Ron Paul Wins Illinois Straw Poll!!
- Thread starter ONEBADMK8
- Start date
Maybe Rand Paul will run in a couple years.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
Paul senior was asked how he would stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and his answer was, "to become friends with them."
Is this guy for real?
He just lost all credibility, if he ever had any in the first place.
Bob.
Is this guy for real?
He just lost all credibility, if he ever had any in the first place.
Bob.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Those of the Ron Paul ilk are very good on theory. It's on reality that they lose.
KS
KS
Rep. Paul has a rather large blind spot on foreign policy and how to deal with evil in the world. Yes, if all societies were set up as Austrian utopia's "making friends" might work. But there are certain people, certain cultures and certain societies that don't allow that. His viewpoint doesn't really account for unique and restrictive cultures and societies.
When it comes to domestic policy, he is pretty good. Not so much on foreign policy (though, even in this arena, he can make some strong critiques).
Ron Paul is not his supporters.
Revolution PAC (like too many Paul supporters) supports the blind rage and nihilism behind the Occupy movements "bank transfer day". Never mind that the big banks can absorb those losses while the smaller banks will likely be driven out of business. It is not only irresponsible and wreckless, but counterproductive to their ends. They will decrease competition of small banks against bigger banks.
You go to the Revolution PAC facebook page and they were PRAISING the bank transfer stupidity.
Here is a good critique of libertarianism, IMO:
"If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne."While the Austrian viewpoint that Rep. Paul subscribes to is not the same as Rand's Objectivist Libertarianism, there is a lot of overlap. Unsuprisingly, Rep. Paul's candidacy is attracting those Objectivist nuts as well.
Moral relativism is VERY dangerous to society and Objectivism rest on it. Self-interest is not inherently virtuous or inherently evil. It is simply a fact of human nature that has different moral worth in different context.
When it comes to domestic policy, he is pretty good. Not so much on foreign policy (though, even in this arena, he can make some strong critiques).
Ron Paul is not his supporters.
Revolution PAC (like too many Paul supporters) supports the blind rage and nihilism behind the Occupy movements "bank transfer day". Never mind that the big banks can absorb those losses while the smaller banks will likely be driven out of business. It is not only irresponsible and wreckless, but counterproductive to their ends. They will decrease competition of small banks against bigger banks.
You go to the Revolution PAC facebook page and they were PRAISING the bank transfer stupidity.
Here is a good critique of libertarianism, IMO:
"If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne."
Moral relativism is VERY dangerous to society and Objectivism rest on it. Self-interest is not inherently virtuous or inherently evil. It is simply a fact of human nature that has different moral worth in different context.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
The bank transfer wasn't about taking money out of banks, it was about taking it out of BIG banks. People were encouraged to move their money to credit unions AND small banks.
And it's not just about "blind rage". Never mind the arguments about whose fault the economic collapse was. The big banks have been fukking people over for years and most people just took it without realizing there were alternatives. I for one moved my money out of JP Morgan Chase over a year ago and put it into a credit union associated with the company I work for. I only wish I'd done it years ago. Before I changed, I was paying an INSANE usury interest rate on on a credit card with Chase. Like over 25 percent. All because of two late payments over three years earlier spaced out over a year. Not only did my credit union look at my credit report and tell me it was great, but they gave me a new card with 9 percent APR!
There was no justification for the kind of rate Chase was charging. It's all about maintaining a steady flow of cash by keeping people on the edge so they can never pay off their debts. That model worked great for them while they were able to borrow themselves practically for free and sell the debts to investors who had no clue what they were buying. Now that that cash cow has dried up, they're desperate for new forms of revenue. Well, I say let them dry up and die. And so do many others.
It's probably true that the the big banks won't miss the small-time customers like the ones transferring their money to small banks and credit unions. Now that the low and middle income people they were milking for billions are no longer as reliable a source of income, they're probably glad to get rid of us. That's fine. Good riddance. Whether it hurts them or not is no concern of mine. Chase and Bank of America and the others can go pound sand.
I'd like to remind you that people taking their own money from a business where they are being ripped off and treated as scum, and moving it to a business where they get a MUCH better value is a perfect example of free markets in action. The fact that you don't see that is evidence of your own blind rage.
Credit unions are not banks.
While some may claim it is only about "big" banks, it is being dumbed down and generalized to the entire banking industry by these useful idiots.
It's "blind rage" to call OWS for what they are?!
Legitimate movements don't have to pay people to protest.
Constructive movements (and elected officials) don't legitimize and exploit the most base of human vice (envy, resentment).
Civil people don't have to create rape shelters in their protests.
Intellectually curious people aren't simply handed their "values" through misleading narratives which they don't understand and can only "defend" through grandstanding, demagoguery and desperate attempts to present their views as non-debatable while treating opposing views as beneath consideration.
Only in the most general sense is there any legitimacy to the grievance of OWS. Yes, the big banks have been screwing people for a very long time (my family included). No one is disputing that. But defending the status quo (which is ultimately what the OWS crowd is unknowingly doing) is only enshrining in power the system they rally against. They are not challenging any of the core premises that dominant system is built on. Instead they are simply directing their anger at whatever scape goat the demagogues provide them.
These are not civil people and there is no intellectual foundation for this movement. It is a mob, nothing more. The danger is that mobs based on envy and resentment can lead to tyranny.
Can anyone explain the intellectual foundation for this movement? The most I can see are attacks on anyone who questions it (the previous post being a prime example of that). Gotta maintain that strict limit of debate to support the narrative, eh?
While some may claim it is only about "big" banks, it is being dumbed down and generalized to the entire banking industry by these useful idiots.
It's "blind rage" to call OWS for what they are?!
Legitimate movements don't have to pay people to protest.
Constructive movements (and elected officials) don't legitimize and exploit the most base of human vice (envy, resentment).
Civil people don't have to create rape shelters in their protests.
Intellectually curious people aren't simply handed their "values" through misleading narratives which they don't understand and can only "defend" through grandstanding, demagoguery and desperate attempts to present their views as non-debatable while treating opposing views as beneath consideration.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
–Noam Chomsky
–Noam Chomsky
Only in the most general sense is there any legitimacy to the grievance of OWS. Yes, the big banks have been screwing people for a very long time (my family included). No one is disputing that. But defending the status quo (which is ultimately what the OWS crowd is unknowingly doing) is only enshrining in power the system they rally against. They are not challenging any of the core premises that dominant system is built on. Instead they are simply directing their anger at whatever scape goat the demagogues provide them.
These are not civil people and there is no intellectual foundation for this movement. It is a mob, nothing more. The danger is that mobs based on envy and resentment can lead to tyranny.
Can anyone explain the intellectual foundation for this movement? The most I can see are attacks on anyone who questions it (the previous post being a prime example of that). Gotta maintain that strict limit of debate to support the narrative, eh?
micahs97m8
Dedicated LVC Member
Ron Paul would make an interesting VP. He'll never be president. He's angry, and so are many Americans. He unfourtuneately doesn't have a good plan to fix anything outside of our nations borders.