<quote name="Levi Pearson" date="Sun, 29 Jun 2008 at 09:08 -0600"> > Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Wow, way to go guys. You fail to silence us with your superior logic so > > you revert to calling us marxist. Geez. Get a life. > > I didn't call you a Marxist. I said you guys, with your 'revolution' > rhetoric and preaching of a pure, theoretically great > political/economic system, sound a lot like Marxists did while > advocating their pure, theoretically great political/economic system.
We're not talking about purity. We're talking about law and limited government. We're not talking about a theoretically great system, we're talking about a tried and proven system that has worked. > Of course, the systems themselves were *quite* different, and I'm not > claiming you espouse their system. But you are still all to happy to bring up the connotation. > > So you don't like some sign somebody mady. Big deal. I doubt Ron Paul > > himself was all that directly involved in that particular design. It's a > > grassroots movement, remember?? > > So, I can't criticize a sign? You take offense at my criticism of a > sign? Gimme a break. Fine, criticize the sign. Don't criticize me or anyone else because of a sign. > > Ron Paul was NEVER trying to get elected. If you would read anything > > he's written you would already know that. It's always been about the > > revolution, and frankly I think we are in desperate need of it. If you > > disagree that's your prerogative, but don't call me marxist and say I'm > > in a cult. I never have called you names. Ron Paul's campaign was a > > standard to rally behind. A way to spread the message. Getting elected > > would have just been nice icing on the cake. Get your head out of the > > sand and actually learn about something before you go berating it > > blindly. And you call me ignorant. > > I don't want a revolution, thanks. I thought that was clear. And I > think I understand what his campaign and message are about. Sure thing, but you took this way out of context. See my other post. > > So do you agree with the principles or not? If you agree with the > > principles then make deductions, show your logic, debate it with others > > and maybe some will agree. If you don't agree with the principles then > > you have essentially no common ground with us 'radicals' so live by your > > own principles. > > I thought it was clear that I disagreed with you on some fundamental > ideas. Then quit arguing your logic. It'll get you nowhere. > > Why don't you try a little logic for a change. If you come up with > > different results do share. > > Well, I wouldn't be starting from the same assumptions as you, so I > clearly wouldn't end up in the same place. But we're not talking > about my results, we're talking about Ron Paul and his flavor of > libertarianism. Again, then tell me what your assumptions are. Or is it simply that "I'll give government whatever power so long as I feel warm and fuzzy about it." > > What's wrong with all those things? Personally I don't think the > > government needs ANY help overstepping its bounds. It needs every help > > to hold it back. > > They're great in many circumstances, but I believe there are > exceptions, while Ron Paul does not appear to. This is why I'm happy > to have Ron Paul as a voice for small government in Congress, even > though I don't agree with his philosophy and wouldn't want him as > President. So argue the exceptions as they occur. Don't provide this blanket statement that says exceptions are okay and provide the government with every opportunity to overstep. If the exception is important I'm sure it will get by just fine without your preemtpive philosophy that exceptions should be the rule and not the exceptions. > > You agree with the conclusions of his philosophy but not the philosophy. > > That is entirely possible. But might I suggest finding out if you truly > > disagree with the philosophies before knee-jerking out because of some > > scary words like 'revolution' and 'love'? Who knows, you might find you > > like it. Maybe your just afraid you'll be brainwashed if you do any > > homework. Who's paranoid now? > > Yes, I disagree with his philosophy. Is that so hard for you to > understand? I suppose not, but sometimes you come across as not understanding it all that well. > > Sorry this post is so inflamatory. I enjoy debating with you Levi most of > > the time, but your comments here were just outrageous and I'm calling you > > on it. I don't ask for an apology, but you have stepped over the line. > > The closest I came to a personal slight against you was saying you > sounded like a Marxist with all your calls for revolution and advocacy > for a pure political system. I apologize for associating you with > Marxists; you clearly don't espouse their values. /me humbly accepts apology > I'm afraid the rest of the offense you took seems to all be due to an > emotional attachment to Ron Paul and his campaign. Personally, I find Here's exactly where the further insulting happens. You don't know that I'm emotionally attached to Ron Paul. Yet you guys say we're cultish. You insist that we're blinded by rhetoric. > Ron Paul and libertarians in general to be advocating an outrageous > and dangerous philosophy. It looks great on the surface because it's > rather different from the current government, and it's mostly based on > the constitution and great principles, but we just have to trust him > that the consequences will actually be as good as he says. I just "Looks great because it's different?" How about looks great because it's based on the constitution, and the "new" government is what's different. I don't like the new government because it departs from the constitution. Is _that_ so hard to believe? I trust the founding fathers who deliberated over and signed the constitution. I trust the centuries of government following that maintained peace and prosperity dispite grave mistakes along the way, precicely because the constitution was remembered. Here we are about to lose our last lifeline to limited government, and all you can say is "there's exceptions to the constitution" or perhaps more accurately "the constitution allows for exceptions" but you want to treat the exceptions as the rule. And now you want ME to trust that your ideal government of trust and compromise will be as good as you claim. > don't believe it; I think full adoption of libertarian principles > would be disasterous. I know this sounds outlandish and outrageous to > you, but I suggest that that's only because you've been steeping > yourself in libertarian literature for so long. Our economy is a mess. Anything would be disastrous. Even continuing on the current course. Any fix at this point WILL be painful, I acknowledge that, I still think it's necessary. The longer we take to fix it the worse it's going to be. It's like not sucking snake venom from a wound because it will hurt. Well, bursting limbs and dissolving flesh hurt, too. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
