• 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!

Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 67 55.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 45 37.5%
  • Neither

    Votes: 8 6.7%

  • Total voters
    120
makeout hobo said:
What is the Libertarian solution when bigotry and discrimination against a group of people has become enshrined in the culture?

Arizonans favor the law by an overwhelming amount. Besides, it's not against "a group of people". I would hope that a white dude who gets pulled over without any ID would get a third degree just as much as a brownie.
 
Obama, but only because Ron Paul's policies are unrealistic and border on the insane. He seems to believe in the "vacuum" theory, forgetting that the world does not work like that, no matter how much he wishes it did.
 
Arizonans favor the law by an overwhelming amount. Besides, it's not against "a group of people". I would hope that a white dude who gets pulled over without any ID would get a third degree just as much as a brownie.

I wasn't referring to Arizona. Arizona may or may not be legal discrimination (that's for another thread), but what I'm referring to is more the social and cultural discrimination that African Americans faced historically, Jim Crow aside.
 
Cultural discrimination? You must not know as many wiggers as I do.

You can't legally stop discrimination because discrimination is a direct result of racism. Do you want to ban the NAACP and the UNCF? There will always be racial definitions and borders on infinite social distinctions and organizations. You may as well argue that we all have lobotomies or amnesia. And NO form of law or legislature will fix that.
 
Cultural discrimination? You must not know as many wiggers as I do.

You can't legally stop discrimination because discrimination is a direct result of racism. Do you want to ban the NAACP and the UNCF? There will always be racial definitions and borders on infinite social distinctions and organizations. You may as well argue that we all have lobotomies or amnesia. And NO form of law or legislature will fix that.

I do rather think you're missing the point here.
 
Obama, but only because Ron Paul's policies are unrealistic and border on the insane. He seems to believe in the "vacuum" theory, forgetting that the world does not work like that, no matter how much he wishes it did.

Captain,

Perhaps Obama is insane. Perhaps his supporters are insane as well.

Now that we've dispensed with the inane, partisan commentary, would you care to engage in a mature dialog?
 
What is the Libertarian solution when bigotry and discrimination against a group of people has become enshrined in the culture?

Hobo,

I don't think any political ideology could solve such a thing. Do you disagree?
 
Obama, and it's not even close.
 
Captain,

Perhaps Obama is insane. Perhaps his supporters are insane as well.

Now that we've dispensed with the inane, partisan commentary, would you care to engage in a mature dialog?

Since my comments were not partisan, but completely accurate, I believe I already have. Now, instead of making inaccurate commentary on others posts, would YOU like to engage in mature dialogue?
 
Hobo,

I don't think any political ideology could solve such a thing. Do you disagree?

I think how it was handled during the civil rights era, with government forcing businesses not to discriminate based on skin color, was the right way to handle it, and it largely worked.
 
Since my comments were not partisan, but completely accurate, I believe I already have. Now, instead of making inaccurate commentary on others posts, would YOU like to engage in mature dialogue?

That's only possible if one offers more than "his theories are insane" blah blah blah. That's just a disparaging comment which does not add anything to a discussion. If you were interested in mature dialogue you would have instead stated what you don't like. "I think that isolationism isn't achievable in the modern world and would only serve to hurt" or something like that. So the question goes back to you.
 
That's only possible if one offers more than "his theories are insane" blah blah blah. That's just a disparaging comment which does not add anything to a discussion. If you were interested in mature dialogue you would have instead stated what you don't like. "I think that isolationism isn't achievable in the modern world and would only serve to hurt" or something like that. So the question goes back to you.

On top of that Ron Paul is for nonintervention not isolationism, but people refuse to acknowledge this.
 
Since my comments were not partisan, but completely accurate, I believe I already have. Now, instead of making inaccurate commentary on others posts, would YOU like to engage in mature dialogue?

Captain,

If baseless insults and petty misrepresentations are your idea of a mature dialog, then I have little desire to engage you.

And assert your correctness all you like, it won't make you any less partisan or wrong.
 
On top of that Ron Paul is for nonintervention not isolationism, but people refuse to acknowledge this.

That is indeed one of the largest misconceptions. For sure, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He's not saying withdraw from the world. We can still be friends, we can still have economic relations and trade. But what he wants to end is our incessant meddling with other countries and other people's affairs. It's not our job to fix the worlds problems, we have problems of our own and we should be working on those first and foremost. The rest of the world...well I guess they'll have to learn to take care of themselves.
 
I think how it was handled during the civil rights era, with government forcing businesses not to discriminate based on skin color, was the right way to handle it, and it largely worked.

Hobo,

I think you're altering your argument slightly. You didn't ask for a solution to discriminatory business practices, instead, you asked for a solution to socially ingrained bigotry and racial discrimination. I don't think anyone stopped being a bigot because of the Civil Rights Act, and I don't think overt racial discrimination could have been eliminated from private businesses unless the majority of the populace actually supported such a measure.
 
That is indeed one of the largest misconceptions. For sure, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He's not saying withdraw from the world. We can still be friends, we can still have economic relations and trade. But what he wants to end is our incessant meddling with other countries and other people's affairs. It's not our job to fix the worlds problems, we have problems of our own and we should be working on those first and foremost. The rest of the world...well I guess they'll have to learn to take care of themselves.

Ron Paul could not have said it any better. You should write his speeches, lol.
 
Captain,

If baseless insults and petty misrepresentations are your idea of a mature dialog, then I have little desire to engage you.

And assert your correctness all you like, it won't make you any less partisan or wrong.

You get what you give. Perhaps if you comments were accurate and not petty misrepresentations, you might have received an answer that you liked better. Perhaps next time you will learn from this error.
 
That's only possible if one offers more than "his theories are insane" blah blah blah. That's just a disparaging comment which does not add anything to a discussion. If you were interested in mature dialogue you would have instead stated what you don't like. "I think that isolationism isn't achievable in the modern world and would only serve to hurt" or something like that. So the question goes back to you.

Perhaps you should read my post. I commented, broadly, on my issue with Ron Paul's positions. So, the issue goes back to YOU on what you think of that. Of course you could comment on me isntead of what I said, but that won't get you very far.
 
You get what you give. Perhaps if you comments were accurate and not petty misrepresentations, you might have received an answer that you liked better.

Captain,

You asserted that Ron Paul's policies "bordered on the insane" and you further characterized his views as a "vacuum theory", not bothering to explain, expound, or clarify. This kind of empty rhetoric and partisan bashing only serves to inflame and divide. Your attempts to spin and rationalize your attacks are transparent and silly.

Perhaps next time you will learn from this error.

My only error was in assuming you were capable of admitting fault when you're so obviously wrong.

Your comments were abrasive, inflammatory, and without substance. It won't kill you to admit this.
 
Captain,

You asserted that Ron Paul's policies "bordered on the insane" and you further characterized his views as a "vacuum theory", not bothering to explain, expound, or clarify. This kind of empty rhetoric and partisan bashing only serves to inflame and divide. Your attempts to spin and rationalize your attacks are transparent and silly.

Then perhaps you should have asked what "vacuum theory" meant, rather than making silly assumptions. It might have cleared things up for you.

My only error was in assuming you were capable of admitting fault when you're so obviously wrong.

Your comments were abrasive, inflammatory, and without substance. It won't kill you to admit this.

No, your error was making an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, rather than addressing what I posted. Your comments were abrasive, inflammatory, and without substance, It won't kill you to admit it.
 
Then perhaps you should have asked what "vacuum theory" meant, rather than making silly assumptions. It might have cleared things up for you.

I believe I know what you meant. You're either referring to his highly individualist domestic policies or his non-interventionist foreign policies, or both; the implication being that his views fail to account for a wide array external socioeconomic and geopolitical factors. If you knew anything about his views, you would know that this is a gross oversimplification of his political philosophy.

More importantly, none of this excuses your reference to insanity. It was an abrasive, hyperpartisan comment with no substance or worth. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble admitting this. Do you feel it's any less abrasive or partisan when someone calls President Obama a communist or President Bush a dictator? I certainly don't.

No, your error was making an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, rather than addressing what I posted. Your comments were abrasive, inflammatory, and without substance, It won't kill you to admit it.

I absolutely did address what you posted, and there is nothing logically fallacious about challenging your hyperpartisan and inflammatory comments. Your transparent attempt to excuse your abrasive comments while redirecting blame is patently dishonest.

And what comments have I made that were abrasive, inflammatory, and without substance? You made the initial comments about Ron Paul's policies bordering on insane, and I merely, and accurately, pointed out that such comments were inane and partisan.
 
I believe I know what you meant. You're either referring to his highly individualist domestic policies or his non-interventionist foreign policies, or both; the implication being that his views fail to account for a wide array external socioeconomic and geopolitical factors. If you knew anything about his views, you would know that this is a gross oversimplification of his political philosophy.

I know a bit about his view. In general, the impact his polices have on larger systems is far secondary to his focus on smaller government and indivualism. His policies are unrealisitic in that they would impact other systems, significantly. This tends to be the position of "big L" libertarians, a position that is unrealistic as that of socialism.

More importantly, none of this excuses your reference to insanity. It was an abrasive, hyperpartisan comment with no substance or worth. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble admitting this. Do you feel it's any less abrasive or partisan when someone calls President Obama a communist or President Bush a dictator? I certainly don't.

Most importantly, you should really try reading what folks read, rather than reacting so emotionally because your position is being challenged. I stated his POLICIES bordered on the insane, not him. Policies that place little value on the impact on larger systems ARE in my opinion insane. Remember, it was my opinion.



I absolutely did address what you posted, and there is nothing logically fallacious about challenging your hyperpartisan and inflammatory comments. Your transparent attempt to excuse your abrasive comments while redirecting blame is patently dishonest.

No, you didn't and you continue to not do so. You just continue to post like you are all hurt that I think the position you have is foolish. You don't like that? Too bad, debate it. But you want to make inaccurate statements about what I said, which is what you did, I will challenge you on it. You don't like it? Too bad.

And what comments have I made that were abrasive, inflammatory, and without substance? You made the initial comments about Ron Paul's policies bordering on insane, and I merely, and accurately, pointed out that such comments were inane and partisan.

I explained why. Further, you made assumptions about partisanship which you have zero evidence for. No, what happened was that you saw someone who didn't like Ron Paul's policies, got all hurt, and instead of debating the issue, went on the attack. And NOW, you're upset that I called you on it. Wanna debate the topic? Be my guest. Wanna keep being abrassive and making inaccurate assumptions? You'll get challenged and exposed. Your choice.
 
Could I just choose to not vote? That way I wouldn't have to deal with the "You're racist if you don't like him" portion of Obama supporters and the "You obviously are unintelligent and uneducated because no one can be those things and not agree with the wonder and majesty of Dr. Paul" portion of his supporters.

Ugg.

Also, Ikari, hate to burst your bubble but internet polls on a message board don't really mean...um....much of anything other than telling what that message board thinks, and even that's not really true since not everyone visits and its an anonymous poll which means people can vote over and over and over again and as was seen whe comparing the Primary results to internet results in 2008 Ron Paul people have no problem showing up in droves...online.

In all seriousness, as I said earlier, I'd choose Paul. In large part because his basic philosophies are in line with what I believe, but I do think he lacks realisim, pragmatisism, and empathy of any kind. Thankfully little of that will matter because we're not a dictatorship and the very nature of having a congress would mean that his absolutely extreme and unpragmatic views on a number of things and how to go about them would be scaled back drastically to more realistic means.

Now if you asked "Ron Paul with a congress full of Ron Pauls vs Barack Obama and a congress full of Obama's", well then my vote would be Australia.

;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom