Rep. Ron Paul, (R. Texas)--someone even a liberal could love - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#16 05-30-2004, 01:43 PM

Posted by Jim Smith: I guess I am at a loss to find where anyone's beliefs were slammed in this thread. Seems like a thread that noted there is a Libertarian view that has been articulated by a Republican from Texas that was given a favorable review.

Then, it was also noted that it seems some people pin a Libertarian label on themselves, when they seem to set aside Libertarian priorities whenever they conflict with right-wing, or really any activities promoted by the present Republican administration. I fail to see how it cold be considered slamming someone's beliefs when it is pointed out that it appears what is going on is certain individuals are stepping off the Republican label and adopting the Libertarian label, then, from the new Libertarian podium, promoting the Republican President's positions, as if that lends some new and greater credence to them.

This is getting a little confusing. Jim

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your, as usual, thoughtful post, Jim. It stands in contrast to the post that caused you to respond. I have been remiss in not complimenting your detailed, intelligent responses. I always read them, and usually agree with them in their entirety. You definitely raise the level of discourse here.

Joe B.

#17 05-30-2004, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JimSmith
I guess I am at a loss to find where anyone's beliefs were slammed in this thread. Seems like a thread that noted there is a Libertarian view that has been articulated by a Republican from Texas that was given a favorable review.

Then, it was also noted that it seems some people pin a Libertarian label on themselves, when they seem to set aside Libertarian priorities whenever they conflict with right-wing, or really any activities promoted by the present Republican administration. I fail to see how it cold be considered slamming someone's beliefs when it is pointed out that it appears what is going on is certain individuals are stepping off the Republican label and adopting the Libertarian label, then, from the new Libertarian podium, promoting the Republican President's positions, as if that lends some new and greater credence to them.

This is getting a little confusing. Jim

Who says you have to agree with EVERY talking point on any given political party?

Personally, I DO veiw myself as a Libertarian. Even with that, there are STILL a couple of issues with the party, that I do not agree with.

The primary problem with the Libertarian party right now, is that they are SUCH a minority party at current, that not paying attention to the rest of the field, and voting according to the "lesser of two evils" when the need arises, will result in much BIGGER issues NOT being addressed in the manner that I want my representatives to support.

mikemover · #18 05-31-2004, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph Bauers
Posted by KirkVining: Now, Joe, you wouldn't be suggesting that they are hiding behind this Libertarian label for some reason?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect that most of the "Libertarians" on this board have voted and always will vote for the most right-wing Republicans available, world without end, amen.

Joe B.

And your suspicions are ENTIRELY wrong.

I know that many of you are used to being pressured to conform to the "official party dogma"....or else you're labeled a "traitor" or you're not "committed" .... but a TRUE Libertarian does not think this way.

Independent thought is a GOOD thing.

Mike

mikemover · #19 05-31-2004, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KirkVining
Haven't heard much that here. What I hear is pro-government security state, anti-gay BS masquerading as it. I think the position on the Padilla case of some might have been especially hypocritical if this is what they claim to believe.

Then you haven't been paying much attention.

I have spoken my disapproval of things this administration has done on many occasions.

I have spoken out against the Patriot Act/Homeland Security mess numerous times. There are countless ways in which this sloppy, horrible legislation comes up short....Allowing gross violations of privacy, personal liberty, due process....

Meanwhile, they're talking about giving ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS driver's licenses, work permits, voting rights, access to public schools and healthcare?!?!....

This is also grossly unfair to all those who HAVE gone through the proper immigration procedures. If you have not come to America by legal means, then you have to right to avail yourself of our services, privileges, and amenities. There is NO justification for this rewarding of an illegal act. If you come here illegally, you should be arrested and deported. And if they have any US money on them at the time of their arrest, confiscate it to pay for the cost of their arrest and transport home. Period. End of discussion.

I think Padilla SHOULD be either charged with something, or released. Right NOW. His indefinite detention without being charged is one of the worst failures of our criminal/judicial systems on record.

On the other hand, when it comes to looking for terrorists, I think we SHOULD start "profiling". It is not racist, it is common sense. More than 99% of the terrorists who have attacked us, or want to attack us, are Muslim extremists. The overwhelming majority of Muslim extremists are of Arabic descent. Why should we not be looking for Arab terrorists? If a white man robs a local convenience store, you don't go searching the neigborhood for Japanese men or Puerto Rican men, do you?.....A search of ANY kind is always more successful when you know what you're searching for, and you narrow it down to that.

I don't know where you're coming from with the "anti-gay BS" comment.

What person claiming to be a Libertarian here has said anything that could even remotely be construed as "anti- gay"?

Gays should have no less, AND no more, rights and privileges than anyone else, under any circumstances, including marriage, or "civil unions", or whatever you want to call the damn piece of paper.

I'll also remind you that I did not vote for George W., I voted for Harry Brown, libertarian.

I've also said numerous times that I disagree with just about EVERYTHING George W. has done in office, EXCEPT for the way he is dealing with the two absolute most important issues that we face today:

1. Taxes and the economy
2. Terrorism and Saddam/Iraq

I firmly support his tax cuts, although I think they should have been even more extensive.

I firmly support his fight against terrorism, and I think it must go on, for as long as it takes.

I firmly support the removal of Saddam Hussein, in spite of the Administration's bumbling and mumbling about WMD, intelligence, etc....The world is better off without Saddam. Period.

And I don't care what my "party" says about it. I vote my convictions, not what my party tells me I should vote.

I choose to align myself with the Libertarian party because the stated values, positions and beliefs of the party are closer to my own than any other party I've encountered.

But that does not mean I agree with EVERYTHING that the Libertarian party "officially" says, and probably never will.

I have also not actually "joined" the Libertarian party, and probably never will, because in my mind, becoming a member of a party is equivalent to "rubber-stamping" my agreement with EVERYTHING the party says or does, and I am not always in agreement with the Libertarian party, and certainly not with any other party.

Hell, the Libertarian Party Convention is THIS weekend IN ATLANTA, walking distance from my loft!!! But I did not go. I had no interest in going there and spending my holiday weekend debating the Iraq situation with mindless party loyalists who will just quote the mantra from the "official Libertarian party platform" instead of actually thinking for themselves. No thanks.

I have NEVER been a registered Republican, and I was only a registered Democrat from the time that I turned 18 until I learned enough to know better......I went to a public high school, and of course we were taught very little about the actual differences between the two major parties, and what they each stand for, so when they passed out the voter regisration cards to the senior class one day, I looked at it and thought to myself, "Well, we're a democracy, so I guess I'll say I'm a Democrat!"....

I've been rather embarrassed about that ever since.... But at least I know better now....Some people NEVER learn what the parties are really all about.

Well, I've jumped around enough for one post.....something about Kirk's comment just got me all fired up.

Mike

KirkVining · #20 05-31-2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
And your suspicions are ENTIRELY wrong.

I know that many of you are used to being pressured to conform to the "official party dogma"....or else you're labeled a "traitor" or you're not "committed" .... but a TRUE Libertarian does not think this way.

Independent thought is a GOOD thing.

Mike

Calling oneself a Libertarian and then supporting positions that go against the core beliefs of that movement sounds more like "hypocrisy" than "independence".

Zeitgeist · #21 05-31-2004, 11:18 AM

Imperialism SHOULD be anathema to both right AND leftwing libertarians. I find it to be puzzling at the very least...

KirkVining · #22 05-31-2004, 11:29 AM

Support for the right wing Security State is also is a rather strange position for a Libertarian to take. According to the "libertarians" on this forum, its ok to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them without trial indefinately, as is being done in the Padilla case. Since the core of the Libertarian movement is the Bill of Rights, again that sounds more like "hypocrisy" than "independence".

mikemover · #23 05-31-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KirkVining
Support for the right wing Security State is also is a rather strange position for a Libertarian to take. According to the "libertarians" on this forum, its ok to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them without trial indefinately, as is being done in the Padilla case. Since the core of the Libertarian movement is the Bill of Rights, again that sounds more like "hypocrisy" than "independence".

You really should pay more attention before you post.

Or is it that you just don't hear (or read) things that you don't want to hear?

I have already addressed every single issue you mentioned in your post (quoted above), and in your previous post. Perhaps you should read my last two posts before randomly commenting?....

Like I've already said (but you apparently didn't read it), I know you're used to being called a traitor or a hypocrite if you don't strictly and obediently toe your party line, but I am not an automaton....I think for myself, and stand by my convictions, whether my favorite political party agrees officially agrees with me or not.

Mike

mikemover · #24 05-31-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
Imperialism SHOULD be anathema to both right AND leftwing libertarians.

It is.

The difference is: You see our actions in Iraq as Imperialism. I do not.

I see it as the logical and neccessary completion of a job that was left unfinished in 1991.

Mike

KirkVining · #25 05-31-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
And your suspicions are ENTIRELY wrong.

I know that many of you are used to being pressured to conform to the "official party dogma"....or else you're labeled a "traitor" or you're not "committed" .... but a TRUE Libertarian does not think this way.

Independent thought is a GOOD thing.

Mike

The only people who call me a traitor are right wing jingoists who call everyone who doesn't agree with them a traitor. Micheal Savage and Rush Limbaugh devote themselves to it. Ann Coulter makes millions doing it writing nasty books.

I've never met anyone in the Democrratic party who berates people in the manner you describe.

mikemover · #26 05-31-2004, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KirkVining
The only people who call me a traitor are right wing jingoists who call everyone who doesn't agree with them a traitor. Micheal Savage and Rush Limbaugh devote themselves to it. Ann Coulter makes millions doing it writing nasty books.

I've never met anyone in the Democrratic party who berates people in the manner you describe.

You're so blind to it, you don't even realize that YOU are doing it!

You just called ME a "hypocrite" because I don't toe the party line on the Iraq issue "like a good little Libertarian".

Mike

KirkVining · #27 05-31-2004, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
You really should pay more attention before you post.

Or is it that you just don't hear (or read) things that you don't want to hear?

I have already addressed every single issue you mentioned in your post (quoted above), and in your previous post. Perhaps you should read my last two posts before randomly commenting?....

Like I've already said (but you apparently didn't read it), I know you're used to being called a traitor or a hypocrite if you don't strictly and obediently toe your party line, but I am not an automaton....I think for myself, and stand by my convictions, whether my favorite political party agrees officially agrees with me or not.

Mike

Your not the only "libertarian" on the forum, and not all of my comments are directed at you.

mikemover · #28 05-31-2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KirkVining
Your not the only "libertarian" on the forum, and not all of my comments are directed at you.

I'm fully aware of that. But I'm the one that's HERE and responding to you, so why do you ignore me and continue to ramble on with unfounded, undocumented generalizations? Perhaps what I'm saying is inconvenient? It doesn't fit your agenda?...

Mike

Zeitgeist · #29 05-31-2004, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
It is.

The difference is: You see our actions in Iraq as Imperialism. I do not.

I see it as the logical and neccessary completion of a job that was left unfinished in 1991.

Mike

You may call it what YOU want, but an unprovoked attack, invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation fits neatly under the classic definition of imperialism:

"1: imperial government, authority, or system 2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"

mikemover · #30 05-31-2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
You may call it what YOU want, but an unprovoked attack, invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation fits neatly under the classic definition of imperialism:

"1: imperial government, authority, or system 2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"

And you may say what you want about it, but I don't see it as "unprovoked". Saddam spent the past FIFTEEN YEARS "provoking" us.

And we are also NOT there to exert permanant "indirect control". We are about to give DIRECT CONTROL to the Iraqi PEOPLE, for the first time EVER, in case you've not heard about it yet....

Mike

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode