• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

CNN Debate 8pm EST

Catawba said:
Mensch said:
Fail, who get the tax breaks is one of the major distinctions.
Click to expand...

Yes, but YOU should have added that distinction instead of implying that liberals completely against tax breaks.

Fail, the majority of liberals support the fed.
Click to expand...

You must be confusing liberal with democrat. I have already demonstrated the difference between a true liberal like Kucinich and Nader and an assembly line democrat. Assembly line democrats also support unconstitutional war, meddling in the affairs of others nations, the drug wars, and many other things that would it make it harder to distinguish them from conservative republicans.

Fail, he is but one, and he is dead.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul also believes in nonviolent civil disobedience, and the fact that HDT is dead is irrelevant. JFK, FDR, MLK, LBJ, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and many others are also dead. That doesn't matter to the liberals they've influenced. Al Franken (a guy I personally like in many ways) models his life on Paul Wellstone, a dead liberal Senator. Death does not kill ideas.

Fail, liberals go along with most of the libertarian view of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you say "fail" given that we both agree on that one.

Fail, liberals support federal legislation and are satisfied with our civil liberties, Ron Paul is not.
Click to expand...

Maybe your assembly-line democrat, but not the liberals I've talked to who are fed up with the police state, the wiretapping, and our criminal justice system. If what you say is true, we would have no need for the ACLU.

Fail, liberals don't support eliminating the Dept of Education as does Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

True, but my point still stands that liberals don't like a lot of federal intervention. And many liberal teachers don't like NCLB.

Well you get credit for being and independent thinker, but still fail here because Ron Paul is diametrically opposite of liberals on these 4 incredibly important issues.
Click to expand...

You don't get a lot from a single Wikipedia article. Paul opposes subsidies for oil and gas companies, as well as seeing polluters as "aggressors." Also, as I said, Ron Paul does not define libertarianism. Milton Friedman was also a libertarian and probably a much more influential libertarian than Ron Paul, and he believed in using the tax code to punish those who pollute.

Fail, keeping medicare and eventually upgrading to UHC is a major issue for liberals and Ron Paul is opposed to them.
Click to expand...

What does artificial supply do to demand? What does higher demand do for prices? Just because libertarians oppose UHC doesn't mean we oppose lower costs to health care.

Fail, that one provision is very important to liberals.
Click to expand...

Then make that distinction instead of inaccurately claiming the entire legislative piece is contested.

I'm surprised I have to explain your candidates views to you, he is talking about changing the way states are represented in congress. This is also a fail, because liberals do not agree with the change.
Click to expand...

I personally haven't given that particular thought enough issue, which I promise to do. But again, Ron Paul is not the define the libertarian position on every issue.

Yes, another fail.
Click to expand...

Ok, prove that the majority of democrats support doing away with the Electoral College. They've had control over both houses of congress (and even the presidency) at various times after 2000, so why didn't they do it? Personally, I would keep the EC but do away with the "winner-take-all" clause.

Fail, Ron Paul doesn't believe we should support international organizations, liberals do.
Click to expand...

Eh, that's a technicality. Yes, many libertarians wish to oppose spending on these organizations, but that doesn't all wish to ignore them completely. Ron Paul and others continue to cite Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (as well as Geneva Convention and International Justice System) to support their arguments.

Actually, I'll give you that one too. RP supports international trade, and generally liberals do to.
Click to expand...

Now, that is a difference. Liberals will often oppose NAFTA and support protectionist policies like tariffs on trade.

Fail, these are just his person views, they are his political platform, which what this is all about.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? And though we've completely derailed the CNN debate topic, I thought we were discussing libertarians and liberals, not Ron Paul and liberals.

Fail, you have shown 7 issues where liberals agree with Ron Paul vs all but two of the issues above on which they disagree. Oh, I know that you will try to make the point again that Ron Paul's so called "tyranny" issues outweigh the plethora of other issues, but they don't to liberals, which means they disagree.
Click to expand...

And as I said, if you break it down, it's an even split down the middle. The only difference here is that YOU personally value some matters over others. But I know plenty of other liberals who give a lot more respect to libertarians (especially in comparison to their conservative counterparts).
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Liberals believe in the Bill of rights as written and interpreted under our rule of law, not the interpretation of it by Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what the rule of law means. And that is a subjective statement.

You could argue that Ron Paul takes such an extremist constitutionalist argument that it is not compatible with 21st century politics, but you can't argue with credibility that Paul's interpretation of the constitution is not accurate.
 
Catawba said:
You've listed 6 issues that that Ron Paul and liberals agree on as opposed these issues they disagree on:


"1 Economy
1.1 Lower spending and smaller government
1.2 The Plan To Restore America (Budget for 2013)
1.3 Lower taxes
1.4 Inflation and the Federal Reserve
1.5 Nonviolent tax resistance
1.6 Social Security
1.7 Minimal market interference
2 Civil liberties
2.1 Constitutional rights
2.1.3 Right to keep and bear arms
2.1.6 Federal legislation and civil liberty
3 States' rights
3.5 Education
4 Environment
4.1 Privatize Federal Lands
4.2 Free-market environmentalism
4.3 Global warming
4.4 Environmental-related legislative activities
5 Health policy
5.1 Health care costs
5.2 Medical research funding
5.3 Medicare prescription drug program
5.4 Tax credits for healthcare expenses & Children's Health Insurance Program
5.6 Emergency medical care
5.7 Insurance coverage of pre-existing medical conditions
5.8 Medical malpractice law reform
5.9 Proposal to eliminate Medicare
5.10 Food and Drug Administration policy
5.11 Physician licensure
6 Election law
6.3 Civil Rights Act of 1964
6.4 State representation
6.5 Electoral college
7 Foreign policy
7.1.7 International organizations
7.1.8 The World Trade Organization
7.2 International trade"

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Then lets focus on the six areas of agreement and get some things done.
 
A brilliant piece by Matt Taibbi:

How about that race for the Republican nomination? Was last night's debate crazy, or what?

Throughout this entire process, the spectacle of these clowns thrashing each other and continually seizing and then fumbling frontrunner status has left me with an oddly reassuring feeling, one that I haven't quite been able to put my finger on. In my younger days I would have just assumed it was regular old Schadenfreude at the sight of people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suffering, but this isn’t like that – it's something different than the pleasure of watching A-Rod strike out in the playoffs.

No, it was while watching the debates last night that it finally hit me: This is justice. What we have here are chickens coming home to roost. It's as if all of the American public's bad habits and perverse obsessions are all coming back to haunt Republican voters in this race: The lack of attention span, the constant demand for instant gratification, the abject hunger for negativity, the utter lack of backbone or constancy (we change our loyalties at the drop of a hat, all it takes is a clever TV ad): these things are all major factors in the spiraling Republican disaster.

Most importantly, though, the conservative passion for divisive, partisan, bomb-tossing politics is threatening to permanently cripple the Republican party. They long ago became more about pointing fingers than about ideology, and it's finally ruining them.



Read more: Arizona Debate: Conservative Chickens Come Home to Roost | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
Click to expand...
 
Mensch said:
Catawba said:
Yes, but YOU should have added that distinction instead of implying that liberals completely against tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Since tax breaks for the wealthy vs, tax breaks for the working class are one of the main distinction between the parties and have been in almost constant debate, I assumed it was common knowledge.


You must be confusing liberal with democrat. I have already demonstrated the difference between a true liberal like Kucinich and Nader and an assembly line democrat. Assembly line democrats also support unconstitutional war, meddling in the affairs of others nations, the drug wars, and many other things that would it make it harder to distinguish them from conservative republicans.
Click to expand...

The majority of Democrats voted against the GOP war in Iraq.


I don't know why you say "fail" given that we both agree on that one.
Click to expand...

Liberals don't agree with the libertarian's interpretation of the Constitution.



Maybe your assembly-line democrat, but not the liberals I've talked to who are fed up with the police state, the wiretapping, and our criminal justice system. If what you say is true, we would have no need for the ACLU.
Click to expand...

Liberals are opposed to wiretapping and arrest without representation, but not ending federal legislation.


True, but my point still stands that liberals don't like a lot of federal intervention. And many liberal teachers don't like NCLB.
Click to expand...


You are confusing what liberals want with what libertarians want. Yes, the majority of teachers don't like NCLB, as it was rigged to show public schools don't do as well as private schools, so as further the GOP/libertarian preference for privatizing education.



You don't get a lot from a single Wikipedia article. Paul opposes subsidies for oil and gas companies, as well as seeing polluters as "aggressors." Also, as I said, Ron Paul does not define libertarianism. Milton Friedman was also a libertarian and probably a much more influential libertarian than Ron Paul, and he believed in using the tax code to punish those who pollute.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul/libertarians wants to end the EPA!!!



What does artificial supply do to demand? What does higher demand do for prices? Just because libertarians oppose UHC doesn't mean we oppose lower costs to health care.
Click to expand...

Our health care system is about twice as expensive as the rest of the industrialized world who have upgraded to UHC.


Ok, prove that the majority of democrats support doing away with the Electoral College. They've had control over both houses of congress (and even the presidency) at various times after 2000, so why didn't they do it? Personally, I would keep the EC but do away with the "winner-take-all" clause.
Click to expand...

They don't. You have it backwards.



What's the difference? And though we've completely derailed the CNN debate topic, I thought we were discussing libertarians and liberals, not Ron Paul and liberals.
Click to expand...

Notice the thread topic, our discussion began about Ron Paul.



And as I said, if you break it down, it's an even split down the middle. The only difference here is that YOU personally value some matters over others. But I know plenty of other liberals who give a lot more respect to libertarians (especially in comparison to their conservative counterparts).
Click to expand...


No, as I have shown twice now, there are way more things that Ron Paul and liberals disagree on than they agree on. But, if it makes you feel any better, I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the open primary in Virginia on March 6!!!

(He will be easier for Obama to beat in November) ;)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom