Political Megathread

[stipud]

the more i look into this guy the more i fucking think he may be the solution.

Of all the American political candidate's, he's the only one that I would like to be our neighbor. He is a REAL republican, and a REAL conservative, with REAL ideas instead of fearmongering. He's a politician, not a celebrity. And, aside from his views on abortion, I agree with damn near every one of his policies.

It's amazing how he is gaining popularity, because the media doesn't cover him AT ALL. They are completely ignoring him... free media my arse. He is basically only gaining popularity through a guerrilla movement on the internet, with forums like this putting up his videos and informing people about him.

This is what convinced me, I've been a fan since then:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0[/youtube]

[Eric D]

If he is a real conservative, why has he voted against legislation which would prevent frivolous lawsuits from bankrupting the firearms industry? It is one thing for me to be able to keep my current guns, but if I cannot buy any in the future because Ron Paul has run all the manufacturers out of business, that will be pretty hard for me to kill a bear with rocks someday when I want to get a bear rifle and go hunting.

Also, what will his plan be for Americans to afford gas when it is $10 a gallon because we have removed our presence in the middle east, and they force what ever pricing they feel on us?

Ron Paul is apparently not a Republican or a Democrat. He is simply someone willing to look only at the surface of all current issues and not get down to the fundamental problems. In other words, he is just giving people what they want to hear, just like any other politician would.

[Eric D]

Let me make myself clear though, I don’t disagree with him on everything.

I love the idea of getting out of the UN, and I also like the idea of closing (securing whatever) our borders.

[stipud]

If he is a real conservative, why has he voted against legislation which would prevent frivolous lawsuits from bankrupting the firearms industry? It is one thing for me to be able to keep my current guns, but if I cannot buy any in the future because Ron Paul has run all the manufacturers out of business, that will be pretty hard for me to kill a bear with rocks someday when I want to get a bear rifle and go hunting.

I don't know about his the details on this, however I would discourage thinking in overly black and white terms. There was probably some subtext behind the issue that we are missing here, because this was not a direct vote to BAN GUNS. Paul is definitely into non-intervention... should it be the government's job to filter lawsuits? That may have been why he voted as he did on that issue.

Just don't discount the grey area completely.. just because someone comes to power doesn't mean you will lose EVERYTHING. You still had guns when Bill Clinton was in power. Ron Paul is probably the biggest supporter of the constitution and the principals of the founding fathers, which decrees the right to bear arms, so I HIGHLY doubt he would be pro-banning weapons. In fact, I think he wants the exact opposite:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o2QUJxzWsQY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9Lsfsk6BQKY

Also, what will his plan be for Americans to afford gas when it is $10 a gallon because we have removed our presence in the middle east, and they force what ever pricing they feel on us?

Don't forget that gas prices are currently as high as they are due to the instability in the middle east. Without this instability there would be no reason for these prices to be so high. Whether or not this is a temporary necessity in order to secure future oil, nobody can say. However, that was never the publicized goal of invasion of Iraq either, so admitting to this would put the current government in a lot of trouble. Here is the first video I could find where he discusses oil prices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDM8US25xXg

Ron Paul is apparently not a Republican or a Democrat. He is simply someone willing to look only at the surface of all current issues and not get down to the fundamental problems. In other words, he is just giving people what they way to hear, just like any other politician would.

You are somewhat correct. The current Republicans are definitely not the Republicans that used to be in power. The current Republicans are actually Neo-conservatives, contrary to the Conservatives that ran the party in the past. Conservatives have always led a non-interventionist foreign policy, so it is very different to see a Republican party advocating war on such a grand scale. In this sense, no, Ron Paul is no longer a Republican in the current sense of the word.

This is an issue with the American two party system. You are still voting Republican as your dad voted Republican, however the people currently in charge have greatly different viewpoints than the Republicans that your father voted for. I encourage you to read up on Neo-conservatism and Straussian theories.

He is also definitely not a Democrat, because he believes in a very minimalist government. If anything you could probably call him a Libertarian, in fact he ran as one back in the 80's.

Your argument that he doesn't get down to the "fundamental problems" is somewhat misleading, depending on whose "fundamental problems" you are talking about. Please go check out his videos on Youtube and make some informed judgements on that. I am by no means a Ron Paul bible, so you can perhaps answer some of your own concerns with a little research.

[Eric D]

Conservative…

Pro Second Amendment
Anti abortion
Pro capital punishment
Pro religion
Less taxes
Less government
Private sponsored health care
Anti welfare

Me…

Pro Second Amendment
Pro abortion
Pro capital punishment
Pro religious traditions (as in “In God We Trust” on things)
Less taxes
Less government
Private sponsored health care
Anti welfare

Republicans from many years past…

Pro Second Amendment
Anti abortion
Pro capital punishment
Pro religion
Less taxes
Less government
Private sponsored health care
Anti welfare

So what is your point? Don’t see how things have changed, especially when I am 90% in agreement with the Republicans of the past, and those of today.

War is a means to acquire the above goals. No matter how isolationist our policies become, we will inevitably have to work with (read: crush) other nations at times.

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

Republicans today may claims those beliefs but one stands out as no longer being the case: Less government.

The current elephants have implemented the exact opposite by running an enormous government.

[Eric D]

Republicans today may claims those beliefs but one stands out as no longer being the case: Less government.

The current elephants have implemented the exact opposite by running an enormous government.

So what would your plan be? Run on the idea you will reduce government and then slash it in half when elected?

Lowering the government is a slow process. In case you have not noticed, the current administration has far more priorities than lowering the size of government.

[stipud]

Eric, please read up on the roots of Neoconservatism and Straussian theory. The policies you listed are those of the Republican party, and I agree that they remain pretty much unchanged. There are huge fundamental differences in the background however.

Ryan is correct, Neoconservatism does not support less government. This is why I say Ron Paul is more of a republican than those currently in power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatives

2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[9]

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

Republicans today may claims those beliefs but one stands out as no longer being the case: Less government.

The current elephants have implemented the exact opposite by running an enormous government.

So what would your plan be? Run on the idea you will reduce government and then slash it in half when elected?

Lowering the government is a slow process. In case you have not noticed, the current administration has far more priorities than lowering the size of government.

I'm saying the government grew significantly during the Bush Administration, not that it hasn't gotten smaller than before.

I have noticed the current priorities and most of them are things outside of the USA.

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

Here is a three part video worth watching. It's fairly straight forward factual information about the Neoconservative movement, where it began and what it's currently up to.

They show interviews with many libs, cons and neocons and don't attempt to pass their own judgement on the issues nearly as much as many other movies. They provide some detailed information and let the viewer decide, which is ultimately the most important thing to do.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4838285177

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5328041876

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0319789254

I'm not suggesting watching this video will or should change anyones views. I am suggesting you watch it.

[Eric D]

Less government is open to interpretation.

Less spending?

Less employees?

Less buildings?

I have always taken it as less new laws, and more enforcement of existing laws. This is something the Republican party has had a good track record on, and the Democratic party has not.

[Eric D]

Additionally, it would be very unwise of me to listen to the teachings of two liberal Canadians as far as what a Republican is or is not.

I know myself better than you do.

I know my country better than you do.

I know I will not be voting for Ron Paul, and I know you have no ability to change that which seems to bother you.

[Bfowler]

psh, when i post "ron paul 2008" i get harped on for how he has no chance.

glad you guys are finally coming around

[bdubs767]

okay eric,

You are a conservative for sure which I have no problem with, since studying the economy and having an indep. study w/ the dean of economics this semester I stand in the middle ground of every thing, honestly, as I can see both sides argument and why they are sound. For me what usually tips me slightly into the liberal side on most topics, is MY sense of morals. Yet, I do have some questions for you and all other hardcore blind faith conservatives

1.) What do we do with the poor class?

2.) Children w/o healthcare, do we just let them die?

3.) If a women is raped do we not have the right to take away her choice in an abortion? If her birth control is defected? If her significant other some how behind her back gets her pregnant?

4.) For the capital punishment, there has been over 100 people taken off death row since DNA testing, would the death of those 100 innocent lives worth it to execute the ones that commitied the crimes? (Yes they were freed btu you get my point innocent people are put the death)

5.) Many say we need to keep our military, in the middle east to keep oil prices down, but if you are true republican you should follow Milton Freidman closely, and doing that prevents a free market. So should we prevent a free market from happening?

[bdubs767]

psh, when i post "ron paul 2008" i get harped on for how he has no chance.

glad you guys are finally coming around

thats me...I liek him but he has no chance this time. Maybe next go around, Ill prob vote for him.

[stipud]

Additionally, it would be very unwise of me to listen to the teachings of two liberal Canadians as far as what a Republican is or is not.

I know myself better than you do.

I know my country better than you do.

I know I will not be voting for Ron Paul, and I know you have no ability to change that which seems to bother you.

This is a discussion. We are all putting out our sides of the argument. If you do not want to take part in a political discussion, you can stop posting in this thread. End of story.

You come here and post your opinions just as we do. Whether or not you like anyone's opinions is up to you, however claiming that all of our opinions are null and void because we are "liberal Canadians" is pretty ridiculous. This is called a Strawman argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If I disagree with a point you make, I at least give you the honor of trying to make a point proving otherwise. In a debate, you would then counter my point, and it would continue merrily along it's way. I could just say that you don't know anything because you are some "neoconservative American", but that gets us nowhere. Your comment "I know myself better than you do" also applies for me too. For you to label me a "liberal Canadian" assumes that you know me or my political beliefs, which you clearly do not. I am definitely NOT liberal, and I am definitely NOT Canadian.

I don't care whether or not you vote for Ron Paul. I was just disagreeing with some points you made about him, in order to have a rational discussion with you. For instance, you made a point that stated that he was so pro-gun control, that you would be fighting off bears with rocks. This is absolutely untrue, and I posted proof to show otherwise. Is this proof invalid because it came from a "liberal Canadian"?

If you don't want to talk politics, then don't. However, it is not fair to come in here, spamming your opinions, and then not expect to have any counterpoints made against them. You are not the word of god, and neither am I. This is why we have these discussions, not because I want to make you a Liberal, or because you want to make me a Republican, but because it is an interesting topic that is worth rational discourse.

I highly encourage you to reread our above posts, watch the videos, and read the Wikipedia entries. Make your own judgements on them, and we'll have a discussion about the ideas brought up. If you are unwilling to do this, then you should not be having this debate.

[Eric D]

okay eric,

You are a conservative for sure which I have no problem with, since studying the economy and having an indep. study w/ the dean of economics this semester I stand in the middle ground of every thing, honestly, as I can see both sides argument and why they are sound. For me what usually tips me slightly into the liberal side on most topics, is MY sense of morals. Yet, I do have some questions for you and all other hardcore blind faith conservatives

1.) What do we do with the poor class?

2.) Children w/o healthcare, do we just let them die?

3.) If a women is raped do we not have the right to take away her choice in an abortion? If her birth control is defected? If her significant other some how behind her back gets her pregnant?

4.) For the capital punishment, there has been over 100 people taken off death row since DNA testing, would the death of those 100 innocent lives worth it to execute the ones that commitied the crimes? (Yes they were freed btu you get my point innocent people are put the death)

5.) Many say we need to keep our military, in the middle east to keep oil prices down, but if you are true republican you should follow Milton Freidman closely, and doing that prevents a free market. So should we prevent a free market from happening?

1) Take the poor children and offer them up for adoption to qualified people with enough wealth to actually support them. This will end the downward spiral they are on starting off life as poor. As for the poor parents, execute them (if you prefer, insert: “relieve them of their misery”)

2) Children without health care may fall into item one from above. If not, execute them.

3) I am pro abortion, so in all cases, abortion is the right option. Less unwanted babies means less taxes for me, and that makes for a happy me.

4) Run the numbers. The percentage of innocent put to death is very small in comparison to the criminals who are put to death or should be. So, execute them.

5) I believe in a free market economy for the USA. In the case of international economics, I am fully imperialistic. They don’t play by the same rules anyway, so we might as well take what we want from them.

Now, if you find my moral beliefs a bit harsh, there are indeed much nicer solutions. Instead of executing those mentioned, give them to a nation willing to take them in (maybe France), but you will find no nation wants our unwanted.

I have a firm belief that just being born does not give you entitlement to a free ride in society. I have no sympathy for children who are currently a burden on society and statistically will always remain as such.

[Eric D]

Additionally, it would be very unwise of me to listen to the teachings of two liberal Canadians as far as what a Republican is or is not.

I know myself better than you do.

I know my country better than you do.

I know I will not be voting for Ron Paul, and I know you have no ability to change that which seems to bother you.

This is a discussion. We are all putting out our sides of the argument. If you do not want to take part in a political discussion, you can stop posting in this thread. End of story.

You come here and post your opinions just as we do. Whether or not you like anyone's opinions is up to you, however claiming that all of our opinions are null and void because we are "liberal Canadians" is pretty ridiculous. This is called a Strawman argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If I disagree with a point you make, I at least give you the honor of trying to make a point proving otherwise. In a debate, you would then counter my point, and it would continue merrily along it's way. I could just say that you don't know anything because you are some "neoconservative American", but that gets us nowhere. Your comment "I know myself better than you do" also applies for me too. For you to label me a "liberal Canadian" assumes that you know me or my political beliefs, which you clearly do not. I am definitely NOT liberal, and I am definitely NOT Canadian.

I don't care whether or not you vote for Ron Paul. I was just disagreeing with some points you made about him, in order to have a rational discussion with you. For instance, you made a point that stated that he was so pro-gun control, that you would be fighting off bears with rocks. This is absolutely untrue, and I posted proof to show otherwise. Is this proof invalid because it came from a "liberal Canadian"?

If you don't want to talk politics, then don't. However, it is not fair to come in here, spamming your opinions, and then not expect to have any counterpoints made against them. You are not the word of god, and neither am I. This is why we have these discussions, not because I want to make you a Liberal, or because you want to make me a Republican, but because it is an interesting topic that is worth rational discourse.

I highly encourage you to reread our above posts, watch the videos, and read the Wikipedia entries. Make your own judgements on them, and we'll have a discussion about the ideas brought up. If you are unwilling to do this, then you should not be having this debate.

You chose to tell me I am not a Republican further back in this thread.

You should first buy into your own policies before you attack me for labeling you a Liberal Canadian.

[Eric D]

Can anyone please explain to me where I am going wrong here?

If you smoke weed and live in Canada, wouldn’t that make you a “Liberal Canadian”?

Living in Canada would constitute being a Canadian I would think. I suppose being a long term resident with no Canadian citizenship would make you a non-Canadian, on a technicality.

And smoking weed, last I knew that lumped someone into the hippie movement, aka, Liberal as can be. I have indeed met some conservatives who smoked weed, but when we got down to the matter, they were not conservative at all, they just did not know the difference.

[stipud]

You chose to tell me I am not a Republican further back in this thread.

You should first buy into your own policies before you attack me for labeling you a Liberal Canadian.

Please enlighten me as to where I told you "you are not a republican".

[Eric D]

You chose to tell me I am not a Republican further back in this thread.

You should first buy into your own policies before you attack me for labeling you a Liberal Canadian.

Please enlighten me as to where I told you "you are not a republican".

When you explained how I have no idea what a Republican is.

If I claim to be a Republican, but you say I don’t know what that is, I read that as you feel I am not really a Republican.

If I am in error, then my mistake.

[stipud]

Living in Canada would constitute being a Canadian I would think. I suppose being a long term resident with no Canadian citizenship would make you a non-Canadian, on a technicality.

I have Canadian citizenship, however I also have Dutch citizenship. I was born in Sweden, and my family stems from Germany and Holland. I have spent years in Europe that were far more influential to me than my entire life spent in Canada. Calling me Canadian is not even half of the picture.

And smoking weed, last I knew that lumped someone into the hippie movement, aka, Liberal as can be. I have indeed met some conservatives who smoked weed, but when we got down to the matter, they were not conservative at all, they just did not know the difference.

My choice of drug != my choice of politics. Just because you drink Miller Light doesn't instantly make you a republican. Just because you have brown skin doesn't make you a terrorist. Just because you're black doesn't mean you are a criminal. These are all poor stereotypes, which make for poor arguments. Thus my point on the strawman.

Again, you are viewing things in black and white. My political thoughts can not be summed up by "liberal" "communist", any party, or any ideology. I am a child of earth, I have grown up with numerous influences, and I make my interpretations between them as I please.

[stipud]

When you explained how I have no idea what a Republican is.

If I claim to be a Republican, but you say I don’t know what that is, I read that as you feel I am not really a Republican.

If I am in error, then my mistake.

I was bringing up the difference between Conservatives and Neoconservatives. There is a very large difference between that and saying "you dont know what a republican is".

[bdubs767]

This is what convinced me, I've been a fan since then:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0[/youtube]

watching a few of these...if anyone that doesnt think the USA is responsible for the 9/11 attacks is an idiot. Why the hell would they attack us for shits and giggles. Rudy is a fucktard

[Eric D]

It is pretty clear I have lost this argument (actually I don’t even know what the argument really is, which further complicates things), so I will just leave off with a bit of explanation as to my madness.

Today as many people know, the USA is divided. Democrats on one side, and Republicans on the other. It is wrong of me to make anything black or white. However, sifting through the grey is nearly impossible, and I am confident useful information can still be drawn from a black or white point of view. Both sides of the spectrum are highly passionate about their points of view, this does not make anyone wrong or right.

I feel this whole topic can be solved by looking at the foundation of the debate, not the surface. This foundation is two words, fantasy and reality.

Generally fantasy has a negative connotation when discussing politics, but that is not where I am going with this, nor is it what I am trying to convey. Here is an example.

At one point I had hopes and dreams. I planned to become an engineer and get a great job working for NASA. This was my fantasy.

Today I work as a maintenance man in a dirty machine shop. This is my reality.

Democrats live in a fantasy world, or at least they are trying to move society towards that fantasy. There is nothing wrong with this. A utopian society would be great. I am confident if everyone in the USA were Democrats or left in general, society would be just fine.

Now here is another example. In a utopian society as Democrats would like to see it, if someone commits a crime, they would be sent to rehabilitation and could then re-enter society and function in society. This sounds good and would be great. But this is not what happens. In our society someone commits a crime, goes for rehabilitation and then when they enter society, high numbers commit the crime again.

In a Democratic utopia, you would need no locks on your doors. Well, today all locks do is keep honest people out.

In a Democratic utopia, there would be no guns. Well, today if you ban all guns, the criminals will still have just as many, so where does that put society?

The Democrats work for a utopia on one side of the fence, and I guess the Republicans are working for their own version of utopia, which my best guess could be compared to the Wild West. Fend for yourself, make your own fortune, and use force when necessary.

To be true to yourself, I challenge anyone to read what I just posted, think about it deeper than I could post in this space, and ask yourself where do you think we stand between the “Utopia”, and the “Wild West”? Then ask yourself what direction you would like to move, and if you think it is possible for the nation to move that direction.

Democrats are pretty optimistic about the future, so I will label them the party of “optimism”.

Republicans are pretty realistic about the future, so I will label them the party of “realism”.

Does anyone agree with me, or agree with any of this at all?