1. #361
    The founding fathers were pretty much all classical liberals, altough they had differences of opinion on many things.
    Lets define "classic liberal"

  2. #362
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Lets define "classic liberal"
    The first sentance on wikipedia describes it pretty good:

    Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
    Sure, some of them had slaves, some wanted certain anti-free market ideas or wanted to restrict speech or the press when bad things were spoken of them. But rhetorically they were certainly classical liberals and legislated mostly classical liberal laws.
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2012-02-27 at 11:08 AM.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by emulsion View Post
    I wasn't the one that initially made the comparison. You implied - and now explicitly state - that the degree of "berserking" is irrelevant. Everything is everything. False equivalence.
    I didn't think it was necessary to explicitly state that things that do not happen, do not happen.

    So for your benefit, people won't go on mass shooting sprees today even though they are annoyed that public transit is late, or that construction makes their commute longer, or because prices at Starbucks is too high. This list is not exhaustive (again that should be obvious, but you need things explicitly spelled out for you...)

    Quote Originally Posted by emulsion View Post
    Adults in charge don't perpetuate illegal, unjust wars. As you've said, his apology did nothing. It was an appeal to the theocrats here, not there, that's why he sent his little messenger from the DoD to placate the American Muslims in a mosque not too far from my home. As I said, paternal, relativist apologetics for the left's favorite religious other. Don't rile the children; they might not vote for us in November.
    Yes they do, especially if ending that war is more damaging than continuing it and winding it down.

    But the issue at hand is Afghanistan and THAT war is not illegal and generally not considered to be unjust. It had UN approval and widespread international support because the Taliban willingly allowed the country to become a base of operations a large terrorism network.

    As for his aplogy, I didn't say that it does nothing. I said that it wouldn't reduce the anger. It won't. The people rioting likely get their info from the Middle East equivalents of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. What Obama's apology does is limit more mainstream leaders or leaders in other areas from being able to call him out on it and fan the flames further and wider.

    Quote Originally Posted by emulsion View Post
    There's no doubt in my mind that our presence galvanizes contempt and crystallizes their deluded, barbarous religious mania. Again, I'm not the one that made the comparison initially.
    It does, but if they are already willing to support terror attacks against the US even WITHOUT American presence then it's clear something needed to be done. This is why the original overthrow of the Taliban was widely supported internationally.

  4. #364
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    You think America needs to raise taxes, yet without Obama, under whom we are in the midst of some of the lowest taxes in history or to a lesser extent Ron Paul, a man who claims to want to get rid of all federal taxes... America won't last? I don't understand...
    Okay I didn't know Ron Paul wanted that,my bad. Now Obama is the only hope for America.
    Obama tried to raise taxes on the rich but congress blocked it,not his fault.

  5. #365
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by digal View Post
    Okay I didn't know Ron Paul wanted that,my bad. Now Obama is the only hope for America.
    Obama tried to raise taxes on the rich but congress blocked it,not his fault.
    The committee for a responsible federal budget project's USBUDGETWATCH, consisting of known economists and politicians such as Paul Volcker, concluded that Ron Paul's budget proposal would give the United States the lowest Debt to GDP percentage of all Republican candidates.

    (http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf)

    Also Felya420 has been consistently trying to post misinformation about Paul and other Republican candidates. Yes Paul wants to cut taxes, but he has never proposed to get rid of all federal taxes.

  6. #366
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The committee for a responsible federal budget project's USBUDGETWATCH, consisting of known economists and politicians such as Paul Volcker, concluded that Ron Paul's budget proposal would give the United States the lowest Debt to GDP percentage of all Republican candidates.

    (http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf)

    Also Felya420 has been consistently trying to post misinformation about Paul and other Republican candidates. Yes Paul wants to cut taxes, but he has never proposed to get rid of all federal taxes.
    That doesn't necessitate that it is the most ideal plan. A nation is more than it's budget.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  7. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    I didn't think it was necessary to explicitly state that things that do not happen, do not happen.

    So for your benefit, people won't go on mass shooting sprees today even though they are annoyed that public transit is late, or that construction makes their commute longer, or because prices at Starbucks is too high. This list is not exhaustive (again that should be obvious, but you need things explicitly spelled out for you...)
    If pesky details like extent and degree are frequently troubling your endeavors to be right, it's probably because you're wrong.

    Yes they do, especially if ending that war is more damaging than continuing it and winding it down.

    But the issue at hand is Afghanistan and THAT war is not illegal and generally not considered to be unjust. It had UN approval and widespread international support because the Taliban willingly allowed the country to become a base of operations a large terrorism network.

    As for his aplogy, I didn't say that it does nothing. I said that it wouldn't reduce the anger. It won't. The people rioting likely get their info from the Middle East equivalents of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. What Obama's apology does is limit more mainstream leaders or leaders in other areas from being able to call him out on it and fan the flames further and wider.
    Again with the attempts to draw parallels. Does it soothe your relativist soul? I despise the politics of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin, but they have no "equivalents" in Afghanistan.

    Most importantly: the burden of proof is on you. You have nothing but hope right now that he's right about these decisions (and I mean that without the catch phrase pun), so while you parrot his stipulation that this is a viable solution for Afghanistan, keep that in mind. It's more likely, as I said, that he's pandering to Muslims here.

    It does, but if they are already willing to support terror attacks against the US even WITHOUT American presence then it's clear something needed to be done. This is why the original overthrow of the Taliban was widely supported internationally.
    I'd like to see them wither and die as much as anyone else, but we're going about it the wrong way. Our show of military power is only costing us money and lives.

  8. #368
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Interesting document. The 4.5 trillion in "non-defense spending" seemed kind of vague on Paul's behalf. It uses his talks of eliminating 5 agencies, but not much detail into how those agencies' responsibilities would be handled. I imagine the author just scored it as "remove the 5 agencies and don't replace them with anything".
    There's a detailed plan on his campaign website. For obvious reasons they haven't included every detail of every candidate to that report.

  9. #369
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    There's a detailed plan on his campaign website. For obvious reasons they haven't included every detail of every candidate to that report.
    There's a detailed budget. Most of his plan constitutes him saying "I'm going to cut X, Y, Z and then leave it up to the states to figure out."

    Making an issue someone else's problem isn't solving it.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The first sentance on wikipedia describes it pretty good:
    Right. But classical liberal more or less applies to both modern liberals and modern conservatives as long as you don't go too far out on either side. We're in a post classical liberalism society, so your point is moot.

    There's a substantial difference between classical liberalism, which is the basis for western society, and libertarianism.

  11. #371
    Pandaren Monk Solzan Nemesis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where ever the Regent-Lord needs me to be
    Posts
    1,973
    President Obama has got my vote. I am Independent but normal vote Democratic anyways, and this years grope of Republicans scares the hell out of me. Ron Pull seems ok, but the other three do not seem to believe in the 1st amendment. They have not openly oppose it but there beliefs conflict with it.
    Last edited by Solzan Nemesis; 2012-02-27 at 09:21 PM.

  12. #372
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Obama will win a landslide. The republicans are unorganized and are down millions of dollars. Their big donors and political stars are all sitting out VOLUNTARILY because they know they do not have a chance. Congressional approval rating is at its lowest level ever due to the inexperienced and reactionary "tea party" congressmen, while the president's approval rating is rising. It is looking good, but we need to get more progressive legislators in congress in order to push the country forward.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  13. #373
    Polls seem to be all over the place on Romney vs Obama.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

    Politco/GWU/Battleground has it Obama +10 over Romney, 53-43.
    AP poll has it Obama +8, 51-43.

    Then we get interesting with USA Today/Gallup scoring it a TIE at 47-47.

    Then Rasmussen chimes in with Romney leading 45-43.

    If you're a betting man, put some money down on Romney NOW because his odds are only going to rise as the campaign wears on imo. Gas prices are going to wear down Obama.

  14. #374
    Obama isn't even really running right now while the republicans are running like crazy. Its amazing that out of all the Americans, the Republicans came up with this big pile of meh.

  15. #375
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Also Felya420 has been consistently trying to post misinformation about Paul and other Republican candidates. Yes Paul wants to cut taxes, but he has never proposed to get rid of all federal taxes.
    Here is an example of how wrong I am on Ron Paul's no federal tax:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/17/pa...-zero-percent/
    “We should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up until 1913 it was zero percent,” Paul said. “What’s so bad about that?”

    Just because you try to spin reality, doesn't make me wrong. Neither do PMs calling me stupid. Lets have this serve as example?

    But, I guess I should link directly to Ron Paul's web site and his words on the federal tax rate:

    http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/

    You can get there by going to ronpaul.com, selecting 'Issues' on the top top and then on the drop down select 'Taxes'. It's also the first hit for Google searching "ron paul federal taxes". Let me know what you find there...

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 03:14 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by digal View Post
    Okay I didn't know Ron Paul wanted that,my bad. Now Obama is the only hope for America.
    Obama tried to raise taxes on the rich but congress blocked it,not his fault.
    Obama didn't veto Bush tax cuts extension and I am willing to bet he will sign another extension when it comes up by the end of the year.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 03:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Despite his ideas not working in the real world (in my opinion) at least we can try to portray what he says correctly?
    That's what I did. His goal is 0 federal taxes... Is he libertarian? Is 0 federal taxes a core value? Despite the above, how am I wrong?

    Edit:

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/en...olish-the-irs/
    Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

    An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.


    Ron Paul's own site.
    Last edited by Felya; 2012-02-28 at 03:27 AM.

  16. #376
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post

    That's what I did. His goal is 0 federal taxes... Is he libertarian? Is 0 federal taxes a core value? Despite the above, how am I wrong?

    Edit:

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/en...olish-the-irs/
    Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

    An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.


    Ron Paul's own site.
    Odd since I have seen numerous sources that talk about him supporting a 'fair tax'. Not that it is 'fair', but I also cannot open www.ronpaul.com at the moment, either your link or the main site. ITS A CONSPIRACY.

    I'll try to find those stories about him backing a fair tax. Be Back Later.

    Edit: Everything I can find suggest that Paul would support a 'Fair Tax' over the current tax system, but would, in his fantasy world, support not taxes at all.
    Last edited by obdigore; 2012-02-28 at 04:57 AM.

  17. #377
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Odd since I have seen numerous sources that talk about him supporting a 'fair tax'. Not that it is 'fair', but I also cannot open www.ronpaul.com at the moment, either your link or the main site. ITS A CONSPIRACY.

    I'll try to find those stories about him backing a fair tax. Be Back Later.

    Edit: Everything I can find suggest that Paul would support a 'Fair Tax' over the current tax system, but would, in his fantasy world, support not taxes at all.
    ronpaul.com is not his official site.

    And Felya420 seems to be missing is that Paul has said that he does not like the income tax. That doesn't mean he doesn't want any federal taxes.

  18. #378
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    I heard an interesting analysis of the situation with Obama vs whoever.

    Obama has been relatively uninvolved at this point. He's sitting on a large amount of campaign cash and has yet to really attack any of the nominees. This means that when the nominee is elected, Obama can launch his campaign. The Republicans on the other hand have been tearing each other down making them all rather unappealing to the independents and even some Republicans. Not to mention spending money attacking each other rather than Obama.

    The most interesting part of the analysis was that the Republicans aren't going to have anything new to use against Obama -- they've been running a smear campaign for the last four years and as far as I can tell are pretty much out of ammo, especially since the economy is showing signs of recovery. If gas prices are the best ammo they have, that's not really going to work well.

    Plus the republican nominee is going to have to face a general election crowd, where far right crazy religious statements aren't going to win any votes. Hating on women, hating on gays, hating on minorities might win the Republican nomination but is going to drive away the independents. And if they start changing their positions, they can be accused of flip-flopping.

    The GOP isn't in a good place this campaign, and I think their support will start to slip when the general election campaign season starts.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  19. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    I heard an interesting analysis of the situation with Obama vs whoever.

    Obama has been relatively uninvolved at this point. He's sitting on a large amount of campaign cash and has yet to really attack any of the nominees. This means that when the nominee is elected, Obama can launch his campaign. The Republicans on the other hand have been tearing each other down making them all rather unappealing to the independents and even some Republicans. Not to mention spending money attacking each other rather than Obama.

    The most interesting part of the analysis was that the Republicans aren't going to have anything new to use against Obama -- they've been running a smear campaign for the last four years and as far as I can tell are pretty much out of ammo, especially since the economy is showing signs of recovery. If gas prices are the best ammo they have, that's not really going to work well.

    Plus the republican nominee is going to have to face a general election crowd, where far right crazy religious statements aren't going to win any votes. Hating on women, hating on gays, hating on minorities might win the Republican nomination but is going to drive away the independents. And if they start changing their positions, they can be accused of flip-flopping.

    The GOP isn't in a good place this campaign, and I think their support will start to slip when the general election campaign season starts.
    GOP candidate will fare better than some people think.

    First of all, about 40% will vote GOP/against Obama no matter who they nominate.

    Second, voter memories are so short that a few months from now when the GOP nominee goes and takes a more populaist tone, people will forget all this ultra-right-wing nonsense they have been saying up to now. Also, a lot of people have not been paying any attention to it and so won't have heard all this already.

    No matter who gets nominated, short of a huge scandal they'll likely get at least about 45% of the popular vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like a 51-49 split Obama vs Romney, 53-47 split vs Gingrich, 54-46 vs Santorum, 55-45 vs Paul.

  20. #380
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    GOP candidate will fare better than some people think.

    First of all, about 40% will vote GOP/against Obama no matter who they nominate.
    The problem is that even if they hate Obama, many won't go out to vote if they're not enthusiastic about the GOP candidate.



    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline
    No matter who gets nominated, short of a huge scandal they'll likely get at least about 45% of the popular vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like a 51-49 split Obama vs Romney, 53-47 split vs Gingrich, 54-46 vs Santorum, 55-45 vs Paul.
    Paul does consistently better against Obama than Gingrich and Santorum. Especially Gingrich does piss-poor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •