Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

The problem here is what do these people think is liberal, because you can’t be a political (left leaning) liberal if you support economic liberalism (in its recent incarnation called Neoliberalism)

Political liberals once supported economic liberalism because they believed it would undermine the political authority of the few. Then many political liberals realised that economic liberalism had led to an economic authority that curtailed ‘liberty’ as much as political authority did and began to turn against economic liberalism - just at the point when wealth began to realise that economic liberalism granted them more power in the shape of an economic authority that favoured them.

So political liberals became seen by those on the right as ‘left-wing’ opponents because they wished to undermine the power and wealth of the few (although many on the left see ‘liberals’ as being right leaning as they are still great champions of capitalism).

In the UK at the moment we have a right wing government made up of Liberals and Conservatives.

In an American context ‘liberals’ are seen as ‘left wing’ only because much of left wing thought has been systematically purged from US society over the last 50+ years.

In neoliberal terms that is why many outside the US believe that Americans have two right wing parties with a centre right Democratic Party and are more right wing Republican Party. Right wing libertarians like Ron Paul are in this to the far right of the equation.

 

I don't now who closed this thread but it is now opened again

 

Balbus

I know you're a smart guy. Youve read lots of books and have a solid grasp on political terminology, theory, and a phd in physics for all I know. But when you start goin in to all of these concrete limitations on what and who people are, how they think, and what they want, and blah blah blah....I start to tune it out (I'm sure I'm not the only one). I think part of the problem is the wedge that is constantly being put in between all of us. And by placing everyone into your preset categories, you're only helping to swing the hammer. The only real way for the 99% to take this country back from the 1% is to stand together as a whole instead of having this intolerant gap seperating us. I think one reason why you have been perceived as being "out of touch," is because you rely so heavily on your definitions and your books, but may not realize that the majority of people can't be so simply put in neat little categories that some author sees the world as.

On May 22nd, I will be casting my vote for Ron Paul. You can tell me that makes me this, that, and whatever else you can type. You can insult my intelligence, insult my constitution, tell me I'm wrong in everything I do. Because you've read enough books to know who's what. I'll still be casting my vote for Paul and I'll put a smiley face on the bottom with a note saying "This ones for sir Balbus"

 

letlovin

LOL – I’m sure I’m not the only one that notices you are still unable to address the criticisms levelled at the ideas you support.

So unable to address the criticisms you try and attack the credibility of the critics, it’s a form of negative campaigning that is as old as the hills.

So here you try to portray me as some ‘out of touch’ book worm with not experience of the real world.

Books are just tools that give you access to information that you can be use to formulate your own opinion, but reading books doesn’t exclude you from the ‘real world’ and I certainly haven’t lived in a dusty library all my life.

I’ve lived in several countries and visited many more. I’ve been employed and unemployed. I’ve worked in the private sector and the public sector. I’ve been well off and I’ve been literally penniless. I’ve worked as a day labourer and on building sites, farms, in factories and also run my own business. And for over thirty years I have to one degree or another supported political campaigns, against racism, poverty, for political reform etc (for example being against Saddam Hussein when he was a quasi-ally of the US and getting his hand shaken by Rumsfeld) and of course I’m a father and a husband, also although I’m dyslexic and found reading difficult I went to college as a mature student and got a degree.

Oh and last week I ran the London Marathon in a time of 5:27.

Attacking someone for being well informed - as you are doing - is I believe one of the problems plaguing American culture, an anti-intellectualism that seems to think that being well informed is bad and that belief (in something they can’t defend) trumps any rational thought or argument. I’ll recommend you read - The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby who points out “America is now ill with a powerful mutant strain of intertwined ignorance, anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism.”

Rather than attacking the critics why not wonder why you can’t refute the criticisms.

 

letlovin

Many ideologies throughout history begin my asking for unity, move on to attacking any dissenters who ‘drive a wedge’ into it the supposed unity and end by imposing a ‘unity’.

You and your fellow ‘believers’ want dissenters to be ignored or attacked as driving a wedge into the ‘unity’ you’d like to have, but you can’t defend your ideas from rational and reasonable criticism?

Unity behind a bad idea doesn’t make that idea any less bad.

For example take this statement – you want us to follow you political view even when you are still not able to defend those ideas from the charge that they would vastly increase the wealth and power of the few at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

That basically your ideas are trying to con the 99% into giving the 1% even more power.

I’m sure you will vote for your ideas the problem is that you and none of the other supporter of it can defend it from criticism.

 

You know, Balbus, what I posted was a comment on how I was unaware of how well Ron Paul was doing. I also posted a video of some people's reaction to hearing a Senator endorsing Mitt Romney at a convention. What did you read into that, that you would call me a braying Right-Winger?

 

storch

That the question isn’t if he has support but should he be supported - I mean look at this thread there are a number of Ron Paul supporters but not one of them has seems able to defend his right wing libertarian ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them.

To me if ideas cannot be defended in any rational or reasonable way then they are frankly bad ideas.

 

Well, that doesn't answer my question.

But anyway, I don't know which candidate you support, but I don't think you're capable of defending their illegal wars, the continuation of those wars, the threat of war against a country based on no evidence of nuclear weapon ambitions, the continuation of illegal institutions--crimes that you believe are neither here nor there when it comes to the economic health of the U.S.

What is the basis of your support for these guys?

These topics are covered in other threads, and will be addressed there should anyone care to discuss them.

If a Baptist minister told you that it's wrong to steal, and he also said that gays should not be tolerated, would you be so blinded by your hate for Baptists that you would call his teaching on stealing fucked-up Baptist ideology? Or would you say that some of his ideas are good and some of them are not so good?

Personally, I frown on the whoesale slaughter of human beings based on lies. But that's just me.

 

It comes downto this.....no one will ever be able to defend your criticisms to your satisfaction. No one. In the same way that no one could ever defend my criticisms of, say, communism. Communism is not what I want. You don't want Ron Paul, or anyone like him. A communist can sit down and explain to me why communism is awesome, and all the ways it makes it so. But I will never accept that, because I believe otherwise. This is what we have here in this thread with you and Ron Paul.

 

Although I don't know for sure who deserves credit for this, but it appears to be quite effective in political discussions today.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

Quite often what is easily seen to be unreasonable and/or irrational can be made to appear more acceptable by the pseudo scientific insertion of emotion.

 

storch

Yes it does - you made the comment that you were not aware of how well Ron Paul was doing eg supported - and then posted a video of some right wingers braying for another right winger at a convention of right wingers.

I then pointed out that it didn’t matter if he has support the question was should he be supported and then pointed to this thread where a number of Ron Paul supporters have been totally unable to defend his right wing libertarian ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them.

I’ll repeat - if ideas cannot be defended in any rational or reasonable way then they are frankly bad ideas.

LOL – where were you?

I was here back when the hordes of right wingers were attacking anyone on the web and on this site that argued against the neo-con actions and their stupid policies and war mongering.

Outside of hipforums I was an active member of the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ going to meeting and demonstrations helping to organise meetings and demonstrations standing on cold and windy street corners handing out flyers and walking miles going door to door.

My views are public and on record and at the time it was happening, you only need to look in hipforums archives.

But as I point out here (back in 2008) Neo-cons fall, who’ll rise on the right?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=333692&f=36

Just because one right wing neoliberal faction might go out of favour that doesn’t mean that right wing neoliberals go away.

So do I - but like most lefties I’m against it because it is morally wrong it seems to me that many right wing libertarians are against it because they think it expensive to do.

Oh and as to the economic health of the US - right wing libertarians still seem unable to defend their ideas form the charge that their ideas would make things much worse for most Americans (while serving the interests of a few).

 

letlovin

And again evasion and misdirection and excuses for why you will not address (let alone try and refute) the criticisms of your ideas.

Thing is that I’m against ideological communism as much as I’m against ideological neoliberlism. Oh and guess what I’ve read a number of books on both of them as well as debating with the supporters of both.

Well at least the nice communist has done that for you - I’m still waiting for right wing libertarians to explain why their ideas are supposedly so awesome in any rational or reasonable way.

And that seems to be your problem - you are basing your opposition on belief rather than rational or reasonable argument.

Meaning you are then unable to defend your ideas in any rational or reasonable way, because they are not rationally based they are just an irrational and unreasonable belief system.

 

Indie I agree - that is exactly what the right wing libertarians have been doing.

I mean look at all the evasion and misdirection and excuses they use to get out of addressing any criticism of their ideas.

I’ll repeat - if ideas cannot be defended in any rational or reasonable way then they are frankly bad ideas.

 

The problem is that most right wing libertarians don’t even try to defend them and when some do they seem to realise that their ideas can’t be defended in any rational way so they end up doing what they have been doing in this thread making excuses for mot replying, trying to misdirect and frankly using every other evasion tactic they can.

I’ll ask the question I’ve often put – why if you cannot defend these ideas do you continue to hold on to them?

I mean if I had ideas I couldn’t defend I’d change or drop them why don’t you?

 

Because the can, and have been defended. Just because it doesn't satisfy you doesn't mean it doesn't satisfy me....or millions of other people

 

It could be media conditioning and indoctrination. It trains a person to turn off critical thinking and make decisions by subliminal, feel-good messages.

For example: If you drink our beer, bikini babes will fall from the sky… now go buy our beer.

As bizarre as that sounds it must work because advertisers would not spend that kind of money if it didn't work.

 

Wrong again, Balbus. I am not a Ron Paul enthusiast. Nor am I a right-winger. And from what I read from Letlovin' posts, neither is he. You have become addicted to the term to the extent that, when someone makes a comment about people's reaction at a convention, or how the media is distorting the facts of someone's progress, you emotionally interpret it as a full-out assault on common sense politics. I say "emotional" because name-calling and back-handed insults are the hallmark of someone having an irrational response to statements they don't agree with or don't want to hear.

I plainly asked you which candidate you support. Instead of answering plainly, I get more emotion--and diversion--in the form of a rant containing little more than an unasked for rundown of your public service in the name of peace. When I pointed out that the past president engaged in illegal wars based on lies, and that the present president continues to support those wars, besides threatening another country with war based on no evidence of a crime, and the continuation of the illegal theft of this country, do you recall how you responded to that? You didn't.

You say you're against warmongers. So, which warmonger and accomplice to grand theft do you support? My next request will be for you to defend their very bad ideas. But first things first; which warmonger do you support?

 

By the way, there's an excellent thread in the Politics Forum which explains in no uncertain terms the grand theft of the American people that I accuse the other candidates of being accomplices to. Being accomplices to theft is a quality that I just can't come to accept when it comes to choosing a president.

 

Wow, I failed to mention that all of the warmongers also support Israel in its illegal building of settlements. So, we have supporters of illegal wars, supporters of illegal financial institutes, and supporters of another country's illegal activities. At what point do you say, "Holy crap, man, that's a lot of lawlessness!"?

 

Later, then.