• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wingnuts Unite: Ron Paul Joins Michelle Bachmann in Weirdest Town Hall Ever

BmanMcfly said:
Americorps, citiyear, boy and girl scouts of america... if you want to see the danger of youth squads look no further then nazi germany for the extreme of where it can go... the same programs do exist in places like China, North Korea, and Cuba, among other places... you know, those other freedom loving nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html

Lol... no no, of course not... It's just in the new york times that the boy scouts are training to take on disgruntled veterans and gun owners to help homeland security.

Put it this way, in nazi germany the working class was so propagandized that it's no real surprise that many of them had no idea of the horrors that were being perpetrated all around them.



No, Obama himself only talks about 'reasonable restrictions', citing total bans as 'reasonable'... that's only 1 of the bills that have anti-gun contentions... If I really looked, I could find probably 5-6 others... so, simply, the politician Obama is saying that he supports the second ammendment, but believes in 'reasonable restrictions', so ANY gun restriction law that crosses his desk he will deem 'reasonable' even if it's a total ban. He is very slick... even slicker then Bush, who himself was amazingly slick for how stupid he came across as...

Further, while the INTENT of that bill deals with millitary recruitment, the way it does so is by labelling a wide variety of groups as 'hate-groups' which would tie into the patriot act where these groups could then be called 'domestic terrorists' and as we all know, domestic terrorists in the patriot act have waived their rights under the constitution.

Seriously, especially with all the anti-gun rhetoric coming out of the administration, (ex: rahm emmanuel saying if you're on the 'no fly list' you don't deserve to own a firearm, etc) how can you simply claim that it's not happening... I mean, I do a search for gun bills in hourse and / or senate and there's too many to list.



Yes, that's ration by market, if the costs for insurance go up to the point where a person can't afford it, they can be denied treatment.

Instead, through Obama care, a panel would decide how treatments are rationed... and then you'll probably deny rationing when most every section of the bill that I've seen talks about some form of rationing.



I was just pointing out that by some definitions we are living in a facsist republic at this point.



Drank the kool-aiod??? It's called knowing history, and watching it repeat (ableit at a much slower pace then has been witnessed by previous dictators) itself. I hate to break it to you, but while Obama talks about peace and love, his actions are the opposite. Example : he's called a peace lover when under Obama there are more troops in the mddle east now then when Bush was in power... hell, that'll get denied too... just like it's denied that the whole point of being in afghanistan is for heroin money... 500billion/ year. 2006 was a record year for opium production in afghanistan... in 2007 that record was broken... in 2008 a NEW record was set... in 2009 THAT record was beat 13 TIMES over. ... no point in sourcing it, it either doesn't exist or you'll agree 'oh we gotta protect the opium fields or else the taliban will take over the heroin production' (to paraphrase what the BBC said on the subject about a month or so ago) ... Think about it, do you think back when the afghan war was with Russia... do you think that the russians wanted afghanistan so that they could have access to all the sand and mountainous terrain??? OF COURSE NOT... they were there for the same reason, SMACK.
Click to expand...

I wrote out a nice long reply last night, but the forum went down while I typed it(the curse of being a slow typist). I am too lazy to retype the whole thing, so a summary:

1) no mention in your article that this branch of the Boy Scouts is doing this training with the government. You would think they would mention it if that was the case.

2) H.R. 1388 - Summary: Serve America Act (GovTrack.us) This went into effect Oct 1 this year, which is several months after your article, so irrelevant to it.

3) You failed in your first attempt at tying Obama to anti-gun legislation, I doubt you are going to do better with your several others you claim you can find.

4)Ration by profit is more likely to hurt me than ration by government, and insurance companies have a long and storied history of screwing participants. Further, I am against a public option at this time, and claiming I am brainwashed by Obama when I disagree with him on a very substantive issue is silly.

5) The rest of your post belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.
 
Redress said:
I wrote out a nice long reply last night, but the forum went down while I typed it(the curse of being a slow typist). I am too lazy to retype the whole thing, so a summary:
Click to expand...
I hate when that happens..

1) no mention in your article that this branch of the Boy Scouts is doing this training with the government. You would think they would mention it if that was the case.
Click to expand...

My first attempt was to show the boyscouts of america webpage where they said this 'police training' was under DHS guidance... which if you read DHS reports the number 1 enemies are gun owners, disgruntled veterans, Ron Paul / Bob Barr supporters, anti-abortion groups, etc... however, the boyscouts of america page discussing DHS has been removed... so, I suppose it's my own fault that the information to prove my point no longer exists in any 'reliable' fasion on the internet.

2) H.R. 1388 - Summary: Serve America Act (GovTrack.us) This went into effect Oct 1 this year, which is several months after your article, so irrelevant to it.

3) You failed in your first attempt at tying Obama to anti-gun legislation, I doubt you are going to do better with your several others you claim you can find.
Click to expand...

Fair point... although I remember saying that there were 'too many gun bills to list'. but with Rahm emmanuel making his views on guns quite clear, Obama's insinuation that 'total bans' are reasonable, although I didn't mention Sonya Sotomeier (sp?) who did write a book called 'america's deadly obsession' where she says that the second ammendment denies the right to bear arms to citizens... regardless, the demonization of the gun culture is older then Obama... maybe even Bush's presidency.

4)Ration by profit is more likely to hurt me than ration by government, and insurance companies have a long and storied history of screwing participants. Further, I am against a public option at this time, and claiming I am brainwashed by Obama when I disagree with him on a very substantive issue is silly.
Click to expand...

Except when the board looks at a person and says 'we can spend 100k to treat someone that will never be able to recontribute that value back into society, treatment denied.", 'this woman has lived a long life, she should accept that it's getting close to her time. hip replacement denied.', but you have shown yourself more educated on the subject then many supporters that will simply deny that sections of the bill are there, in spite of it being clearly written (ex: the part where illegal immigrants get free healthcare).

5) The rest of your post belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.
Click to expand...

Which part?
- Knowing history = conspiracy?
- History repeating = conspiracy?
- Replacing millitary in Iraq with contractors, then moving much of those troop numbers to afghanistan = conspiracy?
- 2006-2009 cumulative RECORDS in afghan heroin production while the fields are under the PROTECTIOn of the army and NATO forces= conspiracy?
- The Russians didn't go to afghanistan to feel like they owned a giant beach with no water = conspiracy?
 
Psychoclown said:
First off, I voted for Paul in the primaries and I'm proud of it. But some of his supporters are incredibly obnoxious and arrogant. This is a trend I've found to run true with a lot of extreme libertarians. Honestly, radical libertarians are some of the most smug, self assured, pompous, condescending jerks I've ever met. Of course, every movement or candidate has these types of supporters. And yes, with the Ron Paul movement being relatively small, those jerks do stand out more than they normally would.

But, many of us are more than willing to engage in reasonable discussions about Paul, his policies, libertarian thought in general and in practice. I do think many of the more reasonable Ron Paul backers or libertarians are a bit sensative to blanket dismissals by using terms like wingnut or kook or whatever the slur is. Its no different that calling conservatives ignorant backwood rednecks or liberals aloof, latte sipping elitests. It's no different than right wing hacks who call Obama the Messiah or a socialist or Muslim or any other stupid baseless attack. The only difference is we get it from both the left and right (until recently, now the right is at least paying some lip service to libertarian ideals again).

You may find libertarian ideals to be radical, out there, extreme, or diametrically opposed to your core values, that doesn't mean that folks who hold them are idiots, wingnuts, or kooks. People who insist on using those dismissive slurs (like our resident anti-libertarian hack, Hautey) do nothing to add to the debate or discussion. I think there are plenty of reasonable libertarians on this board who just want to be treated with some respect - Etheral, Goshin, Drunken Asparagus, Goldenboy, Ikari, myself and others are more than happy to debate policy in a respectful tone, but I don't think its too much to ask that some basic respect and courtesy be shown our way as well.
Click to expand...

I completely understand, but you have to keep in mind that libertarians tend to be some of the most dismissive and rude people on the internet. I have a feeling that if libertarians stopped insulting people as much as they do, they'd get treated a lot better.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I completely understand, but you have to keep in mind that libertarians tend to be some of the most dismissive and rude people on the internet. I have a feeling that if libertarians stopped insulting people as much as they do, they'd get treated a lot better.
Click to expand...

It's been my experience that the most dismissive and rude are the American conservatives and liberals. Libertarians seem to be the only ones to give reasoned responses and not resort to logical fallacies (such as personal attacks and red herrings).
 
phattonez said:
It's been my experience that the most dismissive and rude are the American conservatives and liberals. Libertarians seem to be the only ones to give reasoned responses and not resort to logical fallacies (such as personal attacks and red herrings).
Click to expand...

you mean like "why are you so afraid of freedom"?
 
I never said that there were no stupid libertarians.
 
phattonez said:
I never said that there were no stupid libertarians.
Click to expand...

The problem is though that most debates with Libertarians(big "L" or little "l") end up with the accusation that I blindly follow Obama and the democrats and liberals, despite the fact that I disagree with Obama on more than one policy item(and he has been a huge disappointment so far), and I have started multiple threads in which I bitch about my own party. The blindly following, or herd mentality argument seems to be a fallback argument of most Libertarians.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I completely understand, but you have to keep in mind that libertarians tend to be some of the most dismissive and rude people on the internet. I have a feeling that if libertarians stopped insulting people as much as they do, they'd get treated a lot better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some of them are. I've been called a big government statist (which anyone who's familar with me would know is laughable) by some hardcore libertarians who just want to lash out at ANYONE who disagrees with them on ANY position. Heck, if you dug through my posts you'd find one thread where I really locked horns with just such a arrogant, obnoxious libertarian (Scarecrow Ackbar) But all movements have their share of jerks. As I said libertarian jerks stand out more because its a smaller movement, but there are a number of reasonable libertarian leaning folks here at DP. And we get pissed when we're casually dismissed or lumped in with the crazies and kooks. Just like a reasonable liberal wouldn't want to be automatically lumped in with the lewrockwell and HelloDolly type posters of the world.

All I ask is folks realize that all libertarians are individuals, with good and bad ones in the mix, and take us each on our own merits and debate politics with courtesy and mutual respect as long as its a two way street. Feel free to abuse the true wing nuts and blind idealogues - no matter what political philosophy they adhere too.
 
Redress said:
This GIVE act? Mandatory Public Service | FactCheck.org

Drinking the koolaid is stupid no matter what side you are on. I really think it is more common on the right, and especially among libertarians, than it is on the left.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of this from a completely objective and unbiased source. "There are kool-aid drinkers all over, but less on my side!!!1!!1!11!!!!!"

:doh
 
EgoffTib said:
Yes, all of this from a completely objective and unbiased source. "There are kool-aid drinkers all over, but less on my side!!!1!!1!11!!!!!"

:doh
Click to expand...

Actually, there are less among republicans, who are not my side. Look at the libertarians running to bitch that I dared call Paul a wingnut, despite the fact it is in the title of this thread.
 
Redress said:
Actually, there are less among republicans, who are not my side. Look at the libertarians running to bitch that I dared call Paul a wingnut, despite the fact it is in the title of this thread.
Click to expand...
I think many disagreed with you. Bitching and disagreeing are hardly the same thing. I already explained to you in that very thread that you and I had very different definitions for the term "loony". Do you consider that to be bitching?
 
Redress said:
Actually, there are less among republicans, who are not my side. Look at the libertarians running to bitch that I dared call Paul a wingnut, despite the fact it is in the title of this thread.
Click to expand...

You mean despite the fact you couldn't back it up with anything more than self-imposed definitions.
 
Ikari said:
You mean despite the fact you couldn't back it up with anything more than self-imposed definitions.
Click to expand...

You mean when I listed a ton of votes he has made? Yeah, that is not backing up my claim...
 
Redress said:
You mean when I listed a ton of votes he has made? Yeah, that is not backing up my claim...
Click to expand...

No, when you made the personal preference of calling him fringe and then defining all fringe as "wingnut". That's not backing your claim, that's merely stating opinion based on personal bias.
 
Ikari said:
No, when you made the personal preference of calling him fringe and then defining all fringe as "wingnut". That's not backing your claim, that's merely stating opinion based on personal bias.
Click to expand...

All opinion is personal bias. We have been over that before. Your beliefs in libertarian issues is a personal bias.
 
Redress said:
All opinion is personal bias. We have been over that before. Your beliefs in libertarian issues is a personal bias.
Click to expand...

No, I actually pointed out something else. You chose to ignore it. That's it. But whatever, define things as you want. Just don't pretend you were being honest and fair in your assessments and thus were unfairly attacked. You based everything on your personal bias and definitions and thus it is subject to contention and argument.
 
Ikari said:
No, I actually pointed out something else. You chose to ignore it. That's it. But whatever, define things as you want. Just don't pretend you were being honest and fair in your assessments and thus were unfairly attacked. You based everything on your personal bias and definitions and thus it is subject to contention and argument.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what you are doing. Welcome to the wonderful world of having and expressing political opinions. I have no sympathy for your crying "unfair" since I get much worse much more frequently and much more unfairly.

I backed up every thing I said in this thread, with sources. You do not care for my opinions, but you cannot argue they are made from ignorance or lack of facts. I am sorry you got your feelings hurt because I called Paul a "wingnut", but my preferred leader is called much worse, much more frequently, and with much less documented reasons.
 
Redress said:
Which is exactly what you are doing. Welcome to the wonderful world of having and expressing political opinions. I have no sympathy for your crying "unfair" since I get much worse much more frequently and much more unfairly.

I backed up every thing I said in this thread, with sources. You do not care for my opinions, but you cannot argue they are made from ignorance or lack of facts. I am sorry you got your feelings hurt because I called Paul a "wingnut", but my preferred leader is called much worse, much more frequently, and with much less documented reasons.
Click to expand...

I'm not making the unfair claim, you are. You are the one bitching that people jumped on you because you called Ron Paul a wingnut. You didn't back up anything. You listed the things he voted for, said you didn't agree with it, labeled it as extreme, and then defined extreme to be "wingnut". That's all. You're the one whining and crying about people jumping on you. But your opinion is open to debate. Don't whine and bitch about people "jumping" on you. When you make arbitrary definitions, you're bound to get people who disagree. Grow up and deal with it.
 
Ikari said:
I'm not making the unfair claim, you are. You are the one bitching that people jumped on you because you called Ron Paul a wingnut. You didn't back up anything. You listed the things he voted for, said you didn't agree with it, labeled it as extreme, and then defined extreme to be "wingnut". That's all. You're the one whining and crying about people jumping on you. But your opinion is open to debate. Don't whine and bitch about people "jumping" on you. When you make arbitrary definitions, you're bound to get people who disagree. Grow up and deal with it.
Click to expand...

I am dealing with it just fine. I find this entirely amusing. The hypocrisy from some of you libertarians is nothing but good fun to me. I did everything asked of me in this thread, and it's still not enough for you guys. "What positions are you against", I list them, "well, that is not good enough, why", so I explain some, and it's still not good enough, and some how not fair to suggest that some one with positions out of the mainstream is somehow extreme and in my opinion, a wingnut.

Let me ask you a question: what would you consider backing up my dislike of Paul if listing those things he has voted on that I disagree with is not enough?
 
I don't care why you dislike him. You point to his voting record, but the entire point is that you've labeled his voting record as extreme. Whether it is or not is subject to personal interpretation, not fact. You then defined extreme to be "wingnut". All I said is that your opinion then becomes subject to debate. That's it, nothing else. You're the one complaining about people jumping on you. I was merely saying it's warranted because you gave subjective opinion and people can disagree with that.

The fact is for all the bitching people do about their side being beaten up, people come after the libertarians a lot. They point to the fringe of the group, group us all together, and disparage against us based on nothing more than their personal opinion. Fine, but you know if you're going to huck rocks, don't be surprised when a few come back your way. Zyphlin (sp?) exemplified my point best when he made his little rant against us. Libertarians are this, libertarians are that. Y'all talk like this is isolated to us, it's not. Every party has **** like this. But whatever. You can not like Ron Paul for whatever reason. I find his insistence on following the Constitution refreshing. Express what you want, but don't start bitching when you get your own medicine.
 
I think the issue is the term wingnut, which is insulting and dismissive. Merely being in disagreement with Paul (or any political figure) isn't reason enough to call someone a wingnut (or any other insulting slur). I can list a ton of areas where I disagree with Obama, but that doesn't mean I think he's a wingnut. Even though I disagree with him on many points, I recognize that he's an intelligent, well studied man who has different conclusions.

If folks who disagree with Paul could say the same without resorting to childish insults, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Psychoclown said:
I think the issue is the term wingnut, which is insulting and dismissive. Merely being in disagreement with Paul (or any political figure) isn't reason enough to call someone a wingnut (or any other insulting slur). I can list a ton of areas where I disagree with Obama, but that doesn't mean I think he's a wingnut. Even though I disagree with him on many points, I recognize that he's an intelligent, well studied man who has different conclusions.

If folks who disagree with Paul could say the same without resorting to childish insults, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

Hence my post in that thread discussing that, in mine and many other people's opinions, terms like "loony" denote mental illness, not an extreme political position.
 
Redress said:
Actually, there are less among republicans, who are not my side. Look at the libertarians running to bitch that I dared call Paul a wingnut, despite the fact it is in the title of this thread.
Click to expand...

Responding to inane statements is being bitchy? This IS a political debate forum, you know...
 
Redress said:
Which is exactly what you are doing. Welcome to the wonderful world of having and expressing political opinions. I have no sympathy for your crying "unfair" since I get much worse much more frequently and much more unfairly.

I backed up every thing I said in this thread, with sources. You do not care for my opinions, but you cannot argue they are made from ignorance or lack of facts. I am sorry you got your feelings hurt because I called Paul a "wingnut", but my preferred leader is called much worse, much more frequently, and with much less documented reasons.
Click to expand...

Secure Fence Act...Obama...wing-nut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom