Ron Paul Should Run as a Third Party Choice.

[Rocko]

But Libertarians, being totalitarians

Stop making an idiot of yourself.

I can prove it to you. You game?

They don't want any part of you, after last time.

 

[SniperFire]

You do understand that no one is talking about ending the fed tomorrow right?.

Nobody said tomorrow. Do you know what a strawman argument is?

So your position is that we absolutely cannot ever under any circumstances end the fed?

I never took that position. Are you retarded?

 

[konradv]

Ron or Rand will never be president. I don't think Americans will fall for their line. There's a reason why he has so many young supporters, they haven't had the time and life experiences to completely work out the consequences. When I was their age, I thought Ayn Rand was the bomb. Eventually, I grew out of that particular case of immaturity, however. Like Marxism, Libertarianism would require a basic shift in human nature to work. As much as we all hate regulation, without it a minority would take advantage to the detriment of the majority.

 

[Douger]

Ron Paul should retire in the Seychelles.
Nobody can fix something as fucked up as murka.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Our founding fathers didn't compromise on their beliefs either

Very, very wrong. Slavery is an excellent example.

Many of them didn't think slavery was wrong so I don't see your point. If they were to say that slavery was wrong then vote to allow it then that would be one thing but allowing something they didn't see as wrong is still not compromsing on their beliefs.

We have evolved socially since that time and now we understand that all humans are equal. I don't know what thier reasoning was for allowing slavery but they were wrong. I choose to focus on what they did right which was to write a constitution that would protect our freedom to end slavery if we so chose, which we did.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Nobody said tomorrow. Do you know what a strawman argument is?

So your position is that we absolutely cannot ever under any circumstances end the fed?

I never took that position. Are you retarded?

Do you have a point in bringing it up then?

 

[SniperFire]

Our founding fathers didn't compromise on their beliefs either

Very, very wrong. Slavery is an excellent example.

Many of them didn't think slavery was wrong so I don't see your point. If they were to say that slavery was wrong then vote to allow it then that would be one thing but allowing something they didn't see as wrong is still not compromsing on their beliefs.

We have evolved socially since that time and now we understand that all humans are equal. I don't know what thier reasoning was for allowing slavery but they were wrong. I choose to focus on what they did right which was to write a constitution that would protect our freedom to end slavery if we so chose, which we did.

The Founders certainly compromised PROFUSELY in many areas. Why are you arguing things which you clearly don't understand?

 

[SniperFire]

So your position is that we absolutely cannot ever under any circumstances end the fed?

I never took that position. Are you retarded?

Do you have a point in bringing it up then?

Yes. Libertarians are totalitarian fools who think anyone who does not agree we should 'end the Fed' are morons.

 

[SniperFire]

Stop making an idiot of yourself.

I can prove it to you. You game?

They don't want any part of you, after last time.

I see they have run off.

LOL

 

[LibertyForAll]

If he can't beat the guys in the primary how the hell would he beat them in the general? Ron Paul supporters are diehards that vote in the primaries so where would he get the rest of the necessary votes to win from?

If there was a path I could see it but to just be a spoiler is a bitch move.

Because in the primary he is trying to win the vote of statist neocons with the media and the establishment against him. In the general he would not be limited to just the republican votes he would get most of the libertarian and a lot of the young voters as well as the disaffected democrats and independents that find Romney objectionable.

I think that if he could make a case for election fraud within the GOP then it wouldn't necessarily hurt Rand's chances later either. I think there is enough evidence out there that he could make that case too.

 

[sealybobo]

Bernie Sanders should run as a Third Party alternative to Obama.

We do love Bernie Sanders.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I never took that position. Are you retarded?

Do you have a point in bringing it up then?

Yes. Libertarians are totalitarian fools who think anyone who does not agree we should 'end the Fed' are morons.

This is moral absolutism not totalitarianism.

 

[blastoff]

The guy's been hardly a blip among Republican primary voters, so running as a third party guy is asinine, unless his aim was just to screw up the Republican's victory.

 

[SniperFire]

Do you have a point in bringing it up then?

Yes. Libertarians are totalitarian fools who think anyone who does not agree we should 'end the Fed' are morons.

This is moral absolutism not totalitarianism.

Mao was a moral absolutist.

 

[Paulie]

I never took that position. Are you retarded?

Do you have a point in bringing it up then?

Yes. Libertarians are totalitarian fools who think anyone who does not agree we should 'end the Fed' are morons.

I don't think someone is a moron if they don't agree with that. The Federal Reserve is a complicated entity, along with monetary policy in general. I don't expect everyone to understand it well enough to have an informed opinion either way.

The Fed could actually serve the people if it conducted monetary policy in a more favorable way, by not intervening in every single fucking thing that happens to the economy. Not guaranteeing Treasury purchases in the seconday market would help potentially reign in government spending as the market demand for bonds decreased and the government was then FORCED to be austere.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I am free to think you are a moron and you are free to think I am a moron. We are even still free to say so. Libertarians would like you remain free to think and say what you feel and you think this is somehow totalitarian. Libertarians promote individual responsibility and you think this is totalitarian. You think that the majority should rule and that the minority should go along with it and you call us totalitarian.

I have seen your question in other threads and I answered it there but I will answer it again. Our rights are unalienable. This means that even if the majority decides they want free healthcare then they cannot decide to take my property to pay for it without violating my rights. Somehow in your warped view of the world protecting the freedom of the minority from the majority has become totalitarian. I will fight to protect my rights against a majority that would take them away and somehow you see this as a bad thing.

The main argument against a libertarian government being totalitarian is that no one would be forced to stay. If you like Mao better go live in china. Individual responsibility means you are free to make your own choices unless that choice infringes on the rights of others.

 

[SniperFire]

Do you have a point in bringing it up then?

Yes. Libertarians are totalitarian fools who think anyone who does not agree we should 'end the Fed' are morons.

I don't think someone is a moron if they don't agree with that. The Federal Reserve is a complicated entity, along with monetary policy in general. I don't expect everyone to understand it well enough to have an informed opinion either way.

The Fed could actually serve the people if it conducted monetary policy in a more favorable way, by not intervening in every single fucking thing that happens to the economy. Not guaranteeing Treasury purchases in the seconday market would help potentially reign in government spending as the market demand for bonds decreased and the government was then FORCED to be austere.

Fair enough. We are not going to eliminate the Federal reserve system unless, of course, everything collapses and we go back to bartering with chickens.

 

[sealybobo]

The guy's been hardly a blip among Republican primary voters, so running as a third party guy is asinine, unless his aim was just to screw up the Republican's victory.

Why not after the way they have treated him? The 4 things he is right about, they say are the things that make him crazy.

If my party treated me that way, I'd screw them up too.

The Democrats will at least regulate the Federal Reserve. Remember Bush wanted to bail them out and no quesitons asked? Fuck that.

And if he really feels strongly about not going to war with Iran, he should run 3rd party and not let Romney win.

 

[SniperFire]

I am free to think you are a moron and you are free to think I am a moron. We are even still free to say so. Libertarians would like you remain free to think and say what you feel and you think this is somehow totalitarian.

If you snapped your fingers and had a perfect Libertarian law state, would you prevent locals from banding together and starting a taxpayer supported soup kitchen welfare program that the majority deemed to be a good idea for 'the greater good'?

Would you stop such a thing from being voted upon and passed, or would you be willing to watch your Libertarian society fall apart and rendered completely unworkable?

Those are your choices. Pick one.

 

[Paulie]

Yes. Libertarians are totalitarian fools who think anyone who does not agree we should 'end the Fed' are morons.

I don't think someone is a moron if they don't agree with that. The Federal Reserve is a complicated entity, along with monetary policy in general. I don't expect everyone to understand it well enough to have an informed opinion either way.

The Fed could actually serve the people if it conducted monetary policy in a more favorable way, by not intervening in every single fucking thing that happens to the economy. Not guaranteeing Treasury purchases in the seconday market would help potentially reign in government spending as the market demand for bonds decreased and the government was then FORCED to be austere.

Fair enough. We are not going to eliminate the Federal reserve system unless, of course, everything collapses and we go back to bartering with chickens.

You could take away every single regulation on the books, and as long as the Fed still controls monetary policy this is not a free market. So I'm just not sure why your Federal Reserve example in attempting to point out totalitarianism was valid. The Federal Reserve itself is a perfect tool for a totalitarian government that seeks to control everything.

At the end of the day, the Fed controls the value of the dollar, and thereby the state of the economy.