Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Oh I see you are still pushing the same flawed rubbish that you have completely failed to defend from criticisms in numerous threads – by the way are you going to run away from this one when you fail again?

To repeat –

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and what choices may be open to them and all long before they have the independence to make decisions and take actions on their own.

This is the same self serving argument mentioned before about the deserving and undeserving – The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help. So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out many times this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

 

Balbie:

You continue evade intelligent conversation, claiming others who disagree with you of being evasive, double posting and rather than addressing issues conversationally, attack those who disagree with relentless and lengthy irrational posts.

While you admit in post #359 to being a left winger, to claim that either of the dominant parties in the U.S. are right of center only displays just how far to the left you lean.

Talk about flawed rubbish, while where and to whom you are born has effect on each of our lives, it need not have the greatest effect unless you allow it to. Advantages should be made use of, while disadvantages whether of our own making or not, are things which we all have to contend with.

The one size fits all approach of left wing government more often than not results in catastrophic consequences which are more harmful than any good they set out to accomplish.

 

He's the only person I'd actually spend my time to vote for.

 

Indie

LOL – this is debate and debate usually involves answering questions and addressing criticisms, I believe even in polite conversation that is the norm, and if someone continually refuses to do so it’s normal to call them evasive. And if my posts are so irrational wouldn’t that make them easier to address rather than having to fall back on evasion all the time? I mean where is the intellectual standing of ideas that can’t be defended from criticism?

Oh there are factions in the Democratic Party that are what I’d call left wing but as a unit in general it leans toward the right, I mean it has had a consistent neo-liberal tone over the last few years and especially since Clinton.

Why not? Are you honestly saying that to whom we are born, our upbringing, the experience we have and our environment have little or no impact on us? It seems to me that trying to dismiss that impact as irrelevant, just doesn’t work.

Again you are making assertions that already have outstanding criticisms that you’ve not addressed, just repeating such assertions in another thread does not make the criticisms go away. I mean do we have to have the whole social mobility discussion all over again?

Anyway this is just the deserving and undeserving argument all over again – if people overcome the disadvantage they are worthy but if they don’t its their fault for being lazy. So the argument runs that there is no need to help the disadvantaged because if they were not lazy they’d stop being disadvantaged and so it continues - it is even harmful to try and help the disadvantaged because it would just allow then to continue in their laziness. It is just a way to perpetuate advantage and sustain disadvantage

Oh dear, we’ve been through this before many times – it isn’t a one size fits all approach, it is about trying to help people to fulfil their potential. It is about helping people to help themselves through making sure they have access to the advantages that they would otherwise lack. Your Social Darwinist approach, that argues against giving any help to the disadvantaged seem more about the perpetuation of those with advantage in that advantage.

 

Chrono

Why do you support him given all the outstanding criticisms of right wing libertarian views that no Paulet has yet addressed (let alone refuted)?

 

Balbie:
When Bob asked of you "Well, can you address exactly which policies of Ron Paul that you disagree with, instead of just characterizing him as a 'right-wing libertarian'? Then maybe we can respond to those."

You responded "This is just evasion, he is a right wing libertarian and many here have given their criticisms of that ideology - can you please stop trying to worm out of addressing these criticisms and actually do so."

Why not just post one criticism at a time for others to respond to when they ask?
And when you receive a response, recognize as fact that just because others disagree with you that does not make you right and them wrong. Some of us, perhaps many more than you think, place a high value on the individual freedom of not only ourselves but that of others as well, and do not view government as the source of our freedoms. I think a good many Americans would like to see our government return to the Constitution as the basis of power allowed the Federal government, and I indicated in my post #355 what I feel needs attention if we are to prosper once again as a Nation with government "BY" the people first and foremost, and NOT special interest groups or those with money from either the Left or the Right who receive the greatest attention from whoever is elected as repayment for their enormous contributions.

 

Well said. I happen to be one of those individuals that you've just described.

 

I agree with Balbus. You guys are not doing well defending Ron Paul.

One specific issue that has been discussed here at length (and in "Libertarians protecting the environment") is that Libertarians have no workable plan for protecting the environment.

Under Ron Paul, the corporations will have free reign to pollute.

 

Sunfighters right, Ron Paul has no plan to protect the environment and that is the major issue I have with him. To give the corporations free reign to do as they please to our environment in pursuit of profits is asking for our environment to be turned into a wasteland. Just take a peek at mountain top coal removal to see what lengths these leeches will go to to make a extra dollar. Sorry but the environment should come before profit, plain and simple.

 

I seem to have missed Ron Pauls plan to give corporations free rein to destroy the environment and turn it into a wasteland. Of course you may be drawing your own conclusions, in which case it would be a waste of time trying to refute them.
Why is coal being mined?

 

Last I checked, Ron Paul is a Republican...always has been. He's not "anti government". He understands that regulation and oversight is necessary. Heck, he wants more oversight of the Fed. He just doesn't like the idea of the Federal Government foisting itself into every aspect of our lives. He wants the States to exercise more power than the Federal government. He wants to get rid of useless departments. Let's take the Dept of Education for example...

President Carter created the Federal Dept of Education back in 1976. I was 16 at the time. At that time, California had some of the best schools and curriculum in the nation. Now...Enter the Federal Dept. of Education...CA has been on a slow decline ever since. Nationally, the entire school system has been in decline, so what "exactly" has the Federal Dept. of Education done for our children? You look at curriculum in other industrialized nations and they are heads and shoulders above us now. Kill the Federal Dept. of Education and give the power back to the states' Dept. of Education as it was prior to Carter.

 

What do you think is going to happen should Paul or any other republican manage to dissolve the EPA and its restrictions on the corporate plundering of our wild spaces. There was a reason the EPA was formed and should it be dissolved we will quickly learn what those reasons were. Of course I must be drawing my own conclusions I mean corporate America should absolutely be trusted to do the right thing, their so responsible when it comesto being good stewards to environment we live in. Just look at all the wonderful work BP is doing in the Gulf, and how nice the coal industry is making West Virgina. As far as why we are mining coal, thats a really good question. The only reason I can come up with is corporate profit. If Reagan left the solar panels on the White House we would be well on our way to energy independence from fossil fuels.

 

I guess it then begs the question as to whether the EPA is even effective using that argument, wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, I might add that these federal departments are nothing more than a playground for industry insiders to gain more power. They are corrupt agencies that may "seem" effective, but are they really? You yourself used examples of environmental impacts by corporations upon the environment...where is the EPA and why isn't it doing anything to mitigate these atrocities? Need an example of the cronyism? Would you like to know who the financial advisor to the EPA is? None other than the president of MF Global...you may have heard about MF Global and how they swindled over 1 billion of investors' monies and can't account for the missing funds. Corruption anyone?
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/31...ident-still-serving-as-epa-financial-adviser/

As one who lives in a rural town in the Sierra Nevada, and an avid hiker/backpacker, SCUBA diver I appreciate keeping the environment clean. My house is 100% solar now. Ron Paul has never called for unleashing corporations onto the environment to rape and pillage....Although by using your examples, the EPA seems to be doing fine in that regard.

 

I will vote for Ron Paul if he is the Republican candidate, but not in the primaries.

 

Well Dave to see if the EPA is effective take yourself back to the late 60s when the Cuyahoga river outside Detroit was actually on fire because of all the toxic sludge that was being dumped into the river by whatever corporation had stuff to dump. Being on the other end of Lake Erie as a little kid I still have memories of the lake water being orange and dead and dying fish floating everywhere. This took decades to even begin to repair the damage and while the lake is coming back to life it will never be the same. The EPAs restrictions are the only reason all this dumping of toxins came to and end. And while the EPA is far from perfect and could use a cleaning out like everything else in Washington its all we have for now to protect ourselves and our environment from this type of thing.

 

Yes, just because regulations are imperfect doesn't mean we'd be better off without them. Far from it.

 

Yes, but everyone knows he isn't really. He's a Libertarian, which is why he isn't being taken seriously by the Republican Party and why he's dismissed by the media. Libertarians should be in their own party, but our screwed up system works against third parties, so Paul stays Republican.

 

So we allow these corrupt organizations to exist, yes? I say tear them down and start over again. Regulations are necessary, but I say burn down these organizations and begin anew. As long as "we" keep doing the bidding of the corporate media/government machine it'll never change. Obama is just Bush II. Romney is just Obama II. They will do nothing to "rock the boat". Obama appointed a former Monsanto official to the FDA for cryin' out loud!! Does anyone think that the FDA is looking out for us? Hell, it goes all the way to the Judicial Branch as well. Clarence Thomas is a former corporate attorney for Monsanto. He even wrote the declaration when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Monsanto and their right to "OWN" genetics!!

You have your opinion and feelings on it and I respect that. I trust you will extend to me the same courtesy. I do care about the environment and I have a smaller carbon footprint than most seeing as I am 100% solar, but big government needs to be overhauled and my guy is just the person to do it.

 

And I would not argue this point. I do understand the need for some regulation. I just don't see the need for huge, corrupt, self-serving entities that accumulate more and more power with each administration.

 

From Ron Paul:
"Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington."

That doesn't sound pro-pollution to me.