PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's Man in Iowa



Common
11-25-2013, 07:02 AM
War is brewing in Iowa, gop vs libertarians


Inside the feud that's tearing apart the state's GOP.


For more than a year, my Republican friends and the party activists I’ve known for years have been complaining with increasing intensity about Spiker, a 34-year-old realtor and former Ron Paul aide who is the unlikely chair of the Iowa Republican Party. It’s been a crazy kind of war, complete with Facebook unfriending, rumors and name-calling. Now, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad’s political team is finally gearing up to try to get rid of Spiker.At the governor’s big birthday bash (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/11/16/at-birthday-party-terry-branstad-praises-special-guest-paul-ryans-budget-hawkishness/article) with special guest Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Saturday night, Branstad’s reelection campaign team asked donors to sign up to serve as delegates at the county, district and state conventions so they can take back the party leadership.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/ron-pauls-man-in-iowa-aj-spiker-100214.html#ixzz2lerRCUUo

zelmo1234
11-25-2013, 07:14 AM
You know I think I am fine with the dissention in the republican party, for too long the establishment republicans are nothing more that Democrat light!

So even if we lose the election for the big house, (White House) I think that the people deserve a choice between how the nations will be governed?

Right on you either have more or less of the same!

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 08:42 AM
Are you saying that only the votes or concerns of the over 40 crowd count? I have been trying to tell people that younger voters are not puritans who like to spend money. We're socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We are not our parent's Republicans or Democrats.

They offer nothing for us but business as usual which has pretty much sucked.

Common
11-25-2013, 08:46 AM
I have no idea what socially liberal and fiscally conservative means.

Unless it means your for anything anyone wants to do like smoke weed and gay marriage socially and against everything that helps the little people, like raising the minimum wage and Medicare and Social Security and medicare fiscally.

If thats the case im more against libertarianism than I am the Teaparty

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 08:49 AM
I have no idea what socially liberal and fiscally conservative means.

Unless it means your for anything anyone wants to do like smoke weed and gay marriage socially and against everything that helps the little people, like raising the minimum wage and Medicare and Social Security and medicare fiscally.

If thats the case im more against libertarianism than I am the Teaparty

No. Do you really want to know or is this a thing where you assume something regardless of what I tell you?

I'll explain and be more than happy to if you're willing to listen Common

Common
11-25-2013, 08:49 AM
Are you saying that only the votes or concerns of the over 40 crowd count? I have been trying to tell people that younger voters are not puritans who like to spend money. We're socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We are not our parent's Republicans or Democrats.

They offer nothing for us but business as usual which has pretty much sucked.


All votes count code, but it always was and always will be the majority wins except for Potus elections.

Babyboomers are still the largest single voting block, in 15-20 yrs that wont be the case any more.

Common
11-25-2013, 08:50 AM
No. Do you really want to know or is this a thing where you assume something regardless of what I tell you?

I'll explain and be more than happy to if you're willing to listen @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659)

I would like to know and I will listen, now that wont mean I agree with you

Mainecoons
11-25-2013, 08:51 AM
No. Do you really want to know or is this a thing where you assume something regardless of what I tell you?

I'll explain and be more than happy to if you're willing to listen @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659)

Good luck!

nic34
11-25-2013, 08:54 AM
They offer nothing for us but business as usual which has pretty much sucked.

After all, that's what matters most .... what's in it for us....

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 08:55 AM
It means that we don't believe in making laws governing what individuals do in their homes and to their bodies. It means we're not against immigration. It means that we're against invasion of privacy and government infringement upon liberties. It means that we think the government is wasteful across the board and don't single out social programs.

Republicans only care about waste when it comes to social programs, but don't dare touch DOD or the CIA's budget. We would slash DOD's budget, as well. We're for a non-interventionist foreign policy that causes our troops to be overseas indefinitely and keeps the military budget crazy outrageous.

So in short, I don't care if two gays want to get married, smoke pot at the reception, and then go buy an AR-15 together. I don't have a problem with entitlement spending as long as we cut in other areas so that we can lower taxes for everyone.

I'm for a no deductions for individuals or business, flat tax of 15% to make this fair OR a consumption based tax so if you buy a Ferrari you pay taxes higher than buying a Hyundai.

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:55 AM
I have no idea what socially liberal and fiscally conservative means.

Unless it means your for anything anyone wants to do like smoke weed and gay marriage socially and against everything that helps the little people, like raising the minimum wage and Medicare and Social Security and medicare fiscally.

If thats the case im more against libertarianism than I am the Teaparty



It means you stand for liberty. Conservatives--and this is a broad generalization--tend to be against social/personal liberty but for economic liberty, liberals the oppostive, libertarians for both soial/personal freedom and economic freedom.

In what you say in your post you are liberal if not against freedom altogether.

Ravi
11-25-2013, 08:55 AM
I have no idea what socially liberal and fiscally conservative means.

Unless it means your for anything anyone wants to do like smoke weed and gay marriage socially and against everything that helps the little people, like raising the minimum wage and Medicare and Social Security and medicare fiscally.

If thats the case im more against libertarianism than I am the Teaparty

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 08:56 AM
After all, that's what matters most .... what's in it for us....

Uhhh, yeh? Your generation gave us the Patriot Act, two wars, and spying without warrant by bipartisan vote, so sorry if I'm not taking rebukes well from anyone who votes Democrat or Republican.

What's in it for me? How about privacy and dignity?

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 08:57 AM
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

And yet we'd let you abort your baby...isn't that the most important things you guys vote on ever?

Ravi
11-25-2013, 08:58 AM
And yet we'd let you abort your baby...isn't that the most important things you guys vote on ever?
Let?

There's another problem....

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:58 AM
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Albeit with a whole lot of liberal spin. Naturally, you'd buy it.

nic34
11-25-2013, 09:00 AM
It means you stand for liberty. Conservatives--and this is a broad generalization--tend to be against social/personal liberty but for economic liberty, liberals the oppostive, libertarians for both soial/personal freedom and economic freedom.

In what you say in your post you are liberal if not against freedom altogether.




liberals the oppostive

Wrong.

And it is not opposing freedom to require mfgrs. to equip vehicles with operational brakes, seat belts and airbags....

Ravi
11-25-2013, 09:00 AM
Albeit with a whole lot of liberal spin. Naturally, you'd buy it.Common isn't a liberal.

jillian
11-25-2013, 09:01 AM
It means you stand for liberty. Conservatives--and this is a broad generalization--tend to be against social/personal liberty but for economic liberty, liberals the oppostive, libertarians for both soial/personal freedom and economic freedom.

In what you say in your post you are liberal if not against freedom altogether.

you don't care about liberty if government is legislating something you agree with.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:01 AM
Common isn't a liberal.

He's as liberal as you and that's as liberal as it can get.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:02 AM
you don't care about liberty if government is legislating something you agree with.

Again, you lie about what I think. You're pathetic.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:03 AM
Let?

There's another problem....

Well, you're the one that believes all your rights are granted by the government, right? So "we the people" let you do it under your system.

Under my system, we the people let the government exist. Two different thoughts entirely.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:03 AM
Wrong.

And it is not opposing freedom to require mfgrs. to equip vehicles with operational brakes, seat belts and airbags....

There are trade offs in everything, nic. And, nic, brakes were put in cars before laws required it. You've got the cart in front of the horse.

jillian
11-25-2013, 09:05 AM
There are trade offs in everything, nic. And, nic, brakes were put in cars before laws required it. You've got the cart in front of the horse.

but seat belts weren't put in all cars before they were mandated.

and yes, there are tradeoffs…. even when you don't like the trade off.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:05 AM
you don't care about liberty if government is legislating something you agree with.

Wrong.
jillian

why don't you give me an example of a liberty that I as a libertarian want to restrict?

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:05 AM
Well, you're the one that believes all your rights are granted by the government, right? So "we the people" let you do it under your system.

Under my system, we the people let the government exist. Two different thoughts entirely.



Great insight into the difference between statists and libertarians!

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:07 AM
but seat belts weren't put in all cars before they were mandated.

and yes, there are tradeoffs…. even when you don't like the trade off.

And some people will walk off the Golden Gate bridge. Scary world out there. Maybe we should all live in protective bubbles while our avatars walk around in virtual reality?

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:07 AM
but seat belts weren't put in all cars before they were mandated.

and yes, there are tradeoffs…. even when you don't like the trade off.

Seat belts also incentivized people to feel safer and drive faster and have more fatalities. There are trade offs in everything. Libertarians draw lines, partisans do not.

Common
11-25-2013, 09:07 AM
It means that we don't believe in making laws governing what individuals do in their homes and to their bodies. It means we're not against immigration. It means that we're against invasion of privacy and government infringement upon liberties. It means that we think the government is wasteful across the board and don't single out social programs.

Republicans only care about waste when it comes to social programs, but don't dare touch DOD or the CIA's budget. We would slash DOD's budget, as well. We're for a non-interventionist foreign policy that causes our troops to be overseas indefinitely and keeps the military budget crazy outrageous.

So in short, I don't care if two gays want to get married, smoke pot at the reception, and then go buy an AR-15 together. I don't have a problem with entitlement spending as long as we cut in other areas so that we can lower taxes for everyone.

I'm for a no deductions for individuals or business, flat tax of 15% to make this fair OR a consumption based tax so if you buy a Ferrari you pay taxes higher than buying a Hyundai.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position I appreciate it and I do have a better understanding now and I agree with some of your positions and some I do not. People never agree on everything.

As for others I totally disregard anything the trolls and flamers say on this forum or any others
GOOD LUCK !!! with them. I dont need any I dont waste any of my time with them

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:08 AM
Wrong.
jillian

why don't you give me an example of a liberty that I as a libertarian want to restrict?



Here it comes, she's going to trot out her pretend libertarian...

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 09:09 AM
Ron Paul is a fraud.

jillian
11-25-2013, 09:11 AM
Again, you lie about what I think. You're pathetic.

i don't lie.

be more consistent in your professed "libertarianism" if you don't like it being pointed out…

now stop whining.

jillian
11-25-2013, 09:11 AM
Here it comes, she's going to trot out her pretend libertarian...

poor baby. i can't help what you are. but i always like the advance whine.

jillian
11-25-2013, 09:12 AM
Seat belts also incentivized people to feel safer and drive faster and have more fatalities. There are trade offs in everything. Libertarians draw lines, partisans do not.

nonsense… cars got faster

correlation is not causation. you seem to have problems with that concept.

Ravi
11-25-2013, 09:13 AM
Well, you're the one that believes all your rights are granted by the government, right? So "we the people" let you do it under your system.

Under my system, we the people let the government exist. Two different thoughts entirely.Protected by the government. But thanks for demonstrating what you really think.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:15 AM
Ron Paul is a fraud.

So are you, so am I, so is everyone on this board. At some point we've all been full of shit and didn't handle our business. At some point we've lied to our NCOs about who exactly didn't turn the lock all the way on the armory or who fell asleep on watch.

Guess what? I told people they were the prettiest girl I've ever met to get them to sleep with me and I was lying. I'm a fraud. Fraud happens to a lot of us when we're immature and hopefully we grow out of it but no one is going to be perfect.

I love how perfection is expected in Ron Paul but everyone else gets a free ride down the road of dirty politics.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:17 AM
Protected by the government. But thanks for demonstrating what you really think.

Naw, y'all said the government gives you your rights. If you believe you have them without government that makes you a voluntarist. :)

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 09:17 AM
So are you, so am I, so is everyone on this board. At some point we've all been full of shit and didn't handle our business. At some point we've lied to our NCOs about who exactly didn't turn the lock all the way on the armory or who fell asleep on watch.

Guess what? I told people they were the prettiest girl I've ever met to get them to sleep with me and I was lying. I'm a fraud. Fraud happens to a lot of us when we're immature and hopefully we grow out of it but no one is going to be perfect.

I love how perfection is expected in Ron Paul but everyone else gets a free ride down the road of dirty politics.

Some more than others.

nic34
11-25-2013, 09:18 AM
There are trade offs in everything, nic. And, nic, brakes were put in cars before laws required it. You've got the cart in front of the horse.


The operational word was operational..... you know something that works and has passed tests....

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:18 AM
i don't lie.

be more consistent in your professed "libertarianism" if you don't like it being pointed out…

now stop whining.


You lie.

And see, I told you you'd trot out her pretend libertarian. Everything is pretentious about you, jillian.

But, hey, it's your reputation.

Common
11-25-2013, 09:19 AM
Common isn't a liberal.

Ravi there is a short list of individuals on this forum that I dont pay one bit of attention to what they have to say anymore. You should try it, it makes the forum alot more enjoyable.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:20 AM
So are you, so am I, so is everyone on this board. At some point we've all been full of shit and didn't handle our business. At some point we've lied to our NCOs about who exactly didn't turn the lock all the way on the armory or who fell asleep on watch.

Guess what? I told people they were the prettiest girl I've ever met to get them to sleep with me and I was lying. I'm a fraud. Fraud happens to a lot of us when we're immature and hopefully we grow out of it but no one is going to be perfect.

I love how perfection is expected in Ron Paul but everyone else gets a free ride down the road of dirty politics.


Madison, Federalist 51, "If men were angels...." Best argument for libertarianism and against the religion of statism ever made.

jillian
11-25-2013, 09:20 AM
Well, you're the one that believes all your rights are granted by the government, right? So "we the people" let you do it under your system.

Under my system, we the people let the government exist. Two different thoughts entirely.

not granted… protected. and when there are bad appointees, like scalia and thomas, those rights get eroded.

but certainly better than what happens when people do whatever they feel like.

your rights end at my nose… mine end at yours.

people forget that.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:21 AM
Ravi there is a short list of individuals on this forum that I dont pay one bit of attention to what they have to say anymore. You should try it, it makes the forum alot more enjoyable.

It's more than obvious by what you post you're a liberal, or worse, a partisan.

jillian
11-25-2013, 09:21 AM
Ravi there is a short list of individuals on this forum that I dont pay one bit of attention to what they have to say anymore. You should try it, it makes the forum alot more enjoyable.

that's because if you don't hate the government and don't jump on board their every talking point, you *must* be a liberal. or at very least a RINO… because there isn't room for disagreement in the rightwing.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:22 AM
not granted… protected. and when there are bad appointees, like scalia and thomas, those rights get eroded.

but certainly better than what happens when people do whatever they feel like.

your rights end at my nose… mine end at yours.

people forget that.

Yes, a lot of people do forget that and want to come into my home and tell me how to live my life. I don't see Democrats protecting any of MY rights.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:23 AM
not granted… protected. and when there are bad appointees, like scalia and thomas, those rights get eroded.

but certainly better than what happens when people do whatever they feel like.

your rights end at my nose… mine end at yours.

people forget that.


your rights end at my nose… mine end at yours.

And government's protections should stop there as well. It should not be allowed to do anything that cannot be demonstrated to protect the common rights of the people.

nic34
11-25-2013, 09:23 AM
And some people will walk off the Golden Gate bridge. Scary world out there. Maybe we should all live in protective bubbles while our avatars walk around in virtual reality?


Walking off the Golden Gate bridge on purpose harms only the person doing it. (Unless they fall on a boat?) Not that I am against making difficult to do....

I'm talking about what needlessly endangers others.....

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:23 AM
I'm a liberal in the classical sense. ((shrugs))


Hey Ravi Boris The Animal too

Is there anyway to make your signature boxes smaller, as a favor to the board?

Common
11-25-2013, 09:23 AM
Ron Paul is a fraud.

Ron Paul is no more a fraud than Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan.

I think alot more of Ron Paul than I do of his kid Rand, I believe Rand is the true fraud. His father Ron had substance and did stand by his beliefs even when he knew they would hurt him. Rand flips and flops and squiggles to hide what hes really about because he knows from his fathers history, he will never be president that way.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:24 AM
Walking off the Golden Gate bridge on purpose harms only the person doing it. (Unless they fall on a boat?)

I'm talking about what needlessly endangers others.....

How does smoking pot in your home endanger others?

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:25 AM
that's because if you don't hate the government and don't jump on board their every talking point, you *must* be a liberal. or at very least a RINO… because there isn't room for disagreement in the rightwing.

No, one sign of a liberal is arguing Marx's theory of exploitation of the worker like you and common do. But liberal is at least a step up from partisan hacks who have no priciples and put forth no arguments, just opinion.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 09:27 AM
How does smoking pot in your home endanger others?

Because every time people like you think, you weaken the nation.

nic34
11-25-2013, 09:29 AM
How does smoking pot in your home endanger others?

Were we talking about that?

My point was that not all regulations are an affront to "liberty"..... I was pretty specific in my example....

Ravi
11-25-2013, 09:30 AM
I'm a liberal in the classical sense. ((shrugs))


Hey @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) @Boris The Animal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=658) too

Is there anyway to make your signature boxes smaller, as a favor to the board?
Gladly if you'll make it smaller for me. I don't have the editing software on this computer.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:30 AM
Because every time people like you think, you weaken the nation.

Really? How's that?

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:31 AM
Gladly if you'll make it smaller for me. I don't have the editing software on this computer.

I'll try. Thanks Ravi

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:37 AM
Were we talking about that?

My point was that not all regulations are an affront to "liberty"..... I was pretty specific in my example....



That would make a good discussion, what regulation is justified, and how justify or not, what basis, what principles?

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:38 AM
I'm not sure if this is working Ravi

4684

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:39 AM
Gladly if you'll make it smaller for me. I don't have the editing software on this computer.

http://i.snag.gy/TgWgO.jpg

Used Paint that comes with Windows.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 09:40 AM
Were we talking about that?

My point was that not all regulations are an affront to "liberty"..... I was pretty specific in my example....

I don't wear seatbelts because when I was in high school one of the cheerleaders got trapped in her friend's passenger seat (couldn't get it undone fast enough) and had a loblolly go through the front windshield of the car. We drove past the accident and never again.

Yeh, yeh Alyosha wants me to wear one, too, but I won't. I'll take a ticket.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 09:40 AM
Gladly if you'll make it smaller for me. I don't have the editing software on this computer.

Practically every picture viewer that has a basic editor can make pics smaller.

C'mon, you're not even trying.

Ravi
11-25-2013, 09:42 AM
I'm not sure if this is working @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698)

4684
too hard to read the words.

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 09:49 AM
Warning: all members stop with calling other members liars; stop with the baiting of each other; start posting in good faith.

zelmo1234
11-25-2013, 09:49 AM
you don't care about liberty if government is legislating something you agree with.

I would actually agree with this?

On both sides, after all the government took the states rights on many issues!

Forcing people to comply with things that they do not agree with! This is why the federal government was supposed to be limited?

To bad we lost that!

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 09:51 AM
I don't wear seatbelts because when I was in high school one of the cheerleaders got trapped in her friend's passenger seat (couldn't get it undone fast enough) and had a loblolly go through the front windshield of the car. We drove past the accident and never again.

Yeh, yeh @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) wants me to wear one, too, but I won't. I'll take a ticket.

Seat belts help more than they harm. Hell, when I had my 1975 280Z, I had to wear a seat belt just to stay in the seat! Keep a sharp knife next to you, if you get into an accident and the belt gets stuck, cut it.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 09:52 AM
that's because if you don't hate the government and don't jump on board their every talking point, you *must* be a liberal. or at very least a RINO… because there isn't room for disagreement in the rightwing.

Why do you always assume that anti-statists are all right-wing?

zelmo1234
11-25-2013, 09:53 AM
i don't lie.

be more consistent in your professed "libertarianism" if you don't like it being pointed out…

now stop whining.

I t would be a lot closer to reality if you had sad you never tell the truth?

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:53 AM
Why do you always assume that anti-statists are all right-wing?

She's a partisan, if you're not on her side you must be an extremist on the other side.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:55 AM
I t would be a lot closer to reality if you had sad you never tell the truth?

She sometimes does, when she's conveying her personal feelings. But she flame baits with made up nonsense in place of any real intellectually honest debate.


Note: To be clear here, pointing out what she says sometimes as a lie is not calling her a liar.

Mainecoons
11-25-2013, 09:55 AM
I would use the term "extreme partisan" and poster child for today's college indoctrination. . .er. . ."education."

:grin:

zelmo1234
11-25-2013, 09:56 AM
Yes, a lot of people do forget that and want to come into my home and tell me how to live my life. I don't see Democrats protecting any of MY rights.

Sure they do they protect the right of a women to murder an unborn child for any reason, it is their holy sacrament

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 09:57 AM
She sometimes does, when she's conveying her personal feelings. But she flame baits with made up nonsense in place of any real intellectually honest debate.

I think it would be a good idea to let it go.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:58 AM
Seat belts help more than they harm. Hell, when I had my 1975 280Z, I had to wear a seat belt just to stay in the seat! Keep a sharp knife next to you, if you get into an accident and the belt gets stuck, cut it.



This has been debated extensively in the past and it's not as clear cut as you might think. People tend to feel safer with belts and drive faster increasing the risk of accident, even more fatal accidents at high speed.

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 10:08 AM
Ravi there is a short list of individuals on this forum that I dont pay one bit of attention to what they have to say anymore. You should try it, it makes the forum alot more enjoyable.

It sure is better than saying the same thing over and over with zero positive effect, and which only drags out the bickering. It is amazing when you don't respond to someone you disapprove of, how soon they run out of things to say.

jillian
11-25-2013, 10:10 AM
It sure is better than saying the same thing over and over with zero positive effect, and which only drags out the bickering. It is amazing when you don't respond to someone you disapprove of, how soon they run out of things to say.

i have't found that to be true of certain people who think such a response is a personal victory permitting them to hound the person further.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 10:39 AM
i have't found that to be true of certain people who think such a response is a personal victory permitting them to hound the person further.

If, IF, you're really just a victim, hounding them back as a crowd only complicates things, because if you ARE in the right, hounding them back from thread to thread only makes it so that we have to discipline both sides, rather than just the one. That means you, and them. If you just want them disciplined, then STOP baiting them right back and maybe then we can do something about it.

But this endless, childish bickering between you all just pollutes the forum and makes it almost impossible for us to do our jobs. So, please, I don't care who you are, I don't care who they are. Please, just stop.

Chris
11-25-2013, 10:59 AM
i have't found that to be true of certain people who think such a response is a personal victory permitting them to hound the person further.


That's part of the problem here, people taking and then making things personal. This is a public forum, not a facebook page. The audience is anyone who reads a thread.

Chris
11-25-2013, 11:03 AM
Anyone seeking to understand my point above would do well to read Douglas Adams' The four ages of sand (http://www.douglasadams.se/stuff/sand.html). Until you understand this about the Internet and forums, you'll forever be stuck in your little personal world where you're the center of the Universe and everything else is extreme.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 11:14 AM
I personally am tired of the constant insults back and forth that muck up the flow of the thread. I'm tired of the assumptions being made (or fake assumptions) about what someone thinks and then posting it so that it derails the actual conversation.

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) just wasted his time with this thread because everyone used it to fight with each other about straw men that has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I'd like to talk about it, and I am fine with common and nick but this thread HAD to turn into the usual. Come on guys! Some of us want to discuss things but we have to swim through 7 pages for 3-4 actual and legitimate comments.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 11:20 AM
I personally am tired of the constant insults back and forth that muck up the flow of the thread. I'm tired of the assumptions being made (or fake assumptions) about what someone thinks and then posting it so that it derails the actual conversation.

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) just wasted his time with this thread because everyone used it to fight with each other about straw men that has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I'd like to talk about it, and I am fine with common and nick but this thread HAD to turn into the usual. Come on guys! Some of us want to discuss things but we have to swim through 7 pages for 3-4 actual and legitimate comments.

Welcome to the internet.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 11:22 AM
Welcome to the internet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzVmPsqHDDQ

Ravi
11-25-2013, 11:23 AM
I personally am tired of the constant insults back and forth that muck up the flow of the thread. I'm tired of the assumptions being made (or fake assumptions) about what someone thinks and then posting it so that it derails the actual conversation.

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) just wasted his time with this thread because everyone used it to fight with each other about straw men that has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I'd like to talk about it, and I am fine with common and nick but this thread HAD to turn into the usual. Come on guys! Some of us want to discuss things but we have to swim through 7 pages for 3-4 actual and legitimate comments.

Physician heal thyself.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 11:24 AM
Physician heal thyself.

Uhhh, didn't I make you an image that was bigger than Chris's? There's some gratitude.

Chris
11-25-2013, 11:24 AM
I personally am tired of the constant insults back and forth that muck up the flow of the thread. I'm tired of the assumptions being made (or fake assumptions) about what someone thinks and then posting it so that it derails the actual conversation.

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) just wasted his time with this thread because everyone used it to fight with each other about straw men that has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I'd like to talk about it, and I am fine with common and nick but this thread HAD to turn into the usual. Come on guys! Some of us want to discuss things but we have to swim through 7 pages for 3-4 actual and legitimate comments.



Sorry but I beg to differ, the OP got sidetracked from the get go on a misconception about libertarianism. Discussion did get interesting clarifying what libertarianism actually is, but that was really off topic. I do agree that things derailed when as you say "I'm tired of the assumptions being made (or fake assumptions) about what someone thinks and then posting it so that it derails the actual conversation." I apologize for reacting to the flame bait but it's that sort of disingenuous bad faith posting needs to end.

Chris
11-25-2013, 11:27 AM
Were we talking about that?

My point was that not all regulations are an affront to "liberty"..... I was pretty specific in my example....


That would make a good discussion, what regulation is justified, and how justify or not, what basis, what principles?



Here is one point that would make for interesting debate.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 11:28 AM
I dunno, I view it differently than that. I am on the receiving end of misconceptions about ideology more than anyone, because even libertarians hold the same misconceptions about socialism as everyone else. I don't think those misconceptions are passed around deliberately or maliciously, I just don't think people know better. We should be teaching them otherwise, as I have tried to do, rather than assume the worst.

Of course, if they continue to bandy about the misconceptions and show no real desire to learn and change their minds, then washing your hands of them is the best course.

Codename Section
11-25-2013, 11:38 AM
I dunno, I view it differently than that. I am on the receiving end of misconceptions about ideology more than anyone, because even libertarians hold the same misconceptions about socialism as everyone else. I don't think those misconceptions are passed around deliberately or maliciously, I just don't think people know better. We should be teaching them otherwise, as I have tried to do, rather than assume the worst.

Of course, if they continue to bandy about the misconceptions and show no real desire to learn and change their minds, then washing your hands of them is the best course.

Yeh but you're like really nice tho. Most people aren't always posting in good faith.

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 11:39 AM
I personally am tired of the constant insults back and forth that muck up the flow of the thread. I'm tired of the assumptions being made (or fake assumptions) about what someone thinks and then posting it so that it derails the actual conversation.

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) just wasted his time with this thread because everyone used it to fight with each other about straw men that has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I'd like to talk about it, and I am fine with common and nick but this thread HAD to turn into the usual. Come on guys! Some of us want to discuss things but we have to swim through 7 pages for 3-4 actual and legitimate comments.

Good points.

Chris
11-25-2013, 11:41 AM
I dunno, I view it differently than that. I am on the receiving end of misconceptions about ideology more than anyone, because even libertarians hold the same misconceptions about socialism as everyone else. I don't think those misconceptions are passed around deliberately or maliciously, I just don't think people know better. We should be teaching them otherwise, as I have tried to do, rather than assume the worst.

Of course, if they continue to bandy about the misconceptions and show no real desire to learn and change their minds, then washing your hands of them is the best course.



I can understand the mistake made once, twice, thrice, even more, but after it's been corrected that many times, there comes a time when the misrepresentation can only be taken as deliberate.

The onus shouldn't be put on members to ignore those misrepresentations of their political positions. The misrepresentations should be treated as deliberate flame bait and posting in bad faith.

Chris
11-25-2013, 11:44 AM
Yeh but you're like really nice tho. Most people aren't always posting in good faith.

Exactly. But that posting in bad faith is pretty much ignored, it seems, unless you react to them, then somehow you're to blame for their flame baiting?

nic34
11-25-2013, 11:46 AM
Here is one point that would make for interesting debate.

That's one that could go on forever.... :wink:

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 11:55 AM
Exactly. But that posting in bad faith is pretty much ignored, it seems, unless you react to them, then somehow you're to blame for their flame baiting?


Or you are to blame for feeding what you consider to be flame baiting. Then we get in the position to warn or TB both of you.

Chris
11-25-2013, 11:59 AM
That's one that could go on forever.... :wink:

The question of justice has been popular since the dawn of history at least. Such questions are timeless and deserve constant review.

Chris
11-25-2013, 12:02 PM
Or you are to blame for feeding what you consider to be flame baiting. Then we get in the position to warn or TB both of you.

You're repeating what I said, you blame the baited for reacting to flame bait that would otherwise go unnoticed.

And you repeat, repeat ad nauseum, the answer is ignore it. OK, but when it is ignored and it continues, then what? --Oh, wait, there are rules against flame baiting. Why not enforce them?

If repeating something over and over is flame bait, are you flame baiting with your repeated answer to everything, ignore it?

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 12:06 PM
You're repeating what I said, you blame the baited for reacting to flame bait that would otherwise go unnoticed.

And you repeat, repeat ad nauseum, the answer is ignore it. OK, but when it is ignored and it continues, then what? --Oh, wait, there are rules against flame baiting. Why not enforce them?

If repeating something over and over is flame bait, are you flame baiting with your repeated answer to everything, ignore it?

No. Because I make that statement when the topic comes up, not to derail treads. If someone tells you the earth is flat, you really don't need to respond, and you really don't need to go on for pages about it.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 12:12 PM
No. Because I make that statement when the topic comes up, not to derail treads. If someone tells you the earth is flat, you really don't need to respond, and you really don't need to go on for pages about it.

Some folks can't handle when other people have opinions/positions that differ from their own and are obsessive about getting the last word in.

Get two of these folks from the opposite end of the political spectrum together and watch it go on forever.

Ravi
11-25-2013, 12:15 PM
You're repeating what I said, you blame the baited for reacting to flame bait that would otherwise go unnoticed.

And you repeat, repeat ad nauseum, the answer is ignore it. OK, but when it is ignored and it continues, then what? --Oh, wait, there are rules against flame baiting. Why not enforce them?

If repeating something over and over is flame bait, are you flame baiting with your repeated answer to everything, ignore it?

Didn't you just apologize for responding to something that you consider flame-baiting? If so, then yes, it is an admission that you are at fault.

What you fail to see is that your opinion of what is flame-baiting is simply your opinion and not fact.

Chris
11-25-2013, 12:20 PM
No. Because I make that statement when the topic comes up, not to derail treads. If someone tells you the earth is flat, you really don't need to respond, and you really don't need to go on for pages about it.

And I point out lies when flame baited with lies about my political position, not to derail what's already been derailed by the flame bait. We're not talking flat earth here, peter, stop trying to diminish this. We're talking someone who repeats the same lie again and again and again about my political position because they're incapable of contributing anything else. In such a case I will defend my position against the lies. --And pointing out a post as a lie is not calling the person a liar, no matter how they and you twist it.

Perhaps if the flame bait rule was better enforced there'd be no need for this. But again, you'd rather blame the baited.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 12:20 PM
*sigh*

Chris
11-25-2013, 12:25 PM
Didn't you just apologize for responding to something that you consider flame-baiting? If so, then yes, it is an admission that you are at fault.

What you fail to see is that your opinion of what is flame-baiting is simply your opinion and not fact.



The flame bait was a deliberate lie about my political position, deliberate because it is repeated even after refuted. Yes, I apologize to others for reacting to a flame bait lie. But I will continue to do it as long as that person continues to lie and refuses to defend her lie.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 12:30 PM
*sigh*

http://data2.whicdn.com/images/11834472/sigh-95m6d3md3-110474-485-321_large.jpg

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 12:32 PM
The flame bait was a deliberate lie about my political position, deliberate because it is repeated even after refuted. Yes, I apologize to others for reacting to a flame bait lie. But I will continue to do it as long as that person continues to lie and refuses to defend her lie.

http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/748/748989/saturday-night-live-season-1-20061204000845363.jpg

Chris
11-25-2013, 12:34 PM
*sigh*

OK, then perhaps you and the other mods could explain how better to deal with flame bait. Ignoring it, especially when it's personal, is not an answer. And it really does, as codename stated, come down to personal flame bait. How can that be dealt with? Ignoring it doesn't stop it. I will stop pointing out deliberate lies about my position when I see another solution offered.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 12:37 PM
OK, then perhaps you and the other mods could explain how better to deal with flame bait. Ignoring it, especially when it's personal, is not an answer. And it really does, as codename stated, come down to personal flame bait. How can that be dealt with? Ignoring it doesn't stop it. I will stop pointing out deliberate lies about my position when I see another solution offered.

On another forum, I finally got tired of flamebaiting from two users and put them on ignore. They baited away, I couldn't see it, and we all moved on. They eventually got the idea that I wasn't paying attention anymore and quit.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 12:38 PM
(edit - fuck the douchebags who trick people into thinking they're hotlinking a photo when they're not. Fuck you, assholes! - go suck a bag of dicks)

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 12:40 PM
http://gal.patheticcockroach.com/var/albums/humor/thread-hijacking/thread_hijack_in_progress_sign.png?m=1380634399

You just had a run-in with an anti-hotlinking site.

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 12:46 PM
OK, then perhaps you and the other mods could explain how better to deal with flame bait. Ignoring it, especially when it's personal, is not an answer. And it really does, as codename stated, come down to personal flame bait. How can that be dealt with? Ignoring it doesn't stop it. I will stop pointing out deliberate lies about my position when I see another solution offered.

You might try realising that the individuals who are lying about your position do so because they lack the intellect to understand it. This is quite obvious. Any half-wait can hurl an insult and usually does. If you choose to engage in dialogue with an idiot be prepared to be either be misunderstood or lower your own level of discourse.

I'm not as nice as TRAT or ocean. I have no problem saying that there's naught but a handful of people here that I feel capable of debate, therefore it's much like shooting arrows from a tree.

And that's quite fun, as well. :D

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 12:47 PM
You just had a run-in with an anti-hotlinking site.

Thanks - sorry about that.

Fuck those pig fucking maggots, try this one:

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/attachments/928-forum/625589d1334926191-porkens-85-chips-awesome-hijack.gif

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 12:49 PM
Thanks - sorry about that.

Fuck those pig fucking maggots, try this one:

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/attachments/928-forum/625589d1334926191-porkens-85-chips-awesome-hijack.gif

Thread hijack in progress?

Chris
11-25-2013, 12:51 PM
On another forum, I finally got tired of flamebaiting from two users and put them on ignore. They baited away, I couldn't see it, and we all moved on. They eventually got the idea that I wasn't paying attention anymore and quit.

What are the rules for then? That's what I don't get, rules are made to deal with this, then we're asked to ignore? Why are the rules made?

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 12:53 PM
What are the rules for then? That's what I don't get, rules are made to deal with this, then we're asked to ignore? Why are the rules made?

Well, the other option is to report the post so we can deal with it. We try to report the posts that we see as violating the rules, but we're limited in what we can see.

Personally, if I'm given an option between reporting the post and ignoring the poster, I'd rather ignore the poster.

Chris
11-25-2013, 12:54 PM
You might try realising that the individuals who are lying about your position do so because they lack the intellect to understand it. This is quite obvious. Any half-wait can hurl an insult and usually does. If you choose to engage in dialogue with an idiot be prepared to be either be misunderstood or lower your own level of discourse.

I'm not as nice as TRAT or ocean. I have no problem saying that there's naught but a handful of people here that I feel capable of debate, therefore it's much like shooting arrows from a tree.

And that's quite fun, as well. :D

Agree, but in a way, my pointing out the lie was just shooting arrows. The one posting lies never returns to discuss it, she runs off, to let others fight it out, true to trolling.

Chris
11-25-2013, 12:55 PM
Thread hijack in progress?

As long as you all are up to discussing the problem, it's not a hijack. I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss this openly.

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 12:55 PM
What are the rules for then? That's what I don't get, rules are made to deal with this, then we're asked to ignore? Why are the rules made?

Perfectly acceptable question. If the lesson to be learned is "use the ignore button" why have rules at all?

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 12:57 PM
Agree, but in a way, my pointing out the lie was just shooting arrows. The one posting lies never returns to discuss it, she runs off, to let others fight it out, true to trolling.

Yes, hence why I mentioned the "shooting arrows" bit. Do catch up. :)

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 12:58 PM
So...

a) Discussing rules, questioning moderation
b) Hijacking threads
c) Posting in bad faith

Is this a marathon to break all of the rules in one thread?

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 12:59 PM
Perfectly acceptable question. If the lesson to be learned is "use the ignore button" why have rules at all?

Agreed

We have too many rules. I prefer a smaller forum gubmint.

It wasn't always that way either.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 01:00 PM
http://sigforum.com/movedimages/para/thread_hijack.jpg

Chris
11-25-2013, 01:01 PM
Well, the other option is to report the post so we can deal with it. We try to report the posts that we see as violating the rules, but we're limited in what we can see.

Personally, if I'm given an option between reporting the post and ignoring the poster, I'd rather ignore the poster.



OK so the options are report, ignore, or--what are the rules for? I mean, isn't enforcing rules an option?

Look around the Internet at other forums, flame baiting is a major problem. It's discussed everywhere. Most of those discussions say two things: (1) Ignore it and if it doesn't stop, (2) it will be moderated. Obviously the rules are made for the second action. I don't think you can ask members to ignore the flame baiting unless you back it up with promise to do something if it doesn't stop.

That's my point here. Don't just put the onus of dealing with flame baiting on the members who are targets of it. Back it up by enforcing rules.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 01:03 PM
Get ready, here it comes!!!

http://gracewalk.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dbrag-pics-roller_coaster1249662567.jpg

Ravi
11-25-2013, 01:04 PM
http://data2.whicdn.com/images/11834472/sigh-95m6d3md3-110474-485-321_large.jpg
What could be cuter than baby Linus?

Ravi
11-25-2013, 01:05 PM
OK, then perhaps you and the other mods could explain how better to deal with flame bait. Ignoring it, especially when it's personal, is not an answer. And it really does, as codename stated, come down to personal flame bait. How can that be dealt with? Ignoring it doesn't stop it. I will stop pointing out deliberate lies about my position when I see another solution offered.

All good questions. You call quite a few posters here trolls and liars on a regular basis. The very definition of flame-baiting. And yet you get away with it repeatedly.

Chris
11-25-2013, 01:06 PM
Perfectly acceptable question. If the lesson to be learned is "use the ignore button" why have rules at all?

Exactly. I'd be perfectly happy to ignore it if I knew that were it to persist, something would be done. I'e given the same advice as a mod, but back then, the advice to ignore was backed up. We had a British bloke name of CaryGrant who did nothing but flame bait, ignoring didn't stop him, the mods eventually removed him--he just happened to be British. There have been others.

Something somewhere changed, the onus is on members with no back up. And if members react, it's their fault.

Chris
11-25-2013, 01:07 PM
So...

a) Discussing rules, questioning moderation
b) Hijacking threads
c) Posting in bad faith

Is this a marathon to break all of the rules in one thread?



Seems you're being ignored, yet you persist. Ignoring only works from some trolls.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 01:08 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/029/970/trainn.jpg?1260328965

Chris
11-25-2013, 01:11 PM
All good questions. You call quite a few posters here trolls and liars on a regular basis. The very definition of flame-baiting. And yet you get away with it repeatedly.



Correction, I call some posts lying and trolling. This is a public forum, we're supposed to be able to comment on what people post. The problem is when people can't stand to have their posts disagreed with and so take it personal in order to start whining they're being called a liar or troll. I never called jillian a liar, I simply posinted out what she said was a lie.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2013, 01:12 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nO3nx.jpg

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 01:25 PM
OK so the options are report, ignore, or--what are the rules for? I mean, isn't enforcing rules an option?

Look around the Internet at other forums, flame baiting is a major problem. It's discussed everywhere. Most of those discussions say two things: (1) Ignore it and if it doesn't stop, (2) it will be moderated. Obviously the rules are made for the second action. I don't think you can ask members to ignore the flame baiting unless you back it up with promise to do something if it doesn't stop.

That's my point here. Don't just put the onus of dealing with flame baiting on the members who are targets of it. Back it up by enforcing rules.

We can't just act on any old post we think is bad, is the disconnect, I think. When you report, we enforce. But we have to all look at the post and review the thread before discussing what to do. If we all just started acting on any post we thought was bad, this place would turn into an out-of-control mod tyranny. I think I speak for everyone when I say that I REALLY don't want that.

Like I have said many, many, MANY times, ignore and report is the best option. Ignore and report, because then we can just deal with the baiters and that be the end of it. But rolling around in the mud with them just complicates things.

How can we possibly act to stop flamebaiting when everybody and their mother starts engaging in it? Honestly.

Chris
11-25-2013, 01:39 PM
We can't just act on any old post we think is bad, is the disconnect, I think. When you report, we enforce. But we have to all look at the post and review the thread before discussing what to do. If we all just started acting on any post we thought was bad, this place would turn into an out-of-control mod tyranny. I think I speak for everyone when I say that I REALLY don't want that.

Like I have said many, many, MANY times, ignore and report is the best option. Ignore and report, because then we can just deal with the baiters and that be the end of it. But rolling around in the mud with them just complicates things.

How can we possibly act to stop flamebaiting when everybody and their mother starts engaging in it? Honestly.



Understood. You can't, but what your describing is at least taking an active role in dealing with it. I get the sense from many here that too often it's just dismissed with advice to just ignore it. Obviously that's not a consensus view since why else would mods and VIPs have decided to create rules to deal with flame baiting. Since that is the consensus, then it should be followed.

To me the rules make clear what flame baiting is. All I ask is those rules be enforced. Were they enforced, there'd be no reason to react to it.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 01:41 PM
Understood. You can't, but what your describing is at least taking an active role in dealing with it. I get the sense from many here that too often it's just dismissed with advice to just ignore it. Obviously that's not a consensus view since why else would mods and VIPs have decided to create rules to deal with flame baiting. Since that is the consensus, then it should be followed.

To me the rules make clear what flame baiting is. All I ask is those rules be enforced. Were they enforced, there'd be no reason to react to it.

I think I speak for all of us when I say that it is what we're trying to do, to the best of our ability. I would ask you to please, just send me a PM when you think things are out of hand and report the posts. You can count on me to advocate for all members here to Mount Olympus, I can promise that much.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 01:57 PM
Now that this nonsense has been dealt with, let's all return to the topic, shall we?


War is brewing in Iowa, gop vs libertarians


Inside the feud that's tearing apart the state's GOP.


For more than a year, my Republican friends and the party activists I’ve known for years have been complaining with increasing intensity about Spiker, a 34-year-old realtor and former Ron Paul aide who is the unlikely chair of the Iowa Republican Party. It’s been a crazy kind of war, complete with Facebook unfriending, rumors and name-calling. Now, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad’s political team is finally gearing up to try to get rid of Spiker.At the governor’s big birthday bash (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/11/16/at-birthday-party-terry-branstad-praises-special-guest-paul-ryans-budget-hawkishness/article) with special guest Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Saturday night, Branstad’s reelection campaign team asked donors to sign up to serve as delegates at the county, district and state conventions so they can take back the party leadership.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/ron-pauls-man-in-iowa-aj-spiker-100214.html#ixzz2lerRCUUo




It's the age-old debate. Do you want more liberty, or less? The GOP says less, the libertarians say more. As they did in the 60s, when the Goldwater faction (libertarian) clashed with the Rockefeller faction (big government a la John McCain, Mitt Romney), this battle will decide the future of the GOP.

Given the resurgent strength of the libertarian faction, I do think the battle will end up differently this time. The coming years should be very interesting.

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 02:04 PM
I think that you are correct, at least I hope so.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 02:07 PM
I think that you are correct, at least I hope so.

I see the same thing happening to the Democratic Party, though to a much lesser extent. The Democratic Party has historically been "better" (from a power standpoint) at handling dissent in the ranks. If a large movement rises up against the establishment, the Democratic establishment just pretends to be on the side of the movement, then when they get into power, it's business as usual. Obama is a perfect example of this.

Chris
11-25-2013, 02:50 PM
Correct, it's both parties. Think that was said at the beginning, that one side wants to restrict social/personal liberty while increasing economic liberty, the other side vice versa. Because libertarians champion both types of liberty--both types of negative liberty, they're the true centrists here.

Common
11-25-2013, 02:56 PM
I personally am tired of the constant insults back and forth that muck up the flow of the thread. I'm tired of the assumptions being made (or fake assumptions) about what someone thinks and then posting it so that it derails the actual conversation.

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) just wasted his time with this thread because everyone used it to fight with each other about straw men that has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I'd like to talk about it, and I am fine with common and nick but this thread HAD to turn into the usual. Come on guys! Some of us want to discuss things but we have to swim through 7 pages for 3-4 actual and legitimate comments.


Code thats been the problem with this forum since I got here, you try to have a conversation and then the trolls and hacks jump in and prostitute the entire thread, with insults and barbs. Im glad someone else sees it the way ive been seeing it.

I was serious when I said I wanted to understand what libertarianism was from an actual person that believes in it, instead of reading what the pundits and partisans say so I could make my own decsions.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 02:58 PM
Code thats been the problem with this forum since I got here, you try to have a conversation and then the trolls and hacks jump in and prostitute the entire thread, with insults and barbs. Im glad someone else sees it the way ive been seeing it.

I was serious when I said I wanted to understand what libertarianism was from an actual person that believes in it, instead of reading what the pundits and partisans say so I could make my own decsions.

You know, for several posts now we've been discussing the topic. You're welcome to join us.

Chris
11-25-2013, 03:01 PM
Code thats been the problem with this forum since I got here, you try to have a conversation and then the trolls and hacks jump in and prostitute the entire thread, with insults and barbs. Im glad someone else sees it the way ive been seeing it.

I was serious when I said I wanted to understand what libertarianism was from an actual person that believes in it, instead of reading what the pundits and partisans say so I could make my own decsions.


You had that at the beginning from codename and myself, and now again at the end. You want to know what libertarians think, ask them and listen.

The Sage of Main Street
11-25-2013, 03:50 PM
After all, that's what matters most .... what's in it for us....

The regular GOPers are so annoyed at this Mini-me version of themselves that they let the fatcat out of the bag when they called Spiker "the personification of self-indulgence." This Libretardian Stalin awarded his father figure Ron Paul 22 out of Iowa's 28 RNC votes even though Run Run Ronnie only finished 3d in the voting.

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 03:57 PM
The regular GOPers are so annoyed at this Mini-me version of themselves that they let the fatcat out of the bag when they called Spiker "the personification of self-indulgence." This Libretardian Stalin awarded his father figure Ron Paul 22 out of Iowa's 28 RNC votes even though Run Run Ronnie only finished 3d in the voting.

Speaking of fakes, how does one envy Jews for networking and cringe over not being a billionaire like Old Dennis and still have the bollocks to talk about the 1% and nepotism?

The Sage of Main Street
11-25-2013, 04:09 PM
Wrong.
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

why don't you give me an example of a liberty that I as a libertarian want to restrict?

The liberty of the majority to determine whom we let into the country and who our enemies are, both foreign and domestic. That's just for starters.

Chris
11-25-2013, 04:12 PM
The liberty of the majority to determine whom we let into the country and who our enemies are, both foreign and domestic. That's just for starters.

Individual rights are protected, sage, not majorities, try again.

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 04:16 PM
The liberty of the majority to determine whom we let into the country and who our enemies are, both foreign and domestic. That's just for starters.

We know you don't want to restrict Jewish businessmen and women from entering the country, else how can you emulate them and become a billionaire like Ser Dennis?

If only your Irish family had given you those vast networking skills instead of teaching you how to drink and be angry about what you don't have. Did they also teach you how to lose at football and sing for the tourists? Ha-ha.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 04:23 PM
The regular GOPers are so annoyed at this Mini-me version of themselves that they let the fatcat out of the bag when they called Spiker "the personification of self-indulgence." This Libretardian Stalin awarded his father figure Ron Paul 22 out of Iowa's 28 RNC votes even though Run Run Ronnie only finished 3d in the voting.

You call Spiker "Stalin" and criticize him for "awarding" Ron Paul delegates, which shows a lack of knowledge on the subject. Voting in state primaries is like voting in the general election: a farce, because the real decider is in the delegates. The vote is just a "guide" of sorts for the delegates to keep in mind when they go to vote. It is not what decides who wins the primaries, which is why behind the scenes, there's such a fight between candidates for delegates and in some states, you vote both for the candidate AND people to serve as delegates. The candidate who amasses the most delegates wins that state.

Very few states are an exception to this rule. Winner-take-all states and proportional states actually assign delegates based on the vote, but in states like Iowa, the delegates are completely independent of the vote.

nic34
11-25-2013, 04:54 PM
It's the age-old debate. Do you want more liberty, or less? The GOP says less, the libertarians say more. As they did in the 60s, when the Goldwater faction (libertarian) clashed with the Rockefeller faction (big government a la John McCain, Mitt Romney), this battle will decide the future of the GOP.

Given the resurgent strength of the libertarian faction, I do think the battle will end up differently this time. The coming years should be very interesting.

Interesting is your take.


I grew up a Goldwater republican, I don't remember him or them as libertarian... he believed in the government doing its job....

C.C. Goldwater writes:

. . .while my grandfather didn’t leave his party, his party has left him. Though he’s often depicted as the father of conservatism, Barry Goldwater would be considered a moderate today. He was firmly pro-choice, a supporter of gay rights and, in his later years, said that he thought it was okay for gays to serve in the military.

Fundamentally, it’s clear that Barry would not have been comfortable with the increasing influence of the Christian right over the GOP. My grandfather would have been appalled by the whole political grandstanding of the Terri Schiavo mess.

The Constitution was Barry’s bible. He felt strongly about what it represented and the guidance it gave to establishing our government. And he thought that most U.S. citizens took it for granted. “Most Americans have never even read it and that’s a shame,” he once said. “Kids are not learning about it because it’s not honored the way it used to be.”

We need to remember the true values and freedoms the Constitution guarantees us. The main lesson I learned from my grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the job that we entrusted them with–to run and govern our country efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.” That’s a message worth remembering today.


http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2006/09/17/barry-goldwater-moderate-or-liberal-but-definately-no-longer-a-conservative/


"Do you want more liberty, or less" ........ ultimately frees the predator to prey on the weak .....

Mister D
11-25-2013, 04:57 PM
Interesting is your take.


I grew up a Goldwater republican, I don't remember him or them as libertarian... he believed in the government doing its job....

C.C. Goldwater writes:
. . .while my grandfather didn’t leave his party, his party has left him. Though he’s often depicted as the father of conservatism, Barry Goldwater would be considered a moderate today. He was firmly pro-choice, a supporter of gay rights and, in his later years, said that he thought it was okay for gays to serve in the military.

Fundamentally, it’s clear that Barry would not have been comfortable with the increasing influence of the Christian right over the GOP. My grandfather would have been appalled by the whole political grandstanding of the Terri Schiavo mess.

The Constitution was Barry’s bible. He felt strongly about what it represented and the guidance it gave to establishing our government. And he thought that most U.S. citizens took it for granted. “Most Americans have never even read it and that’s a shame,” he once said. “Kids are not learning about it because it’s not honored the way it used to be.”

We need to remember the true values and freedoms the Constitution guarantees us. The main lesson I learned from my grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the job that we entrusted them with–to run and govern our country efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.” That’s a message worth remembering today.


http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2006/09/17/barry-goldwater-moderate-or-liberal-but-definately-no-longer-a-conservative/


"Do you want more liberty, or less" ........ ultimately frees the predator to prey on the weak .....

Did you also oppose Title II as a Goldwater Republican?

Mainecoons
11-25-2013, 04:58 PM
Goldwater was a lot more libertarian than he was establishment Republican. He didn't think much of legislating morality or the bloated military. He was definitely a limited government type.

Goldwater was a real intellect. I grew up in AZ when he was a Senator and he was quite the maverick as well. The Republican establishment was definitely uncomfortable with him. I admired him greatly and read his book "Conscience of a Conservative" and was shaped by it.

And that slimebag Lyndon Johnson who did more damage to the country than anyone until Obama came along ran a lying, stealing, cheating campaign against him.

Johnson was up to his neck in Kennedy's murder IMO.

Chris
11-25-2013, 05:18 PM
Goldwater believed in limited government, social and economic freedom. But he was something of a neocon. Libertarian to a degree, but not a non-interventionist.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 05:18 PM
Interesting is your take.


I grew up a Goldwater republican, I don't remember him or them as libertarian... he believed in the government doing its job....

C.C. Goldwater writes:
. . .while my grandfather didn’t leave his party, his party has left him. Though he’s often depicted as the father of conservatism, Barry Goldwater would be considered a moderate today. He was firmly pro-choice, a supporter of gay rights and, in his later years, said that he thought it was okay for gays to serve in the military.

Fundamentally, it’s clear that Barry would not have been comfortable with the increasing influence of the Christian right over the GOP. My grandfather would have been appalled by the whole political grandstanding of the Terri Schiavo mess.

The Constitution was Barry’s bible. He felt strongly about what it represented and the guidance it gave to establishing our government. And he thought that most U.S. citizens took it for granted. “Most Americans have never even read it and that’s a shame,” he once said. “Kids are not learning about it because it’s not honored the way it used to be.”

We need to remember the true values and freedoms the Constitution guarantees us. The main lesson I learned from my grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the job that we entrusted them with–to run and govern our country efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.” That’s a message worth remembering today.


http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2006/09/17/barry-goldwater-moderate-or-liberal-but-definately-no-longer-a-conservative/


"Do you want more liberty, or less" ........ ultimately frees the predator to prey on the weak .....

What in that is supposed to show Goldwater as anti-libertarian?

Also, more liberty allows the prey to amass in strength and fight off the predators far better than our system does. Our system merely puts predators in power.

nic34
11-25-2013, 05:50 PM
Did you also oppose Title II as a Goldwater Republican?

No. I didn't agree with everything, nor did I with LBJ.

Goldwater today would also support the ADA...

Chris
11-25-2013, 06:00 PM
No. I didn't agree with everything, nor did I with LBJ.

Goldwater today would also support the ADA...

Back that one up. Quote Goldwater, not a grandson.

jillian
11-25-2013, 06:17 PM
Back that one up. Quote Goldwater, not a grandson.

goldwater would have opposed restrictions on reproductive choice.

goldwater would have opposed any laws based on theocratic doctrine.

goldwater would have opposed teaching "creationism" instead of science

goldwater may or may not have approved of the ADA… but he certainly wouldn't have approved of the corporatists running the country.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 06:20 PM
goldwater would have opposed restrictions on reproductive choice.

goldwater would have opposed any laws based on theocratic doctrine.

goldwater would have opposed teaching "creationism" instead of science

goldwater may or may not have approved of the ADA… but he certainly wouldn't have approved of the corporatists running the country.

Right on all counts.

Chris
11-25-2013, 06:29 PM
goldwater would have opposed restrictions on reproductive choice.

goldwater would have opposed any laws based on theocratic doctrine.

goldwater would have opposed teaching "creationism" instead of science

goldwater may or may not have approved of the ADA… but he certainly wouldn't have approved of the corporatists running the country.



In each instance an opposition to the expansion of government into private lives. While he was for civil rights he opposed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 for the same principled reasons....


In 1964, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that emphasized states' rights.[16] Goldwater's 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives since he opposed interference by the federal government in state affairs. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation and had supported the original senate version of the bill, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose.[17]

All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of all of the Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana) since Reconstruction[18] (although Dwight Eisenhower did carry Louisiana in 1956). However, Goldwater's vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign everywhere outside the South (besides Dixie, Goldwater won only in Arizona, his home state), contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964.

While Goldwater had been depicted by his opponents in the Republican primaries as a representative of a conservative philosophy that was extreme and alien, his voting records show that his positions were in harmony with those of his fellow Republicans in the Congress. What distinguished him from his predecessors was, according to Hans J. Morgenthau, his firmness of principle and determination, which did not allow him to be content with mere rhetoric.[19]

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater


It's those nonpartisan principles I admire him for.

Chris
11-25-2013, 06:30 PM
Right on all counts.



And often painted an extremist by the left and even some on the right.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 06:35 PM
And often painted an extremist by the left and even some on the right.

Also true.

Toro
11-25-2013, 06:36 PM
goldwater would have opposed restrictions on reproductive choice.

goldwater would have opposed any laws based on theocratic doctrine.

goldwater would have opposed teaching "creationism" instead of science

goldwater may or may not have approved of the ADA… but he certainly wouldn't have approved of the corporatists running the country.

I saw a movie about Goldwater several years ago lamenting the fact that the social religious conservatives were taking over the party, saying one day the party would view him as a liberal. He made that quote in the mid- to late-70s.

jillian
11-25-2013, 06:39 PM
I saw a movie about Goldwater several years ago lamenting the fact that the social religious conservatives were taking over the party, saying one day the party would view him as a liberal. He made that quote in the mid- to late-70s.

and he was 100% correct. nixon would be considered a RINO today, imo, if he was even accepted by the republican party. he'd certainly never get past a GOP primary.

Chris
11-25-2013, 06:40 PM
Also true.

Hard to forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k


Perhaps before your time, I remember how scary it was, I think we were still practicing for nuclear attacks by crouching under desks.

jillian
11-25-2013, 06:42 PM
And often painted an extremist by the left and even some on the right.

at the time, he was. but he wasn't measured against people now. he was measured against people then

he'd be appalled by today's right

Mister D
11-25-2013, 06:42 PM
I saw a movie about Goldwater several years ago lamenting the fact that the social religious conservatives were taking over the party, saying one day the party would view him as a liberal. He made that quote in the mid- to late-70s.

National Review once opposed integration. That should give you some idea of how much American conservatism has changed.

Mister D
11-25-2013, 06:43 PM
Hard to forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k


Perhaps before your time, I remember how scary it was, I think we were still practicing for nuclear attacks by crouching under desks.

notorious

Mainecoons
11-25-2013, 06:43 PM
Actually, no, but he would be appalled by the Republican establishment and their attempts to legislate morality. Come to think of it, he was back then too. :grin:

jillian
11-25-2013, 06:46 PM
Actually, no, but he would be appalled by the Republican establishment and their attempts to legislate morality. Come to think of it, he was back then too. :grin:

i agree with the above.

but he'd be more appalled with people who call themselves libertarian who support those types of laws or at least aren't the least bit offended by them.

Chris
11-25-2013, 06:49 PM
at the time, he was. but he wasn't measured against people now. he was measured against people then

he'd be appalled by today's right

Anachronistically funny: You say measure him against people then, and then you measure him against people now. He was a politician to the far right of his party, and the analogy could be made with Tea Partiers--without claiming he was Tea Party, just making the analogy.

Chris
11-25-2013, 06:50 PM
Actually, no, but he would be appalled by the Republican establishment and their attempts to legislate morality. Come to think of it, he was back then too. :grin:

Exactly the analogy I was making.

Chris
11-25-2013, 06:51 PM
i agree with the above.

but he'd be more appalled with people who call themselves libertarian who support those types of laws or at least aren't the least bit offended by them.



And what people are those, jillian, more of your made up pretend libertarians?

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 07:09 PM
and he was 100% correct. nixon would be considered a RINO today, imo, if he was even accepted by the republican party. he'd certainly never get past a GOP primary.

And rightfully so. Nixon was a corrupt bastard.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 07:11 PM
i agree with the above.

but he'd be more appalled with people who call themselves libertarian who support those types of laws or at least aren't the least bit offended by them.

Is that anything like people calling themselves leftist/liberal while supporting pro-war corporatists?

Mister D
11-25-2013, 07:31 PM
And rightfully so. Nixon was a corrupt bastard.

And one of the most intelligent men to occupy the White House in the 20th Century. The brightest guys don't always make the best leaders.

del
11-25-2013, 07:37 PM
This has been debated extensively in the past and it's not as clear cut as you might think. People tend to feel safer with belts and drive faster increasing the risk of accident, even more fatal accidents at high speed.

i'm sure you have something to back this up, right?

jillian
11-25-2013, 07:57 PM
i'm sure you have something to back this up, right?

it's nonsense.

cars got faster. people go faster.

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:00 PM
Is that anything like people calling themselves leftist/liberal while supporting pro-war corporatists?

No, those are real, jillian's libertarians are pretend.

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:06 PM
i'm sure you have something to back this up, right?


it's nonsense.

cars got faster. people go faster.



You said the same silly thing back when it was discussed and you were shown wrong then: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/12308-Are-Libertarians-Imposing-Freedom-on-Society?highlight=seat+belts

Common
11-25-2013, 08:15 PM
Now that this nonsense has been dealt with, let's all return to the topic, shall we?



It's the age-old debate. Do you want more liberty, or less? The GOP says less, the libertarians say more. As they did in the 60s, when the Goldwater faction (libertarian) clashed with the Rockefeller faction (big government a la John McCain, Mitt Romney), this battle will decide the future of the GOP.

Given the resurgent strength of the libertarian faction, I do think the battle will end up differently this time. The coming years should be very interesting.


The largest voting block in this country is still the baby boomers, you wont see any great change for 15-20 yrs, when those voters and politicians are mostly gone or too old to care. Even then the direction will head where the big money pays for it to go. Scotus assured that with the ruling that allowed Huge pacs to form to buy elections in stealth.

To change the direction of the country you need a solid majority of the voters to stand fast and force the change and that is unlikely

Just look at this forum Green Arrow, how many that frequent this forum do you think is in the top 2% how about the top 20% or 40% yet they cheerlead endlessly for the top 2%. How are you going to make any change with that mindset
When you have people believing they are going to come in your house and take your guns and that having an abortion or not having an abortion is the most critical decision in their life. Or gay marriage, theres a myriad of ideals and beliefs that keep us all shredded and far apart and always keeps us from dealing with whats really important.

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:18 PM
The largest voting block in this country is still the baby boomers, you wont see any great change for 15-20 yrs, when those voters and politicians are mostly gone or too old to care. Even then the direction will head where the big money pays for it to go. Scotus assured that with the ruling that allowed Huge pacs to form to buy elections in stealth.

To change the direction of the country you need a solid majority of the voters to stand fast and force the change and that is unlikely


Only a few tea partiers brought Obama and Democrats to their knees.

jillian
11-25-2013, 08:20 PM
Only a few tea partiers brought Obama and Democrats to their knees.

really?

lmao… funny. last i checked the wackos spent two weeks throwing a tantrum after which they got nothing.

Mainecoons
11-25-2013, 08:21 PM
Except that their point about ObamaCare was proven in spades when it attempted to start up.

I'm just sorry they distracted everyone from the ObamaDisaster. Fortunately, the distraction was short term.

:grin:

jillian
11-25-2013, 08:29 PM
Except that their point about ObamaCare was proven in spades when it attempted to start up.

I'm just sorry they distracted everyone from the ObamaDisaster. Fortunately, the distraction was short term.

:grin:

bush's part B had an awful roll out.

he just didn't have the rightwingnut echo chamber to deal with.

i find it amusing that what they went to the mats over was health insurance… not bush's lies about intel and two wars of choice… and thousands dead for no reason… but health coverage.

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:31 PM
really?

lmao… funny. last i checked the wackos spent two weeks throwing a tantrum after which they got nothing.

SO now you deny all your claims tea partiers shut down the government? And we all know spending has decreased dramatically.

AmazonTania
11-25-2013, 08:31 PM
Two wrongs will always make a right.

We get it...

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:32 PM
bush's part B had an awful roll out.

he just didn't have the rightwingnut echo chamber to deal with.

i find it amusing that what they went to the mats over was health insurance… not bush's lies about intel and two wars of choice… and thousands dead for no reason… but health coverage.



Which just goes to show government, be it Rep or Dem, is not capable of and shouldn't be trusted for doing such things right. Yet you trust and believe and worship at its alter.

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 08:55 PM
bush's part B had an awful roll out.

he just didn't have the rightwingnut echo chamber to deal with.

i find it amusing that what they went to the mats over was health insurance… not bush's lies about intel and two wars of choice… and thousands dead for no reason… but health coverage.

Part D.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 08:56 PM
bush's part B had an awful roll out.

he just didn't have the rightwingnut echo chamber to deal with.

i find it amusing that what they went to the mats over was health insurance… not bush's lies about intel and two wars of choice… and thousands dead for no reason… but health coverage.

You mean like how the forum Democrats ignore or defend the killing of thousands of innocent people for no reason under Obama?

Chris
11-25-2013, 08:57 PM
Back to Goldwater.... Here he he distinguishes hiself from statists left or right:

“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people. ”
― Barry M. Goldwater

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
― Barry M. Goldwater

Blackrook
11-25-2013, 09:00 PM
Socially liberal and fiscally conservative means aborting babies AND not giving their mommas welfare if they live.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:02 PM
Socially liberal and fiscally conservative means aborting babies AND not giving their mommas welfare if they live.

You're not libertarian, are you.

del
11-25-2013, 09:07 PM
National Review once opposed integration. That should give you some idea of how much American conservatism has changed.

national review still opposes integration; they just don't have the stones to be upfront about it.

Mister D
11-25-2013, 09:14 PM
national review still opposes integration; they just don't have the stones to be upfront about it.

"i'm sure you have something to back this up, right?"

del
11-25-2013, 09:16 PM
You said the same silly thing back when it was discussed and you were shown wrong then: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/12308-Are-Libertarians-Imposing-Freedom-on-Society?highlight=seat+belts

i'm sorry, but i don't consider a thread on a messageboard to be a credible source.

i'll chalk it up to you having nothing, again.

shocker

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:19 PM
i'm sorry, but i don't consider a thread on a messageboard to be a credible source.

i'll chalk it up to you having nothing, again.

shocker

Read the thread, you'll find the links you seek. Don't, you have nothing anyhow.

del
11-25-2013, 09:21 PM
"i'm sure you have something to back this up, right?"

my opinion, unlike lunatic statements about seat belts causing more deaths, requires nothing to back it up.

it's my opinion, nothing more.

Mister D
11-25-2013, 09:22 PM
my opinion, unlike lunatic statements about seat belts causing more deaths, requires nothing to back it up.

it's my opinion, nothing more.

Your totally unsubstantiated opinion. Got it.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:23 PM
my opinion, unlike lunatic statements about seat belts causing more deaths, requires nothing to back it up.

it's my opinion, nothing more.

Emphasis on nothing more.

del
11-25-2013, 09:23 PM
Read the thread, you'll find the links you seek. Don't, you have nothing anyhow.

pog ma thoin


if you've got proof, bring it; i'm not wading through a thread to find something that most likely isn't what you purport it to be.

del
11-25-2013, 09:24 PM
Emphasis on nothing more.

shouldn't you be whining about flame bait? :laugh:

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 09:31 PM
pog ma thoin


if you've got proof, bring it; i'm not wading through a thread to find something that most likely isn't what you purport it to be.

If you're going to snark at someone, have the courage to do it in English. Assuming you'll get away with it by posting in Gaelic (and not even properly accented) is silly. There's always a chance a moderator will speak the language and know what you said.

del
11-25-2013, 09:35 PM
Your totally unsubstantiated opinion. Got it.

you misspelled correct, but you did nail totally.

Common
11-25-2013, 09:36 PM
Do you speak italian ? and I promise I wont ask if theres a rule that you can only be snarky in english :)

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:37 PM
pog ma thoin


if you've got proof, bring it; i'm not wading through a thread to find something that most likely isn't what you purport it to be.


Why are you talking like a baby, del?

I gave you the link you asked for. I guess you really didn't mean it when you asked.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 09:42 PM
Do you speak italian ?

Only greetings :)


and I promise I wont ask if theres a rule that you can only be snarky in english :)

There isn't one. Why would there be?

del
11-25-2013, 09:43 PM
Why are you talking like a baby, del?

I gave you the link you asked for. I guess you really didn't mean it when you asked.

no, you didn't.

if passive aggression was money, you'd be rich beyond your dreams.

now, either provide a link to a specific source that states that seat belts have caused an increase in highway fatalities, or stfu.

thanks, pal

Mister D
11-25-2013, 09:43 PM
you misspelled correct, but you did nail totally.

totally nailed you. :wink:

del
11-25-2013, 09:43 PM
totally nailed you. :wink:

then you woke up

del
11-25-2013, 09:45 PM
If you're going to snark at someone, have the courage to do it in English. Assuming you'll get away with it by posting in Gaelic (and not even properly accented) is silly. There's always a chance a moderator will speak the language and know what you said.

okay, kiss my ass

happy?

and courage on a messageboard is oxymoronic

Mister D
11-25-2013, 09:46 PM
then you woke up

4691

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 09:48 PM
okay, kiss my ass

happy?

Ba mhaith liom a bheith i bhfad níos sásta má bhí tú le dearcadh níos fearr.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:51 PM
no, you didn't.

if passive aggression was money, you'd be rich beyond your dreams.

now, either provide a link to a specific source that states that seat belts have caused an increase in highway fatalities, or stfu.

thanks, pal

I gave you the link in this post: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19220-Ron-Paul-s-Man-in-Iowa?p=436137&viewfull=1#post436137.

Your weak ad him is not impressing anyone. You dishonesty is.

Chris
11-25-2013, 09:52 PM
okay, kiss my ass

happy?

and courage on a messageboard is oxymoronic


No need to translate, it's still baby talk. Adults participate in discussion.



Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
~Eleanor Roosevelt

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 10:15 PM
Gaelic? Not even the Irish speak Gaelic other than to ask where's the loo. Ha-ha-ha

Common
11-25-2013, 10:16 PM
Only greetings :)



There isn't one. Why would there be?


Does there have to be a reason for me to ask redundantly ad nauseum? think about it :)

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 10:21 PM
okay, kiss my ass

happy?

and courage on a messageboard is oxymoronic

Is it? Oxymoronic is one of those "big words" some people over-use, I won't say "Americans" because they're sensitive to such, and often just shows the limits of one's philosophical prowess.

To quote Commodus in Gladiator, "there are many kinds of courage." Some are indeed shown on message boards. Disagreeing with friends takes a type of courage, for example.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 10:28 PM
Gaelic? Not even the Irish speak Gaelic other than to ask where's the loo. Ha-ha-ha

My great uncle was fluent, and learned from my great grandfather.

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 10:31 PM
My great uncle was fluent, and learned from my great grandfather.

I read Gaelic. It's antiquated and I like antiquity. I just find that most of the people who are interested in it are Americans.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 10:37 PM
I read Gaelic. It's antiquated and I like antiquity. I just find that most of the people who are interested in it are Americans.

Well, my great grandfather was first-generation Scottish, and my great uncle was second gen.

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 10:41 PM
Well, my great grandfather was first-generation Scottish, and my great uncle was second gen.

Your entire Appalachian district is filled with people whose great great grandparents were Scottish or (chokes) Irish. It's why they're all moonshiners and fiddle players who are overly fond of sheep. :laugh:

Paperback Writer
11-25-2013, 10:45 PM
Lest people think I'm serious a portion of my family is Scottish. I'm totally serious about the Irish though.

Peter1469
11-25-2013, 10:46 PM
Attention: please don't respond to Del for the next 24 hours, he has been infracted for trolling and posting in bad faith.

oceanloverOH
11-25-2013, 10:46 PM
I can cuss like a sailor in Spanish (was married to a foul-mouthed Hispanic for several years, when I was young and dumb). But I won't, in case kilgram shows up.....I would definitely be embarrassed!

kilgram
11-26-2013, 02:16 AM
I can cuss like a sailor in Spanish (was married to a foul-mouthed Hispanic for several years, when I was young and dumb). But I won't, in case @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) shows up.....I would definitely be embarrassed!
Spanish people are foul-mouthed. Nothing to worry or be embarrassed :)

Ravi
11-26-2013, 06:00 AM
no, you didn't.

if passive aggression was money, you'd be rich beyond your dreams.

now, either provide a link to a specific source that states that seat belts have caused an increase in highway fatalities, or stfu.

thanks, pal

I'd like to see that link, too.

Ravi
11-26-2013, 06:01 AM
4691
Question. Why is kiss my ass infract worthy while this post is not?

Captain Obvious
11-26-2013, 07:46 AM
Question. Why is kiss my ass infract worthy while this post is not?

Clearly if you bothered to read (and understand) the rules, you might know this.

And you might not have broken a rule with this very post.

The irony is delicious.

Chris
11-26-2013, 08:00 AM
I gave you the link in this post: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19220-Ron-Paul-s-Man-in-Iowa?p=436137&viewfull=1#post436137.

Your weak ad him is not impressing anyone. You dishonesty is.


I'd like to see that link, too.


There it is for the third time.

Ravi
11-26-2013, 09:10 AM
Clearly if you bothered to read (and understand) the rules, you might know this.

And you might not have broken a rule with this very post.

The irony is delicious.No doubt. I haven't yet read the rules but regardless, I don't see much difference in the two posts.

Ravi
11-26-2013, 09:19 AM
I can only assume this post would be acceptable because it is a graphic.

http://www.bretlsimmons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/kiss-my-ass1.jpg

Green Arrow
11-26-2013, 09:25 AM
Question. Why is kiss my ass infract worthy while this post is not?

If you think D's post warrants action, report it.

Ravi
11-26-2013, 09:26 AM
If you think D's post warrants action, report it.
I don't think it does. I'm just trying to understand the difference.

Mister D
11-26-2013, 09:29 AM
If you think D's post warrants action, report it.

I'm white so they won't touch me. Slap on the wrist is all...meh

Chris
11-26-2013, 09:35 AM
D discusses, del disrupts?

Green Arrow
11-26-2013, 09:38 AM
I don't think it does. I'm just trying to understand the difference.

Del was infracted for a pattern of bad faith posting, not for saying "kiss my ass."

The Sage of Main Street
11-26-2013, 10:43 AM
Just look at this forum Green Arrow, how many that frequent this forum do you think are in the top 2% how about the top 20% or 40% yet they cheerlead endlessly for the top 2%. How are you going to make any change with that mindset
.

Those bootlickers remind me of a dog that barks at the mailman, thinking it is saving its Master from some Gubmint agent coming to steal all his money. But just like the dog's owner, the 1% have nothing to fear from their wholly-owned government.

The Sage of Main Street
11-26-2013, 10:47 AM
national review still opposes integration; they just don't have the stones to be upfront about it.

Integration caused disintegration. The melting pot created a meltdown. Big Brotherhood Is Watching You!

donttread
11-28-2013, 06:12 AM
War is brewing in Iowa, gop vs libertarians


Inside the feud that's tearing apart the state's GOP.


For more than a year, my Republican friends and the party activists I’ve known for years have been complaining with increasing intensity about Spiker, a 34-year-old realtor and former Ron Paul aide who is the unlikely chair of the Iowa Republican Party. It’s been a crazy kind of war, complete with Facebook unfriending, rumors and name-calling. Now, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad’s political team is finally gearing up to try to get rid of Spiker.At the governor’s big birthday bash (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/11/16/at-birthday-party-terry-branstad-praises-special-guest-paul-ryans-budget-hawkishness/article) with special guest Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Saturday night, Branstad’s reelection campaign team asked donors to sign up to serve as delegates at the county, district and state conventions so they can take back the party leadership.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/ron-pauls-man-in-iowa-aj-spiker-100214.html#ixzz2lerRCUUo




The LP is a completely different party and should run as such. Mainstream republicans haven't cared about states rights in decades . They also spend and borrow just as much as the dems. The LP should completely disassociate themselves from the Donkaphant

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 04:44 PM
War is brewing in Iowa, gop vs libertarians


Inside the feud that's tearing apart the state's GOP.


For more than a year, my Republican friends and the party activists I’ve known for years have been complaining with increasing intensity about Spiker, a 34-year-old realtor and former Ron Paul aide who is the unlikely chair of the Iowa Republican Party. It’s been a crazy kind of war, complete with Facebook unfriending, rumors and name-calling. Now, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad’s political team is finally gearing up to try to get rid of Spiker.At the governor’s big birthday bash (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/11/16/at-birthday-party-terry-branstad-praises-special-guest-paul-ryans-budget-hawkishness/article) with special guest Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Saturday night, Branstad’s reelection campaign team asked donors to sign up to serve as delegates at the county, district and state conventions so they can take back the party leadership.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/ron-pauls-man-in-iowa-aj-spiker-100214.html#ixzz2lerRCUUo




I would pay good money to go boo Paul Ryan!

And I would have a basket of rotten tomatoes with me too!

But I would listen to Ron Paul.

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 04:47 PM
Are you saying that only the votes or concerns of the over 40 crowd count? I have been trying to tell people that younger voters are not puritans who like to spend money. We're socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We are not our parent's Republicans or Democrats.

They offer nothing for us but business as usual which has pretty much sucked.

So true! Today's youth are tomorrows revolutionaries!

Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were right! Yippie!

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 04:49 PM
I have no idea what socially liberal and fiscally conservative means.

Unless it means your for anything anyone wants to do like smoke weed and gay marriage socially and against everything that helps the little people, like raising the minimum wage and Medicare and Social Security and medicare fiscally.

If thats the case im more against libertarianism than I am the Teaparty

You are not Tea Party, my son. You still have your sanity!

Don't go over to the Dark Side!

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 04:56 PM
Albeit with a whole lot of liberal spin. Naturally, you'd buy it.

I know what your handlers are selling. And I'm NOT buying it!
Its time to wake up and smell the steaming pile of shit both parties are selling!

Vote for Jessie Ventura for POTUS! 3hd party, all the way, baby!

The Xl
11-29-2013, 05:01 PM
I like Jessie. I know many dismiss him because of his conspiratorial views, but his politics seem libertarian enough, he's a no bullshit guy, and would have the greatest presence and charisma any Presidential nominee has every had, which would be necessary if he ran as a third party or independent.

I'd probably vote for him over Rand Paul or any other D or R.

Chris
11-29-2013, 05:39 PM
I know what your handlers are selling. And I'm NOT buying it!
Its time to wake up and smell the steaming pile of shit both parties are selling!

Vote for Jessie Ventura for POTUS! 3hd party, all the way, baby!


Sorry, I'm not Republican or Democrat, not a partisan. Ventura is entertaining, at best.


You know what's funny is my remarks speak critically to the same post you criticized in post #237. You need to make up your mind.

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 07:21 PM
I like Jessie. I know many dismiss him because of his conspiratorial views, but his politics seem libertarian enough, he's a no bullshit guy, and would have the greatest presence and charisma any Presidential nominee has every had, which would be necessary if he ran as a third party or independent.

I'd probably vote for him over Rand Paul or any other D or R.

Jessie had his TV series, "Conspiracy Theories". It does not mean he supported these theories at all!
Him and his team merely investigated them to find out if there was any truth to them or not. He was quite skeptical about many of them, in fact. They are archived on You Tube.

del
12-02-2013, 06:46 PM
I gave you the link in this post: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19220-Ron-Paul-s-Man-in-Iowa?p=436137&viewfull=1#post436137.

Your weak ad him is not impressing anyone. You dishonesty is.

you're raising projection to an art form.

but not language :laugh:

del
12-02-2013, 06:48 PM
Is it? Oxymoronic is one of those "big words" some people over-use, I won't say "Americans" because they're sensitive to such, and often just shows the limits of one's philosophical prowess.

To quote Commodus in Gladiator, "there are many kinds of courage." Some are indeed shown on message boards. Disagreeing with friends takes a type of courage, for example.

horseshit

Paperback Writer
12-02-2013, 06:53 PM
horseshit

Bravo for adding so much to every discussion.