's nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get in on the federal level, or even state. Locally, yes. But state and federal: nigh impossible.
| gnosis wrote: | | Ron Paul is for overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a human reproductive rights issue for me. |
Actually, it's a scope-of-power issue. RvW was a bad decision simply because it took a states issue and made it federal, when there was no Constitutional authority to do so.
| gnosis wrote: | | Women should have the liberty to choose not to have a child, which is a right that Ron Paul wants to give states the power to take away. |
The states always had that power, and still should. It's not within the scope of the federal government.
| gnosis wrote: | Also:
| Quote: |
I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for homes school parents or students. |
Don't these kids have a right to at least be exposed to the truth, rather than be brainwashed by religious parents? |
Don't their parents have the right to educate their children as they see fit, rather than how YOU wish to dictate to them?
They aren't your kids. Stay the fuck out of it.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2545
Local time: 1:15 AM
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | If Ron Paul held the same principles as I do he wouldn't be a member of the Republican party. |
Ron Paul is as much as a liberal as he is a conservative. He could have ran as a liberal denouncing the nanny-state, in which liberalism once never embraced. Liberalism once stood for minimal government, free markets, voluntary association, and individual liberty; the pillars which made this nation great.
Both classical conservatism and classical liberalism are much more closely aligned than today's expansionary dichotomy of the "left" and the "right". I believe that Ron Paul, at heart, is a liberal. He has expressed himself enough times to show that he represents individual liberty. He has shown numerous times that the decision making process begins with the state rather than the federal government. You can only get more liberal if the states break down the decision making to communities.
Paul probably choose to align himself with the Republican party out of tradition and up bringing, but I really don't know. I hope you associate Thomas Jefferson as Republican if you associate Ron Paul as one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
