Where do the candidates stand on the issues - A guide for 2008 - Page 6

Curious George · 01-02-08, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panache

a) Thats the trouble with being smarter than everyone else; is you are generally smart enough to figure out that you are smarter than everyone else. Then what do you do? Pretend to be modest about it?

"If you are conscious to yourself that you possess more knowledge upon some subjects than others of your standing, reflect that you have had greater opportunities of seeing the world and obtaining a knowledge of mankind than any of your contemporaries; that you have never wanted a book but it has been supplied to you; that your whole time has been spent in the company of men of literature and science. How unpardonable would it have been in you to have been a blockhead."

- Abigail Adams to her son John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States, in 1786, upon hearing a rumor he was becoming full of himself.

So, I would present to you the following advice- do not pretend to be modest, but instead be modest. You will certainly find yourself to be better liked and your opinions to be more readily accepted.

To quote my own mother: "Nobody likes a know-it-all."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panache

b) Thats because Libertarian opinions are if nothing else, at least consistent. I find it rather frustrating when a far out liberal is bringing the whole "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary saftey deserve neither" business when talking about the PATRIOT act, but then start talking about how dangerous it is to let people freely excersize their 2nd amendement rights.

What needs to be understood though is that most people, even those who frequently take part in debate, do not study philosophy. Those that do study philosophy often can't, or don't, see an application.

"That liberty stuff is all well and good for the books," they might say, "but this is the real world and we require real world solutions."

That can be frustrating to hear, especially since we think that libertarianism is a real world solution, but shouting at a person with that outlook and calling them stupid isn't going to change their minds. It's just going to turn them off to you and, much worse, the ideas you support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panache

c) I don't think they're all idiots. I just think they are all wrong.

Unfortunately, "you're wrong" and "you're an idiot" often result in the same negative reaction, especially since being wrong often makes people feel like idiots (and that is obviously not a pleasant feeling).

Basically, here's what I'm saying...

When you come across as an *** the only people who are going to listen to your ideas are the people who already agree with them. Those who disagree will not be open to changing their mind and those who are on the fence will probably fall on the other side just to spite you. So, make good arguments. Educate, don't reprobate.

RightinNYC · 01-02-08, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious George

"If you are conscious to yourself that you possess more knowledge upon some subjects than others of your standing, reflect that you have had greater opportunities of seeing the world and obtaining a knowledge of mankind than any of your contemporaries; that you have never wanted a book but it has been supplied to you; that your whole time has been spent in the company of men of literature and science. How unpardonable would it have been in you to have been a blockhead."

- Abigail Adams to her son John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States, in 1786, upon hearing a rumor he was becoming full of himself.

So, I would present to you the following advice- do not pretend to be modest, but instead be modest. You will certainly find yourself to be better liked and your opinions to be more readily accepted.

To quote my own mother: "Nobody likes a know-it-all."

What needs to be understood though is that most people, even those who frequently take part in debate, do not study philosophy. Those that do study philosophy often can't, or don't, see an application.

"That liberty stuff is all well and good for the books," they might say, "but this is the real world and we require real world solutions."

That can be frustrating to hear, especially since we think that libertarianism is a real world solution, but shouting at a person with that outlook and calling them stupid isn't going to change their minds. It's just going to turn them off to you and, much worse, the ideas you support.

Unfortunately, "you're wrong" and "you're an idiot" often result in the same negative reaction, especially since being wrong often makes people feel like idiots (and that is obviously not a pleasant feeling).

Basically, here's what I'm saying...

When you come across as an *** the only people who are going to listen to your ideas are the people who already agree with them. Those who disagree will not be open to changing their mind and those who are on the fence will probably fall on the other side just to spite you. So, make good arguments. Educate, don't reprobate.

Outstanding post.

Panache · 01-02-08, 03:44 PM

Quote:

If you are conscious to yourself that you possess more knowledge upon some subjects than others of your standing, reflect that you have had greater opportunities of seeing the world and obtaining a knowledge of mankind than any of your contemporaries; that you have never wanted a book but it has been supplied to you; that your whole time has been spent in the company of men of literature and science.

Sure. But it is arrogant for one to acknowledge that one has benefitted more from spending time in the comnpany of men of literature and science than another has from spending time away from the company of men of literature and science, for to acknowledge that ones own environment and good fortune has provided insight that has been denied to another is regarded as "Thinking you're smarter than everyone else."

Quote:

So, I would present to you the following advice- do not pretend to be modest, but instead be modest. You will certainly find yourself to be better liked and your opinions to be more readily accepted.

Ah, well, I have been told that my arrogant charm is rather endearing. At least one lady thinks so, and hers is the only opinion that matters.

If it makes you feel any better, I shall be the first to acknowledge my lack of modesty as a personal shortcoming.

It may be worth considering however that those who critizise my lack of modesty, in doing so avail themselves to be possessing of more modesty than myself.

They might do well, if they are conscious to themselves that they possess more modesty than others of their standing, to reflect that they have had greater opportunities of seeing the world and being humbled by its majesty than any of their contemporaries; that they have never wanted a humbling perspective but it has been supplied to them; that their whole time has been spent in the company of men of modesty and humility. How unpardonable would it have been in them to have been an arrogant fool.

Quote:

What needs to be understood though is that most people, even those who frequently take part in debate, do not study philosophy. Those that do study philosophy often can't, or don't, see an application.

I find that debate is a wonderful way to learn about philosophy and its application.

Quote:

"That liberty stuff is all well and good for the books," they might say, "but this is the real world and we require real world solutions."

They indeed might say that, and they often do. Rather arrogant of them to think that they are more familiar with what kind of solutions work in the real world than I am. Don't you agree?

To quote you're mother: "Nobody likes a know-it-all."

Quote:

That can be frustrating to hear, especially since we think that libertarianism is a real world solution, but shouting at a person with that outlook and calling them stupid isn't going to change their minds. It's just going to turn them off to you and, much worse, the ideas you support.

And if my goal was to change their minds, I might care. I don't often see people changing their minds around here though. We are all to stubborn and set in our ways for that. (Except me of course. If I were wrong, I would be swayed by a well formed argument in an instant. Its such a shame I'm always right.

)

I come here for my own benefit, because I find it educational, and gives me a venue excersize and challenge my reasonaing skills. I would hope that many do the same. People who come here just to change other people's minds may find themselves very very dissappointed.

Quote:

Unfortunately, "you're wrong" and "you're an idiot" often result in the same negative reaction, especially since being wrong often makes people feel like idiots (and that is obviously not a pleasant feeling).

Does it help that I try and say "you're wrong" in the most abrasive and contentious way possible?

Quote:

When you come across as an *** the only people who are going to listen to your ideas are the people who already agree with them. Those who disagree will not be open to changing their mind and those who are on the fence will probably fall on the other side just to spite you. So, make good arguments. Educate, don't reprobate.

Ok. You are right. I am wrong. You convinced me.

Curious George · 01-03-08, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panache

Sure. But it is arrogant for one to acknowledge that one has benefitted more from spending time in the comnpany of men of literature and science than another has from spending time away from the company of men of literature and science, for to acknowledge that ones own environment and good fortune has provided insight that has been denied to another is regarded as "Thinking you're smarter than everyone else."

Yes. It may be true, but it's still arrogant. You can always say "I've studied this issue..." or "I lived in France, so I have first hand knowledge..." to cite your unique experience with regard to the issue, or you can state facts, but to simply assert that you're smarter or better informed on things as a general rule probably won't fly. I mean, you can be as arrogant as you like. If you truly believe you're a mental giant in comparison to the mental midgets that engage you, there's nothing wrong with saying so.

You just have to be prepared to have yourself and your positions disliked on the sole basis of presentation as opposed to merit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panache

And if my goal was to change their minds, I might care.

Well then... there you go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panache

Does it help that I try and say "you're wrong" in the most abrasive and contentious way possible?

Probably not.

That whole post was just effing hilarious. Funny stuff. Thanks.

hrdman2luv · 01-27-08, 12:42 AM

Ron Paul on the Iraqi south.

YouTube - I ask Ron Paul about Iraq and Iran

Pull My Finger · 01-31-08, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

As for Free Trade - my beef is that we are calling things like NAFTA free trade. Free trade doesn't require 1000 pages of legalise to qualify it.

Excellent point.

A logical question then is, what are those 1000’s of pages for?

Look at the EU.

Start with Free Trade Agreements.
Strengthen those deals and tightly bind the countries over time
Build and/or expand physical trade routes
Introduce a common currency
Introduce a common constitution

Repeat in North America.

“The people who are proposing these trade agreements could care less about the average American, could care less about the poor people in the developing world. They’re in it for one thing, and one thing alone, that is to increase the profits of the company”
Bernie Sanders, Independent Congressman

Peace

hrdman2luv · 02-07-08, 01:20 PM

Ron Paul is more Anti-Tax than any of the Republican candidates. And is more Anti-War than any of the Democrat candidates.

conquer · 02-15-08, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

Ron Paul is more Anti-Tax than any of the Republican candidates. And is more Anti-War than any of the Democrat candidates.

Ron Paul seems to be right with this.

Why do you think that Afghanistan was left last after invading this country? Because Russia doesn't considered it anymore as the only path for to pass its gas pipe.

Invading Iraq to prevent Saddam to deal with Russia, China, France and Germany didn't work after all. Now the intentions are to stop Iran for to be a member of a new group of oil producers which provide oil to China and Russia.

There is not such a "freedom and Democracy" involved, neither any "terrorist attacks from Iran to Israel", such are the common excuses -if not lies- that here in America we receive daily in the TV news.

Asia Times Online :: Central Asian News - The Great Game on a razor's edge

hrdman2luv · 02-16-08, 04:38 PM

The whole middle eastern game is just that. A game. A game for not only money and power. But also for the childish way of getting the power to control the oil. While the leaders of these nations are at war for this oil, the oil companies are sitting back on their fat proffits, laughing at this game that will be won by either side in their favor. As it stands now, America with it's military might, is winning the war on oil.

From a middle class Americans stand point, I could care less if the arabs, politicians and muslims drank the crude with their breakfast cereal. Within 5 years, I can be completely off the grid. Meaning, I won't need to buy my electricity or water.

With the new technology available to Americans right now, with solar and wind alone, the only need for crude I need is plastic bags, gasoline and diesel.

American politicians have to ability to get all of America off foreign oil within a few years. But, that isn't part of their game plan.

If I have said it once, I have said it 1,000 times, if there was no oil in Iraq, our soldiers wouldn't be there. And, George Bush could have made the central front on terror in Afghanistan easier than Iraq.

The pipelines through Afghanistan is just one small peice of evidence that can e used against the oil companies, the Bush administration and those involved in this huge enormous lie that has plagued this country for 7 or more years.

ronpaulvoter · 03-12-08, 08:05 AM

I always vote for a candidate based on issues. Specifically, I vote for the one who will do the most to:

MAKE GOVERNMENT SMALLER, LESS INTRUSIVE, AND LESS EXPENSIVE.

Yes, Ron Paul is a nice guy personally. And he is the most honest person in Congress by far (also a very important consideration).

But the one thing that compels me to vote for him (and people like him) is his commitment to preserve individual liberty and his votes for limited, Constitutional government and AGAINST everything that is unconstitutional, excessive, or oppressive.

There are very few people like him. That is why he is a national treasure.