[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

People used their liberty to go to the polls and choose Mitt Romney, in overwhelming numbers. Don't like that sort of liberty, do you?

I find it peculiar that with these droves of Romney supporters I or anyone that I know have yet to meet one. Romney signs or bumper stickers, nonexistent. I have seen plenty of Cain, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul bumper stickers and signs though as well as met many of their supporters.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

I find it peculiar that with these droves of Romney supporters I or anyone that I know have yet to meet one. Romney signs or bumper stickers, nonexistent. I have seen plenty of Cain, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul bumper stickers and signs though as well as met many of their supporters.

Is that a claim you are ready to make?

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Is that a claim you are ready to make?

Claim? Truth. I have met some obama supporters, rare in these parts, but they do exist. I have even seen some obama signs and bumper stickers, again, a rarity. Romney? None.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Your premise was if Paul had one. How does Paul winning make me an obama shill? Paul has polled consistently well against obama. Paul also had the ability to draw voters from many circles. Libertarians would vote for him, neo-cons and statists like yourself would vote for him, unless you were lying about voting ABO.

Paul can't even win his home district after earmarking all that money for them and you folks still cling to the notion that he could win the Presidency?

You are kidding, right?

Oh, no doubt, I would hold my nose and vote for Paul over Obama, but there are too many who wouldn't vote at all if that was the choice. Ron Paul alienates as many voters as you seem to think he would draw, more probably.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Claim? Truth. I have met some obama supporters, rare in these parts, but they do exist. I have even seen some obama signs and bumper stickers, again, a rarity. Romney? None.

I never did meet anyone that would admit voting for McCain. But I've run into quite a few that think his business experience would be good to have in the white house.

Unfortunately, I'm in the political minority, even among republicans.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

What does that have to do with anything?

Ever notice how quiet the Ron Paul fanatics have become since he took his toys and went home?

Ron Paul is a perennial loser and his followers are nothing more than a bunch of selfish anarchists who used him as much as he used them.

He wanted a short cut to being president and his anti-government followers wanted to have no restrictions on their behavior.

A match doomed from the start.

That cuts through all of it very succinctly. Almost perfect. It could have used "childish" to go along with the "selfish"
but, other than that- Well Done sir!

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by countrygun

You are kidding, right?

So, you and the ABO crowed lied about voting ABO? Remember, I am just working off of your premise that Paul had won. Given the ABO crowds assertions that they will indeed vote ABO and the fact that libertarians will vote for Paul, Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney. More voters. Can you understand that?

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I never did meet anyone that would admit voting for McCain. But I've run into quite a few that think his business experience would be good to have in the white house.

Unfortunately, I'm in the political minority, even among republicans.

I voted for McCain as did most everyone that I know and we all freely admit it.

[jlavallee]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

That's wisdom. Maybe you don't know what pure liberty looks like. Ever seen it?

None of us have. We have people who try to be pragmatic about it instead of embracing it to thank for that.

[jlavallee]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

So, you and the ABO crowed lied about voting ABO? Remember, I am just working off of your premise that Paul had won. Given the ABO crowds assertions that they will indeed vote ABO and the fact that libertarians will vote for Paul, Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney. More voters. Can you understand that?

What they meant was any neo con before Obama. The idea of liberties beyond the ones they like scare the hell out of them.

[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

... Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney...

Do you really, really believe that?

Really?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by jlavallee

None of us have. We have people who try to be pragmatic about it instead of embracing it to thank for that.

I have seen pure liberty. The paradise of complete lack of governmental controls and restrictions. No Police, No Firemen, No Electricity, No EMS, No running water. No one was very happy. Many people died actually. This thing you are asking for, you don't even know what it is.

That is the difference between pragmatism, and ignorant idealism. (

I had to add the "ignorant" part now that it's clear you do not even know what pure liberty is, other than a nice sounding platitude.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Do you really, really believe that?

Really?

Most of Mitt voters are ABO voters so he wold get them plus his voters at least. So about the same chance.


....

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

I voted for McCain as did most everyone that I know and we all freely admit it.

I was talking about the primary. I voted for McCain in the General. I was pretty sure it was a wasted effort.

So might my next vote for president. Oh well. I will try to live with it as best I can.

[jlavallee]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Do you really, really believe that?

Really?

Only if the neo cons are true about their anybody but Obama claims. If that is the case then it is unquestionable.

They'd never vote to allow people to live free though. The best thing is that even if he lost, we'd win because the right wing would be exposed for what they really are and instead of the gradual break away from the right, it would happen much more quickly.

[jlavallee]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I have seen pure liberty. The paradise of complete lack of governmental controls and restrictions. No Police, No Firemen, No Electricity, No EMS, No running water. No one was very happy. Many people died actually. This thing you are asking for, you don't even know what it is.

That is the difference between pragmatism, and ignorant idealism. (

I had to add the "ignorant" part now that it's clear you do not even know what pure liberty is, other than a nice sounding platitude.

Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.

What you encourage is a goverment that has a right the people don't have. The right to initiate force. If government is a body that people entrust with certian rights to help enhance their liberty, how can government be given a right the people don't possess.

Core here is you believe that is OK. Thinking you have a right to rule others or that a group has a right to rule others is core ignorance.

[Harper]

Originally Posted by countrygun

The "Paulites' are merely trying to hang onto the illusion of being part of the Republican Party. Had Paul won they would be calling it a "great Victory for the Libertarian party".

Yeah right, Paul supporters aren't really concerned with being part of The Party. They're libertarians remember.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by jlavallee

Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.

What you encourage is a goverment that has a right the people don't have. The right to initiate force. If government is a body that people entrust with certian rights to help enhance their liberty, how can government be given a right the people don't possess.

Core here is you believe that is OK. Thinking you have a right to rule others or that a group has a right to rule others is core ignorance.

Pure liberty is anarchy. Only with anarchy, are you truly free to do anything you want.

Pure liberty is bad. A lot of liberty is a good thing. Ever hear of too much of a good thing. That's where pragmatism comes into play.


I'm curious as to how this fictitious utopia looks like in your head. Please tell us what it looks like to you.

[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by jlavallee

Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is.

Classic Ron Paul supporter cliché.

Don't you guys ever get any new material?

[Harper]

Originally Posted by jlavallee

Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.

People often frame their ideological opponents as a simple caricature. It's easier to make arguments against an imaginary opponent. People like to frame libertarians as anarchist and draw analogies to Somalia, republicans often get framed as 'the Christian Right' who are a bunch of ignorant bible thumping rednecks, democrats get framed as communists or hippies, and so on. It's much less work to demonize an entire group (imaginary or not) than to argue actual points. I've never met a Ron Paul supporter who wants anarchy or anything close.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

So, you and the ABO crowed lied about voting ABO? Remember, I am just working off of your premise that Paul had won. Given the ABO crowds assertions that they will indeed vote ABO and the fact that libertarians will vote for Paul, Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney. More voters. Can you understand that?

My last paragraph answer that wasted post of yours before you wrote it.

Do you understand that?

[Harper]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Pure liberty is anarchy. Only with anarchy, are you truly free to do anything you want.

Pure liberty is bad. A lot of liberty is a good thing. Ever hear of too much of a good thing. That's where pragmatism comes into play.


I'm curious as to how this fictitious utopia looks like in your head. Please tell us what it looks like to you.

This highlights the problem with arguing in rhetoric.
Pure liberty, anarchy, pragmatism, utopias,etc... It's like trying to play darts with marshmallows. The point is lost.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by jlavallee

Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.

What you encourage is a goverment that has a right the people don't have. The right to initiate force. If government is a body that people entrust with certian rights to help enhance their liberty, how can government be given a right the people don't possess.

Core here is you believe that is OK. Thinking you have a right to rule others or that a group has a right to rule others is core ignorance.

A rather juvenile first statement and it goes downhill from there.

" Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate. "


You do not even have the common sense to realize how asinine that sentence is. Go out and play with the other children and leave the adults alone to talk.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Harper

. I've never met a Ron Paul supporter who wants anarchy or anything close.

See the quote from jlavallee in the post above.

How much closer do you want to get?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Harper

This highlights the problem with arguing in rhetoric.
Pure liberty, anarchy, pragmatism, utopias,etc... It's like trying to play darts with marshmallows. The point is lost.

Possibly, but further discussion tends to clear things up. He started from a far off point, and now his position is better defined as group of platitudes that he doesn't fully understand.

He popped back up today, after a six month absence, either to troll a little, or because there has been a lot of bad news coming out of the Paul Camp in the last few days. It's depressing reading some of those threads.