Meet the women of the "Ron Paul Revolution" (I take it none of them are on birth control or in need of abortions)

im_not_a_troll · 2012-05-26T16:40:33.199325+00:00

Confusing you with Areferencedevelpment. Sorry about that.

Altruism is explicitly rejected by Objectivism, a philosophy that has influenced Libertarianism significantly.

Square point 2 with your earlier statement.

im_not_a_troll · 2012-05-26T16:18:51.796336+00:00

That's strange. So Libertarians believe other people (not libertarians) would exist in an libertarian society to take care of people?

You do realize that this makes no sense. Right or wrong, libertarians believe government provides an opportunity for the Rich and Corporate interests to enrich themselves while pretending to take care of the general good. It isn't about being selfish (in their view) but about opposing authoritarian centralized power (i.e. government). And it isn't because libertarians don't want to contribute to others, they just don't want to do it in a way that is counter productive.

If we look around the nation, the war on poverty and the war on drugs has left us with poor on drugs and in prison.

I am no libertarian; I view it much as you view objectivism. Libertarians have some strong and important principles, but they are not the whole game. But the extreme opposite (much of how we run things today) gravitates us towards totalitarianism and the denial of our liberty and freedom in the name of justice while denying justice to most of us. The winners in this system are the corporate interests, which benefits the rich and powerful.

im_not_a_troll · 2012-05-26T16:08:32.305348+00:00

Another point, and the one you made yourself:

Objectivism and Relativism are opposite polls and are not alone complete systems of thought.

If so, clearly anything in the middle is influenced by both schools. So are you claiming everything in the middle (where you think functional systems of thought must lie) are to be rejected as they must be influenced by objectivism?

im_not_a_troll · 2012-05-26T15:51:57.494044+00:00

Right. Because libertarians say we don't need the state, because people will take care of people, and organize into charities to take care of people.

It is the statists that say people will not do this of their own accord.

Who believes in altruism and who doesn't?

conn2005 · 2012-05-26T15:50:14.472270+00:00

So here is a remark I just made over with your EPS friends.

They are claiming that altruism is rejected by libertarians. Yet libertarians are the ones saying charities would take care of people, and people would take care of people. It is the state oriented people that claim we cannot rely on altruism.

Now why am I getting voted down?

twigwam · 2012-05-26T15:40:51.935001+00:00

Having an opinion that isn't supported by facts makes you "not objective."

The rest is just blather...

im_not_a_troll · 2012-05-26T14:49:17.501074+00:00

Where did you get the idea that altruism is not a part of libertarian thought? In fact, it is stateism that rejects the idea that people will take care of each other.

im_not_a_troll · 2012-05-26T14:35:59.853090+00:00

Wow. I am so glad we have no "business A" or "Person X" situations! Like nobody dies from cigarettes from cancer because we have laws....

Your argument implies we can preemptively avoid bad behavior when we can't. We write laws when we see these situations. Then companies break those laws, or they get them written in their favor.

You get compliance via information and monitoring and punishment and rewards. Who and how this is done doesn't matter as long as the actual business cannot corrupt the system. We have to fix many parts of the system today because of corruption.

Many of us who support Paul want to see someone who has not been bought make some changes and shake up the system. I certainly don't think Paul to be the cure. But we do need a cure.

conn2005 · 2012-05-26T14:21:53.340672+00:00

Right now you have 3 points. Want to guess what EPS would do to any of my remarks?

Edit two hours in, you are tracking at 7 points.

conn2005 · 2012-05-26T14:20:32.508144+00:00

Romney has been sold to the people like Tide or Coke or McDonald's. The observation that Romney gets more votes, or even polls higher, is no indication that his policies have won over the people. In fact, that so many are still willing to tilt at windmills such that he is losing states around the country to a guy who is no longer running in the primaries says the opposite.

twigwam · 2012-05-25T18:51:11.168233-07:00

The message was powerful enough to achieve some genuine breakthroughs in 2012. Paul’s ability to raise millions was remarkable, while his activist base seemed like a force of nature. His third-place showing in Iowa was incredible because it was against the odds, and in the face of a media that alternately demonized Paul and pretended that he didn’t exist. His second place in New Hampshire should have resulted in him being given top-tier status by the party and press. Instead it outraged and confused them in equal measure. He never got a fair crack at the nomination.

"Ron Paul’s Paradoxes," Ron Paul’s Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired, Brian Doherty, Broadside Books, 304 pages a review By TIMOTHY STANLEY

Stanley is no Paul fan. But even he can see what, it seems, you cannot.

I_slap_racist_faces · 2012-05-25T21:45:04.450441+00:00

You claimed that the charts don't do what I claim. I posted the trends that I see in the charts. Can you respond? Is there something I am missing that results that account for a 10 year offset that doesn't really fit with the curves?

twigwam · 1 day

I see. So that is why the popularity vote matters....

Actually, not. Just a weird side step. Well, I guess you have to say something.

twigwam · 1 day

In 11 of 15 weeks studied, former Rep. Ron Paul received more positive coverage than negative – but he received less coverage than other candidates. Paul received about one-eighth as much coverage as Romney and about one-quarter as much as Santorum and Gingrich.

Also from that link:

The study is based on analysis of the tone and volume of candidate coverage during the 2012 primary season from January 2-April 15 using human coding of 52 key news outlets and computer-assisted coding of more than 11,000 news outlets. It also analyzes the framing of campaign stories for a longer period, from Nov. 1- April 15.

If a candidate is getting 1/8 the coverage (remember, this also covers the period where Ron Paul had nearly as much money, and was running high in the polls, particularly in Iowa) being ignored is brutal to your campaign.

Other candidates had periods of high coverage. We all remember that. But at no point has Paul received the same treatment. And yet he is the one contender that has outlasted the others.

Now, you are either not objective, or you have simply never paid attention.

twigwam · 1 day

That's so warm and comforting.

The point remains that they have nothing to do really with the general election, nor (in most cases) to do with selecting the delegates to the RNC.

I appreciate your undying devotion to particular totals at mostly ignored events with little connection to the process. Totals mostly bought and paid for by Wall Street, just like they sell soap and soda.

But you can't expect everyone to be so devoted to such as you are.

AToasterSeagul · 1 day

Pretty much right.

twigwam · 1 day

12 million out of 169 million that will be voting in November. Republican primary vote totals mean almost nothing about the candidates.

alanX

TROPHY CASE

reddit gold Since February 2012	Three-Year Club
Verified Email

alanX

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login