Who likes Ron Paul here?

[dthem]

This paragraph implies CanadianRocky and RickWaldrop here.

"Critics mock the very diversity of Paul’s followers, suggesting his platform is self-limiting. Progressives, for example, may find nirvana in Paul’s anti-war stance — it’s everything they wanted in Obama but never got — yet the liberal blogosphere is in a fury over Paul’s zeal for deregulation, which they perceive as both anti-union and anti-environment."

[dthem]

Long live Ron Paul, the revolutionist!

“The freedom Ron Paul stands for is coming again. It might happen in this election cycle, it might happen in the next one. But sooner or later, it’s going to happen,” said Leah Wolczko, 45, an unemployed schoolteacher from Manchester, N.H.


“What Ron Paul started is not going to go away. Republicans are in the midst of deciding what the GOP really is. He’s the only one standing on principles. And those principles are going to outlive Ron Paul. We’re going to make sure of it.”

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

It is not possible for him to get the point. His focus is to narrow and does not have the ability to think in a divergent or critical manner.

No offense ProHobo, just stating what has become clear over this discussion.

Your lack of understanding of what Private Property is, and public access to it, really shows that. And it shows it clearly in the way that you do not know the difference between a privately owned business such as a restaurant, and a private residence.

It is also clear that you would be very comfortable with dragging human rights back several hundred years, in the hope that people would do the right thing. They would not.

You are wrong.

People do the right thing when they are forced into it. And the more they are profit motivated, the less likely they will do the right thing.

This is precisely what would make them do the right thing. Not being forced into it by the government, but being forced into it by their customers. We'll extrapolate your argument. The government is the elected officials of the people, correct? So, theoretically, regulations that the government enact are supported by the majority of people, correct? Therefore, regardless of a specific regulation, if the majority of people are against the way a company does business, the company will fail.(The only time this is not the case is when the government steps in to either bail out, or subsidize the company.)

It is the basic human nature of greed.

Wow, what a sad outlook on life you have.

And that is exactly why we have air bags and seat belts in our cars. If it was up to the automobile industry, there would have been very few safety advancements over the last 50 years.

I actually believe air bags and seat belts have very little to do with the government looking out for us, and a lot more to do with insurance companies and lobbyists.

We have them because of regulation. And the regulations are forced upon the companies.

No, we have them because insurance companies forced legislation upon us.

Libertarianism is a failed model. It has never worked, and it never will.

Theoretically, there are no models past or present that have ever worked. Every great society has fallen. Either due to war, famine, or the population voting itself into the Cofferdams.

Mostly because people are stupid and greedy.

Again, what a sad outlook on life you have.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by KikiD

CR although I would agree most people are stupid & greedy, I would totally disagree that we are greedy by nature!

I thought about that and would change it to,

"We are greedy by culture"

In other words, it is our culture, our society, that creates our greed. It is a learned process, not a natural one.

But none the less, it is there.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by dthem

This paragraph implies CanadianRocky and RickWaldrop here.

"Critics mock the very diversity of Paul’s followers, suggesting his platform is self-limiting. Progressives, for example, may find nirvana in Paul’s anti-war stance — it’s everything they wanted in Obama but never got — yet the liberal blogosphere is in a fury over Paul’s zeal for deregulation, which they perceive as both anti-union and anti-environment."

I agree with this statement with one small change.

It is NOT perceived, it is actual. He will not be able to do what he wants without destroying both.

And it is not us who live in the Nirvana of Pauls anti-war stance, it is him.

The US is a war machine. And big money is the benefit of that. And congress is the engine that runs it. He will have no effect on it.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

You are wrong.

Again, what a sad outlook on life you have.

This is the big difference between you and me. I don't think you are wrong, but you do think I am not right.

We are both right and both wrong and I can see that, where as you cannot. It is called divergent thinking and it is what most centrists do.

The extreme right, and left, have no ability to do that. They get so narrow focused that they end up with tunnel vision.

And you have no more idea of what I am like, than I have what you are like.

Oh ya, Ron Paul is a drug. It feels good, until it gets a hold on you and then you see the result of its effects.

In this I agree with Rick, he is a fruitcake waco of the highest order.

Please vote for him. Especially when he gets delusions of grandeur once he loses the Republican nomination and actually thinks he can win as an independent. He then divides the right, and Obama wins hands down.

[Kerbouchard]

The difference between you and me is that you cherry pick what parts to reply to, cherry pick the information you choose to process, and ignore everything else.

For anything you don't agree with, or are unable to process, but feel that you have to respond to, you resort to what every other liberal does. You either question the intelligence of the opposition or you resort to insults. It's like a playbook for you guys. Basically, your entire argument revolves around, "If somebody doesn't agree, they must be racist or stupid".

For those that are obviously neither, you ignore or call them a fruitcake waco of the highest order.

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

This is the big difference between you and me. I don't think you are wrong, but you do think I am not right.

We are both right and both wrong and I can see that, where as you cannot. It is called divergent thinking and it is what most centrists do.

The extreme right, and left, have no ability to do that. They get so narrow focused that they end up with tunnel vision.

And you have no more idea of what I am like, than I have what you are like.

Oh ya, Ron Paul is a drug. It feels good, until it gets a hold on you and then you see the result of its effects.

In this I agree with Rick, he is a fruitcake waco of the highest order.

Please vote for him. Especially when he gets delusions of grandeur once he loses the Republican nomination and actually thinks he can win as an independent. He then divides the right, and Obama wins hands down.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Point totally missed. Are we suppose to draw a line and say, my issue is important and yours isnt? And this whole thread, heck the whole internet, print, tv, radio and every other form of media out there is for everyone to enforce their opinion on someone else.

No, we draw the line where your opinion is enforced into my life, and where my opinion is enforced into your life.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

It is not possible for him to get the point. His focus is to narrow and does not have the ability to think in a divergent or critical manner.

No offense ProHobo, just stating what has become clear over this discussion.

Your lack of understanding of what Private Property is, and public access to it, really shows that. And it shows it clearly in the way that you do not know the difference between a privately owned business such as a restaurant, and a private residence.

It is also clear that you would be very comfortable with dragging human rights back several hundred years, in the hope that people would do the right thing. They would not.

People do the right thing when they are forced into it. And the more they are profit motivated, the less likely they will do the right thing.

It is the basic human nature of greed.

And that is exactly why we have air bags and seat belts in our cars. If it was up to the automobile industry, there would have been very few safety advancements over the last 50 years.

We have them because of regulation. And the regulations are forced upon the companies.

Libertarianism is a failed model. It has never worked, and it never will.

Mostly because people are stupid and greedy.

I notice you completely skipped my post. Fair enough... I'd have a hard time admitting to being a hypocrite too.

Though you may be interested to know that Airbags started to become standard in vehicles in 1988... after they went through a bit of a trial and error time period prior to that, the airbags were killing people so they went back to the drawing board.

http://inventors.about.com/od/astart...a/air_bags.htm

And volvo made seatbelts standard in 1959... a full 10 years prior to any legislation.

Seat belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seat belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seat belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently the people wanted them... so the manufacturers put them in... Imagine that.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

The difference between you and me is that you cherry pick what parts to reply to, cherry pick the information you choose to process, and ignore everything else.

For anything you don't agree with, or are unable to process, but feel that you have to respond to, you resort to what every other liberal does. You either question the intelligence of the opposition or you resort to insults. It's like a playbook for you guys. Basically, your entire argument revolves around, "If somebody doesn't agree, they must be racist or stupid".

For those that are obviously neither, you ignore or call them a fruitcake waco of the highest order.

Same old, same old. Not an original thought in it.