Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[SleepWalkerX]

I'll try to respond to your post as best as I can, but keep in mind two things: I have a limited scope of economics and I'm drunk right now.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. The Fed shouldn't be abolished because it's essential to have a central banking authority to keep control over the proper flow of funds through the economy, the amount of currency in the economy, and the overall liquidity of the economy.

No its not.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
2. A hard currency is deflationary by nature. Furthermore, it doesn't allow #1 to exist, since being able to manage the liquidity of the economy and control the "smoothness" of the economy cannot exist under a hard currency.

Ok I think your post is a little confusing and brings about a false alarm. Its true that hard currencies tend to be deflationary in nature. But that's not a bad thing at all with a free market. Hard currency is deflationary in nature when the increase of money does not keep up with the increase in the size of the population. That just means that since more people need to access to money to buy goods then money becomes more scarce. But remember, money is just a commodity relative to other goods so if access to currency was a problem you can just increase the currency (which will of course increase prices, but will allow more people to use the currency).

The "smoothness" of the economy hasn't been that much greater under a fiat system..

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
3. A fed must exist because without a central bank controling the liquidity, runs on banks and panics are rampant, see CitizenKane's post in the other thread, which pointed out several panics. Some of those panics were only prevented by bankers themselves, such as JP Morgan.

Run on banks are the reason for the panics and the problem is with fractional reserve banking, which is just plain fraud and should be illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
4. The Fed is not a private entity and has quarterly and annually audited financials that are presented to Congress and the President. THe President appoints the Governors that control the fed and he can remove them at any time. Thus, oversight is there and can be undertaken at any time.

Ok, I still don't like the idea of a monopoly on money so I don't really care what oversight is provided. If one money supply is tanking then why should I not be able to switch to a more stable one?

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
5. Having Congress or any other non-quasi-independent authority control the monetary supply will only result in short-term thinking.

Eh? What is this short term thinking, why is it a problem, and why won't people think in the long term?

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
6. A measured amount of expected and managed interest is *good*, because it maintains projections and reduces variability. It allows businesses, lenders, financiers, and the capital markets in general to plan investments, hirings/firings, and economic stability. In the times before the Fed, as this country was becoming more integrated, it was plagued by bank runs, rampant inflation or deflation, all inhibiting the growth of the country.

See above how fractional reserve banking should be illegal.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
7. Competing currencies is a horrible idea. It results in a dis-aggregated economy, further reducing predictability and reducing the desire to invest when times are uncertain. Furthermore, competing currencies allow for arbitrage opportunities, uncertainty of the banks, added complexity, and reduced liquidity and transparency.

Competing currencies is a grand idea. Just allow people to compete with the Fed. A dis-aggregated economy is better than an economy that's only money supply declines. Lol, reducing predictability? It'd be about the same predictability. Reducing desire to invest when times are uncertain? Why would times be uncertain? And towards what? Arbitrage opportunities? Define please. Because here's what I found:

Buying securities in one country, currency or market and selling in another to take advantage of price differentials.

Sounds like capitalism to me. Buy low, sell high, make profit, right? Each sale is totally voluntary. Each party can negotiate, restructure the deal, or refuse the offer.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
All of those are reasons why gettng rid of the Fed, or other RPB ideas, are loony.


There, there is 7 points, PLUS my original post to work from. I fully expect you to address them, point by point. Failure to do so is admittance of defeat. I fully expect a post of no less than the length of my first post, otherwise you have not articulated your ideas thoroughly or completely. Mention of Mises or Friedman shouldn't be considered as an effective post, since it details nothing but somebody else's idea. Unlike mine, which detail my own thoughts, ideas, conclusions, and facts.

I am really looking forward to this, as it will be the first time any RPB has gone anywhere with me. Don't let me, or Ron Paul, down.

I'm off to enjoy the rest of my buzz now. Sorry if certain sentences didn't make sense. Wee!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Those are great answers, and I appreciate you making the effort; but, unfortunately, the Ron Paul supporters havent been able to articulate what THEY think the answers should be. All we see is the same extreme RP message: "Bring home EVERY US troop on the planet!"

They say such drastic things, and then balk when you demand specifics... meh.

You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea. A great deal of people that support this theory don't understand what's required to make that type of move, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's a bad idea. All politicians have "plans" that people support without thinking about how that plan can be executed. Look at health care for example. There are plenty of people that think the notion of free health care for everyone is great. What is often times overlooked is that it's not free. There's quite a few people who would pay more in taxes for free health care than they pay for their premiums now. That's another topic however. For now, I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something, but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair.

Anyways, I agree with you that our military should increase in size, but I differ from you on whether or not they should be authorized to conduct armed patrols on US oil -- that may be a slippery slope we should avoid! After all, where would their jurisdiction end, and what arrest powers would they be granted?

Perhaps we should just double or triple the size of the US CBP instead...?

I agree that just stating the military can act within our borders would be a poor decision at best. I suggest we set up a "militarized zone" along both our borders that runs the entire length of the border and extends out maybe a mile or two. We could probably move some of our current bases into this new zone and allow the military greater room for exercises and what not.

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Those are great answers, and I appreciate you making the effort; but, unfortunately, the Ron Paul supporters havent been able to articulate what THEY think the answers should be. All we see is the same extreme RP message: "Bring home EVERY US troop on the planet!"

They say such drastic things, and then balk when you demand specifics... meh.

You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea. A great deal of people that support this theory don't understand what's required to make that type of move, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's a bad idea. All politicians have "plans" that people support without thinking about how that plan can be executed. Look at health care for example. There are plenty of people that think the notion of free health care for everyone is great. What is often times overlooked is that it's not free. There's quite a few people who would pay more in taxes for free health care than they pay for their premiums now. That's another topic however. For now, I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something, but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair.

Anyways, I agree with you that our military should increase in size, but I differ from you on whether or not they should be authorized to conduct armed patrols on US oil -- that may be a slippery slope we should avoid! After all, where would their jurisdiction end, and what arrest powers would they be granted?

Perhaps we should just double or triple the size of the US CBP instead...?

I agree that just stating the military can act within our borders would be a poor decision at best. I suggest we set up a "militarized zone" along both our borders that runs the entire length of the border and extends out maybe a mile or two. We could probably move some of our current bases into this new zone and allow the military greater room for exercises and what not.

We should move the US military from its global position back to two zones along the US / Canada and US / Mexico border? Since when are either of those countries a threat to the United States? Canada isn't going to invade us and neither is Mexico. The US military's job is to protect our interests and, in this day and age, that protection should start on the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific. Our country's economy, our interests, and our livelihoods extend into the borders of nearly all countries across the globe and our military should, if necessary, be able to act to defend those interests.

Protecting our borders can also be accomplished through non-violent means. Using the military for its deployment and logistics capability makes the US the most fit country to respond to any sort of crisis - be it military, humanitarian, or terrorism. That is something we should expand on. Our military should be used to help people in need - to show them first hand that the US isn't such a bad place.

If we sit in our ivory tower with our heads in the sand, the world will change for the worse. We are, and need to continue to be, extremely active on the world stage.

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK continues to fight an uphill battle.

 

[Mavtek3100]

BlinderBomber, your name suits you. What you espouse is protectionism through force. We do not have the right to station ourselves all over the world to protect our interests. Our interests are only attained through mutual diplomacy and free trade. Not by force or projection of force.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Wow NaughtyGreek is hitting the nail on the head.... Some how I've been missing it over and over again, I've destroyed my thumbs..... I should have just said this

"You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea. A great deal of people that support this theory don't understand what's required to make that type of move, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's a bad idea. All politicians have "plans" that people support without thinking about how that plan can be executed. Look at health care for example. There are plenty of people that think the notion of free health care for everyone is great. What is often times overlooked is that it's not free. There's quite a few people who would pay more in taxes for free health care than they pay for their premiums now. That's another topic however. For now, I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something, but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair."

That's Awesome Naughty! Awesome, and it concludes both arguments. Now where is the OP when is he going to chime in like he said he would?

How the hell does what he said "conclude both arguments"?!? He essentially said that people don't need to think about what they're being told if they simply like the way it sounds on the surface... Are you frickin' kidding me?!

OK, if Ron Paul promises to end all sadness and pain, I'm pretty sure that I can agree with that on the surface; but, if I actually stop to think about it for one second, I need to ask how the fvck is he going to go about doing that crazy sh*t?!!?

Isn't the whole point of our debate to actually think about wtf each candidate is proposing? I look at RP's ideas like I look at Clinton's proposal to give every baby born in the US $5000... they both sound fantastic on the surface -- that is, until you actually stop to think about their implementation, and you realize just how frickin nutty they are!

Wow...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
BlinderBomber, your name suits you. What you espouse is protectionism through force. We do not have the right to station ourselves all over the world to protect our interests.

says who!?

Do NOT confuse "moral obligation" with "the right" to do anything. We may not have the former, but we most certainly have the latter. After all, might makes right.... right? And "we" have the "right" to do anything we wish.

Now, if doing so has consequences, then we better be prepared to handle those as well...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
BlinderBomber, your name suits you. What you espouse is protectionism through force. We do not have the right to station ourselves all over the world to protect our interests. Our interests are only attained through mutual diplomacy and free trade. Not by force or projection of force.

Wow, mutual diplomacy? You mean not being a bunch of isolationist idiots? Jesus christ man, I've lost my fucking patient with you. You don't read anything I've written, you just assume you know better and you make the same arguments over and over again despite the fact that more than one person has pointed out that what you say is contradictory and doesn't make any sense.

And here you are, slinging around insults because you realize that you have no good response. The US needs to maintain its position in the world, we need to remain committed to protecting our interests, and trade interests abroad, and we need to start rebuilding this country's image one piece at a time. That starts with showing the world we give a fuck about them, not just taking everything we give to the world back - we aren't petulant children.

We don't have the right? We've been GRANTED the right to be stationed where we are. Despite what you think, the US military brings big benefits to the world. Look what happened when we pulled out of the South China Sea - Piracy ran rampant until we moved back in.

No shit we need to engage in diplomacy and free trade, but we also need to be able to defend those same interests and why the fuck would give up military bases that have been granted to us to withdraw our troops back to our own country where there is NO threat?

Please, stop calling me an idiot.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Johnny, that's not what he said. He said if you like the general scope of the idea or agree with the premise you should investigate it. I agree with Ron Paul's premise that we should be talking about different solutions, screw the status quo.

 

[Mavtek3100]

I'm sorry Blinder, I won't call you an idiot anymore than I have before which has never happened. Oh boy.....

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm sorry Blinder, I won't call you an idiot anymore than I have before which has never happened. Oh boy.....

So because other people have called you an idiot it gives you the right to call me one? To ignore everyhting I've written? To refuse to respond to what I say?

What you've done with 99% of my responses is plug your ears and scream "Ron Paul" as loud as you can, and quite frankly, it's insulting and a complete waste of my time.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Johnny, that's not what he said. He said if you like the general scope of the idea or agree with the premise you should investigate it. I agree with Ron Paul's premise that we should be talking about different solutions, screw the status quo.

That's the problem with Ron Paul -- he is NOT "talking about different solutions." Instead, he is actually proposing several very specific "solutions" that are completely unrealistic and extreme.

If he were only advocating the brainstorming and discussion of a multitude of new ideas, he'd probably get a lot more respect. But that's obviously not the case.

He uses the words "all" and "none" much too often!

don't be shy... just admit it -- you like his ideas simply because theysound different, and you havent really given any of them any deep thought -- at least, that's what you just admitted a few minutes ago.

 

[Mavtek3100]

I have decided I have spoken for Dr. Paul for far too long in this thread. It's time he speaks for himself.

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would

By RON PAUL

Monday, Oct. 8, 2007

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm sorry Blinder, I won't call you an idiot anymore than I have before which has never happened. Oh boy.....

So because other people have called you an idiot it gives you the right to call me one? To ignore everyhting I've written? To refuse to respond to what I say?

What you've done with 99% of my responses is plug your ears and scream "Ron Paul" as loud as you can, and quite frankly, it's insulting and a complete waste of my time.

I haven't called you an idiot, I said your name suits you as you seem to advocate the need to have our military all over the world.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
BlinderBomber, your name suits you. What you espouse is protectionism through force. We do not have the right to station ourselves all over the world to protect our interests. Our interests are only attained through mutual diplomacy and free trade. Not by force or projection of force.

Wow, mutual diplomacy? You mean not being a bunch of isolationist idiots? Jesus christ man, I've lost my fucking patient with you. You don't read anything I've written, you just assume you know better and you make the same arguments over and over again despite the fact that more than one person has pointed out that what you say is contradictory and doesn't make any sense.

And here you are, slinging around insults because you realize that you have no good response. The US needs to maintain its position in the world, we need to remain committed to protecting our interests, and trade interests abroad, and we need to start rebuilding this country's image one piece at a time. That starts with showing the world we give a fuck about them, not just taking everything we give to the world back - we aren't petulant children.

We don't have the right? We've been GRANTED the right to be stationed where we are. Despite what you think, the US military brings big benefits to the world. Look what happened when we pulled out of the South China Sea - Piracy ran rampant until we moved back in.

No shit we need to engage in diplomacy and free trade, but we also need to be able to defend those same interests and why the fuck would give up military bases that have been granted to us to withdraw our troops back to our own country where there is NO threat?

Please, stop calling me an idiot.

Norman Podhoretz ladies and gentleman... a round of applause!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I have decided I have spoken for Dr. Paul for far too long in this thread. It's time he speaks for himself.

Translation: "I really don't understand most of what you guys are talking about, but I do know that ALL of my friends think Ron Paul is the coolest....EVER!!... annnnd... what he says about new things... and changes... is cool... annnnnd... stuff!! Here's some more copy/paste from my favorite person EVUH!! <gulp><gulp>... must click to cast more votes... YIPPIIIIIE! must check myspace and facebook... <gulp> <gulp> ..."

:roll:

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Wow NaughtyGreek is hitting the nail on the head.... Some how I've been missing it over and over again, I've destroyed my thumbs..... I should have just said this

"You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea. A great deal of people that support this theory don't understand what's required to make that type of move, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's a bad idea. All politicians have "plans" that people support without thinking about how that plan can be executed. Look at health care for example. There are plenty of people that think the notion of free health care for everyone is great. What is often times overlooked is that it's not free. There's quite a few people who would pay more in taxes for free health care than they pay for their premiums now. That's another topic however. For now, I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something, but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair."

That's Awesome Naughty! Awesome, and it concludes both arguments. Now where is the OP when is he going to chime in like he said he would?

How the hell does what he said "conclude both arguments"?!? He essentially said that people don't need to think about what they're being told if they simply like the way it sounds on the surface... Are you frickin' kidding me?!

OK, if Ron Paul promises to end all sadness and pain, I'm pretty sure that I can agree with that on the surface; but, if I actually stop to think about it for one second, I need to ask how the fvck is he going to go about doing that crazy sh*t?!!?

Isn't the whole point of our debate to actually think about wtf each candidate is proposing? I look at RP's ideas like I look at Clinton's proposal to give every baby born in the US $5000... they both sound fantastic on the surface -- that is, until you actually stop to think about their implementation, and you realize just how frickin nutty they are!

Wow...

I used to be in the boat where I wasn't quite sure how the economy works, but I thought that the idea of being economically free sounded like something that could work. Eventually I began to read into that area and found that I was right. I think that's the kind of mentality that others are trying to explain. Freedom is good.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, if Ron Paul promises to end all sadness and pain, I'm pretty sure that I can agree with that on the surface

One should first think, what does he think sadness and pain is? Sadness is a relative term. Sadness could be the fact that your stock tanked, and could be the same thing as the happiness I'm experiencing by selling that same stock at a high price before th stock tanked.

The point is that people are gullible and stupid so the last thing you want is that same person in government enforcing that gullibility and stupidity on everyone.

I guess I lied. I like being buzzed and posting on AT.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I have decided I have spoken for Dr. Paul for far too long in this thread. It's time he speaks for himself.

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would

By RON PAUL

Monday, Oct. 8, 2007

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

This post boils down to:
Lift the embargo on Cuba (he isn't the first or last to want this)
Do not engage in foreign wars
and then there is some bullshit about international business (which means nothing. Every presidency is going to encourage international business).

This post is classified as "reasonable" because it says very little other than what others have wanted / proclaimed before him. It doesn't address his incredibly stupid ideas of withdrawing troops and foreign aid.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Johnny, that's not what he said. He said if you like the general scope of the idea or agree with the premise you should investigate it. I agree with Ron Paul's premise that we should be talking about different solutions, screw the status quo.

That's the problem with Ron Paul -- he is NOT "talking about different solutions." Instead, he is actually proposing several very specific "solutions" that are completely unrealistic and extreme.

If he were only advocating the brainstorming and discussion of a multitude of new ideas, he'd probably get a lot more respect. But that's obviously not the case.

He uses the words "all" and "none" much too often!

don't be shy... just admit it -- you like his ideas simply because theysound different, and you havent really given any of them any deep thought -- at least, that's what you just admitted a few minutes ago.

You're post made me chuckle...

It would seem you don't actually know who you're talking to so let me give you a background. I've held a Libertarian ideology for that last 10 years of my life, I also try to practice a Libertarian lifestyle. The latter is harder than the belief, I can imagine this is hard for Christians as well. I've had meaningful debates with people regarding all types of monetary situations, education, insurance, roles of companies and corporations.

I've contemplated the abolishment of public schooling to canceling my health insurance. To even removing my home and lifestyle off the "grid" in essence. I've often considered becoming one of the many income tax protesters, but having the responsibility of a wife and children I can only go so far.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Johnny, that's not what he said. He said if you like the general scope of the idea or agree with the premise you should investigate it. I agree with Ron Paul's premise that we should be talking about different solutions, screw the status quo.

That's the problem with Ron Paul -- he is NOT "talking about different solutions." Instead, he is actually proposing several very specific "solutions" that are completely unrealistic and extreme.

If he were only advocating the brainstorming and discussion of a multitude of new ideas, he'd probably get a lot more respect. But that's obviously not the case.

He uses the words "all" and "none" much too often!

don't be shy... just admit it -- you like his ideas simply because theysound different, and you havent really given any of them any deep thought -- at least, that's what you just admitted a few minutes ago.

You're post made me chuckle...

It would seem you don't actually know who you're talking to so let me give you a background. I've held a Libertarian ideology for that last 10 years of my life, I also try to practice a Libertarian lifestyle. The latter is harder than the belief, I can imagine this is hard for Christians as well. I've had meaningful debates with people regarding all types of monetary situations, education, insurance, roles of companies and corporations.

I've contemplated the abolishment of public schooling to canceling my health insurance. To even removing my home and lifestyle off the "grid" in essence. I've often considered becoming one of the many income tax protesters, but having the responsibility of a wife and children I can only go so far.

In other words, you're a frickin loon. Why didn't you just say so at the beginning!?

Seriously. You're off the frickin charts!

/thread

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Johnny, that's not what he said. He said if you like the general scope of the idea or agree with the premise you should investigate it. I agree with Ron Paul's premise that we should be talking about different solutions, screw the status quo.

That's the problem with Ron Paul -- he is NOT "talking about different solutions." Instead, he is actually proposing several very specific "solutions" that are completely unrealistic and extreme.

If he were only advocating the brainstorming and discussion of a multitude of new ideas, he'd probably get a lot more respect. But that's obviously not the case.

He uses the words "all" and "none" much too often!

don't be shy... just admit it -- you like his ideas simply because theysound different, and you havent really given any of them any deep thought -- at least, that's what you just admitted a few minutes ago.

You're post made me chuckle...

It would seem you don't actually know who you're talking to so let me give you a background. I've held a Libertarian ideology for that last 10 years of my life, I also try to practice a Libertarian lifestyle. The latter is harder than the belief, I can imagine this is hard for Christians as well. I've had meaningful debates with people regarding all types of monetary situations, education, insurance, roles of companies and corporations.

I've contemplated the abolishment of public schooling to canceling my health insurance. To even removing my home and lifestyle off the "grid" in essence. I've often considered becoming one of the many income tax protesters, but having the responsibility of a wife and children I can only go so far.

In other words, you're a frickin loon. Why didn't you just say so at the beginning!?

Seriously. You're off the frickin charts!

/thread

Libertarianism is NOT a loon lifestyle. Allowing individuals to run their own life is what freedom is all about.

/unthread

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Johnny, that's not what he said. He said if you like the general scope of the idea or agree with the premise you should investigate it. I agree with Ron Paul's premise that we should be talking about different solutions, screw the status quo.

That's the problem with Ron Paul -- he is NOT "talking about different solutions." Instead, he is actually proposing several very specific "solutions" that are completely unrealistic and extreme.

If he were only advocating the brainstorming and discussion of a multitude of new ideas, he'd probably get a lot more respect. But that's obviously not the case.

He uses the words "all" and "none" much too often!

don't be shy... just admit it -- you like his ideas simply because theysound different, and you havent really given any of them any deep thought -- at least, that's what you just admitted a few minutes ago.

You're post made me chuckle...

It would seem you don't actually know who you're talking to so let me give you a background. I've held a Libertarian ideology for that last 10 years of my life, I also try to practice a Libertarian lifestyle. The latter is harder than the belief, I can imagine this is hard for Christians as well. I've had meaningful debates with people regarding all types of monetary situations, education, insurance, roles of companies and corporations.

I've contemplated the abolishment of public schooling to canceling my health insurance. To even removing my home and lifestyle off the "grid" in essence. I've often considered becoming one of the many income tax protesters, but having the responsibility of a wife and children I can only go so far.

In other words, you're a frickin loon. Why didn't you just say so at the beginning!?

Seriously. You're off the frickin charts!

/thread

Libertarianism is NOT a loon lifestyle. Allowing individuals to run their own life is what freedom is all about.

/unthread

so you say... I still think that he, and RP, are loons. It's just a shame that his family is made to suffer the consequences of his irrational decisions to disavow the modern world...

 

[Mavtek3100]

Yes, you are proving my point more and more Johnny, I'm a frickin loon! I'm a frickin loon because I disagree with you and I have an overwhelmingly strong belief in peaceful discourse. I believe that all ideas have merit until proven otherwise and that just because these ideas may not be the status quo or even immediate solutions to current problems they shouldn't be called loony or those who present them called fringe.

If not for those on the "fringe" or those who think "out of the box" the many innovations of those who were considered fringe or loony may have never been realized. It's up to all of us to have rational and meaningful discourse and the more we accept the label as loony or fringe the more ideas we lose.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Ron Paul loves the modern world, and thinks the modern world would be benefited greatly by Libertarianism. Ron Paul is the only 70+ year old I know who has his own Iphone widgets he customized

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Ron Paul loves the modern world, and thinks the modern world would be benefited greatly by Libertarianism. Ron Paul is the only 70+ year old I know who has his own Iphone widgets he customized

I hear he could also consume our debts with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse!!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Yes, you are proving my point more and more Johnny, I'm a frickin loon! I'm a frickin loon because I disagree with you and I have an overwhelmingly strong belief in peaceful discourse. I believe that all ideas have merit until proven otherwise and that just because these ideas may not be the status quo or even immediate solutions to current problems they shouldn't be called loony or those who present them called fringe.

If not for those on the "fringe" or those who think "out of the box" the many innovations of those who were considered fringe or loony may have never been realized. It's up to all of us to have rational and meaningful discourse and the more we accept the label as loony or fringe the more ideas we lose.

If we took every fringe idea and ran with it... think about where we'd be. There are two sides to every coin and just because you're on the "I worship the ground Ron Paul walks on side", doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms that aren't just people trying to stifle him.