• 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.

Ron Paul Won Iowa

Re: are

Henrin said:
What is your idea of liberty then? I generally find liberals say they believe in it, but when they answer this very simple question they fail at understanding what the word means. If you don't mind though, please answer it.
Click to expand...

Here's my stab at it: Liberty is the condition in which you have the freedom to take any action you choose so long as it doesn't infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another person.
 
Hatuey said:
I think what he means is that... nobody in this country except Pauligans seem to like Pauligans. It has nothing to do with propaganda. It's just that you guys are a rude and obnoxious self assured minority that pretends it has seen the light where everyone else lives in darkness. Case and point: Your post above.
Click to expand...

Stop projecting. This forum is not a representative sample of the American public, nor are your views.

the makeout hobo said:
I would also argue that there is a cult of personality around Paul that no other candidate, not even Obama, has.
Click to expand...

One could say that presidential politics nowadays is essential dependent on creating a cult of personality. If any cult of personality surrounding Paul is more extreme it may just mean the admiration is more warranted. After all, how many of the other candidates could you say are principled to a fault?

the makeout hobo said:
You really don't know what gaming the system means, do you? It's taking advantage of the rules, especially loopholes and vagaries, to win even though it's not what was intended in the spirit of the rules. Ron Paul came in third place in Iowa. the voters in Iowa did not want Paul to have the majority of delegates in the state. He is not breaking a single rule, but he is not really honoring the wishes of the voters in Iowa. Instead, he is using rules loopholes to take delegates that weren't meant for him. I understand other candidates do similar things, and I condemn it when they do it too. But it shouldn't be celebrated. He's not changing anyone's minds.
Click to expand...

Seriously, your comprehension of "gaming the system" is so far off base it is pathetic. The rules were clearly and explicitly intended to allow for that outcome. It is not an oversight by those who wrote the rules or abuse of the process by those acting according to the rules. Using the rules correctly in a way you don't like is not the same as gaming the system.

The cure for manipulation is more manipulation?
Click to expand...

There is no manipulation involved on the part of Paul supporters here so it is not responding to manipulation with manipulation. It is responding to manipulation with a faithful adherence to the rules.

Well good thing you're here to save the sheeple, right? :roll: What would voters do without you showing them the right path? It's obvious that you don't think they can be trusted to research and think for themselves. Instead of just realizing that not enough people agree with Ron Paul, and that his views are not mainstream and will never be mainstream, you come up with conspiracy theories about how the shadowy "man" is putting you down. Take personal responsibility for your shoddy candidate that 85% of the GOP electorate doesn't want.
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of trust. The issue is how far people are going to challenge the prevailing attitudes instilled in them by the establishment. What I question is the strength of people's wills, not whether they can be trusted to inform themselves. Most people are willing to question just enough to give the system an air of legitimacy, but not enough to effectuate actual change. At a certain point, the resistance to questioning becomes too strong for people to stand it and they buckle. That you throw out an absurd 85% figure pretty much says how much you think for yourself.

Why? Your guy hasn't even gotten 100 delegates yet. Why do they have to listen to you? What power do you have to make them? I don't see you as having ANY power, there's not enough of you to force things.
Click to expand...

Yep, all the stuff above about "research" and "thinking for yourself" was a bit too early on your part. Even in states with binding primaries the delegates are chosen through a caucus procedure. So, even if we disregard the ongoing caucuses where Paul is likely to amass more delegates and all the proportional primaries coming up, the likelihood of far more pro-Paul delegates at the convention is strong.

First of all, it seems you want to disregard the will of the many more people who did vote for Romney, and/or did not vote for Ron Paul. I don't see how you're any better.
Click to expand...

Even many of those who voted for Romney didn't really want Romney, but just settled for Romney. As to not voting for Paul, he is the only not-Romney left since everyone else is leaving the race.
 
notquiteright said:
All that book learning and that is what you use it for?

What I find irritating about Sen. Paul is a lack of practicality. It is as if his world view has been developed for a classroom example or a 'concept car' version of politics.

But it is amusing to see everyone, to include the Party he nominally claims to be part of, ignore him.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the closest thing i can find in political history to what Paul is trying to turn America to, is the Gilded Age of the late 1800s. I don't know of any modern country that is as minarchist as Paul advocates for, or even any state, really. Paul can talk about how great his way would be, because no one has tried it in modern times. It's like communists, before the USSR.
 
Re: are

Centinel said:
Here's my stab at it: Liberty is the condition in which you have the freedom to take any action you choose so long as it doesn't infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another person.
Click to expand...

And your stab would hit its mark. Good job.
 
Re: are

Centinel said:
Thanks. Now I'd like to hear how the state apologists on the board define liberty.
Click to expand...

We don't have liberty or freedom anymore. The libs demand government control.

Libs are overly obsessed with clean air and drinking water.
 
Re: are

johnny_rebson said:
We don't have liberty or freedom anymore. The libs demand government control.

Libs are overly obsessed with clean air and drinking water.
Click to expand...
Yet many of them claim to advocate liberty. They must have a very queer definition of liberty.

One of them actually told me that liberty is being allowed to do what the government let you. He probably would have been one of those manning the guillotine during the French revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom