Libertarians For Obama

Michael S:

Jon Irenicus:

You must learn about humility, a virtue you utterly lack. You must learn about accepting defeat. Your views were defeated by voters in America and those voters were supported by cheerful people all over the world. Are you pretending that you alone are right and that half of humanity alive is wrong and we all must learn from you? Come down and get real. Get used to the new world order of inclusion, not the exclusion you promote. T'es pas un peu fou?

Since when is truth decided by a ballot box? And since when is democracy anything but a sham, a delusion, basically choosing between two very undifferentiated products, being forced to consume one of the two regardless of how one votes? As Mencken said, Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.

-Jon

Democracy is a fraud but I'm curios..... Couldn't they actually use democracy when it benefits them (the few elites) the most ( I.E not rig the election, actually count the votes and etc)?

or perhaps they invented democracy just for this purpose.

Juan:

Ruben, you are intellectually bankrupt. You're the supporter of a criminal. You still have to explain why the "opinions" of government are above the "opinions" of dissidents. Until you do that you're a poster child for intellectual dishonesty.

A good government should take into account the opinions of dissidents. Supreme court rulings are full of dissents and are equally quoted along with the verdicts. It is just a matter that a choice must be made by society, and society by large chooses majority rule with provision for dissenting voices to be heard.

I am surprised how some people in this forum whine so much whenever they read posts that do not conform with their closed minds.

 

Rubén:

Juan:

Ruben, you are intellectually bankrupt. You're the supporter of a criminal. You still have to explain why the "opinions" of government are above the "opinions" of dissidents. Until you do that you're a poster child for intellectual dishonesty.

A good government should take into account the opinions of dissidents. Supreme court rulings are full of dissents and are equally quoted along with the verdicts. It is just a matter that a choice must be made by society, and society by large chooses majority rule with provision for dissenting voices to be heard.

I am surprised how some people in this forum whine so much whenever they read posts that do not conform with their closed minds.

 

You deserve the country you have, honestly.

 

 

I take having a "closed mind" to mean affirming the existence of objective ethics and denying the relevance of subjective ones.

At any rate, you completely ignored Juan's challenge; how can a government legitimately make decisions for people who do not consent to their ruling?

Ruben, you just keep on refusing to give a honest and straight answer. Only 60 millions voted for obama. Why should the 240 millions who didn't vote for him be bounded by whatever deranged decisions he comes up with ?

Let me remind you about your clever political philosophy : everybody is entitled to have 'opinions' and there are no right or wrong opinions.

Why is that politicians have the right to give orders to their subjects ? Is it a fact that politicians give orders and jail dissidents ? Or is just an opinion ?

Michael S:

it did seem that way. Whats with all the name calling? I am not a hypocrite!

You told me I shouldn't judge people, while judging me.  By definition, that action is hypocritical; please note, I said *action*, not *you* as a person, as i know nothing about you other than your words & actions on this forum.     

Michael S:

I told you that your "passing observation" was wrong, yet you still want to believe that it is right. Yes, you did make a (unfair) judgment.

That you continue to make an argument out of something which ,essentially, amounts to me not agreeing with you, is only reinforcing my opinion of you being a bit childish as not unjustified (note: not necessarily correct, but not an unreasonable perception, either). 

Essentially, while you think my passing observation is wrong, in my perception, your continued actions, to me, say otherwise.  I believe this falls under the category of constructive criticism, not libel.    

I do not apologize for having an opinion. I still think you are over-reacting.  

Michael S:

I'm not yelling at you I'm trying to educate you! Sure I might challenge you or I might challenge your comfort zone/level or what have you but I never judged you! I know that I use the wrong word sometimes. I do not have a college edumacation or a PHD, MD,  MBA, NFL,  NBA, NCAA, IRS, CIA or NASA like half the users of this forum.

1.) "Yelling" was an exageration, similar to your call of "what's with all the name calling?" is an exaggeration.

2.) I'm not threatened at all by you, nor do I have some type of comfort zone on this forum.  Your attempt to paint me as some unreasonable, older use talking down to a newer user is odd & unwarrented.

3.) I do not have a "college edumacation" either (incomplete one, actually).     

Michael S:

Your putting words in my mouth again! I never told you to stop judging other people. I was trying to tell you why you should not judge people, There is a big difference! You can live your life however you want to live it. Is it that bad or wrong to stick up for yourself? people disagree all the time, just because someone is different then you and you disagree with someone and, doesn't  give you the right to judge them. Instead of judging people try to understand them. Do whatever floats your boat, Just don't judge me in the process ok?

Is it that bad or wrong to stick up for myself?  People disagree all the time.

"The gun" was referrence to a phrase "the gun in the room".  I essentially said, nothing sort of physical force would stop me judging you or others, & if said physical force did not infact kill me, I would continue to judge.  Basically: "make me stop judging you, or anyone else." 

Odd; in all of this pointless argument that you desire to continue, I've never once said "stop judging me".  Why is that?   

I will judge whomever I want and/or need to.  If I didn't judge anything at all in life, I would not be here, let alone anywhere else. 

Additionally, if you desire to continue this, I suggest you message me instead, because the argument is fragmenting the thread itself.  There is no guarantee I will respond, however, as I view this argument as largely a personal one, on your part, that has run it's course.

Solomon:

I take having a "closed mind" to mean affirming the existence of objective ethics and denying the relevance of subjective ones.

Bingo.

Solomon:

At any rate, you completely ignored Juan's challenge; how can a government legitimately make decisions for people who do not consent to their ruling?

This can't be answered objectively by a statist.  They can only answer it with subjectivity and obfuscation.

GilesStratton:

Rubén:

Juan:

Ruben, you are intellectually bankrupt. You're the supporter of a criminal. You still have to explain why the "opinions" of government are above the "opinions" of dissidents. Until you do that you're a poster child for intellectual dishonesty.

A good government should take into account the opinions of dissidents. Supreme court rulings are full of dissents and are equally quoted along with the verdicts. It is just a matter that a choice must be made by society, and society by large chooses majority rule with provision for dissenting voices to be heard.

I am surprised how some people in this forum whine so much whenever they read posts that do not conform with their closed minds.

 

You deserve the country you have, honestly.

I am extremely proud of my country. I am proud of its history, I am proud of its culture of inclusion (until recently), I am proud of our sense of humor. I am proud of its climate and its natural scenary.

Of course I deserve the country I have. I have lived abroad many times and I have always returned to my beloved homeland.

I have disagreements with the system of government exactly as all of you have with your own countries and governments.

 

Juan:

Ruben, you just keep on refusing to give a honest and straight answer. Only 60 millions voted for obama. Why should the 240 millions who didn't vote for him be bounded by whatever deranged decisions he comes up with ?

Let me remind you about your clever political philosophy : everybody is entitled to have 'opinions' and there are no right or wrong opinions.

Why is that politicians have the right to give orders to their subjects ? Is it a fact that politicians give orders and jail dissidents ? Or is just an opinion ?

I am also against jailing dissidents. It is an obvious and unfortunate fact.

Rubén:

Juan:

Ruben, you just keep on refusing to give a honest and straight answer. Only 60 millions voted for obama. Why should the 240 millions who didn't vote for him be bounded by whatever deranged decisions he comes up with ?

Let me remind you about your clever political philosophy : everybody is entitled to have 'opinions' and there are no right or wrong opinions.

Why is that politicians have the right to give orders to their subjects ? Is it a fact that politicians give orders and jail dissidents ? Or is just an opinion ?

I am also against jailing dissidents. It is an obvious and unfortunate fact.

Is being intellectually honest that difficult? Why do you even bother posting?

For our sakes please remove yourself from these forums.

 

GilesStratton:

Is being intellectually honest that difficult? Why do you even bother posting?

For our sakes please remove yourself from these forums.

"Intellectally honest" sounds very vague to me. I bother posting for the same reason than you do, because I want to.

I am not to be coerced by you to remove myself. That is an attempt against my own freedom.

Rubén:

I am extremely proud of my country.

Then you're a fool. A country is nothing more than lines on a map, decided by for the good of our masters.

Rubén:

I have disagreements with the system of government exactly as all of you have with your own countries and governments.

No you don't. The vast majority of us are sincere anti - statists, you simple are not anti state in the slightest. You say you detest Chaves and yet you are hysterical about the American version of him. What I meant when I said you deserve the country you have is that you deserve the state you have, and you deserve any burdens your leaders put on you.

Rubén:

"Intellectally honest" sounds very vague to me.

Well, it's easy. Juan made a post which you were unable to answer it and rather than admit the flaws in your ideology you dodged it.

Rubén:

I am not to be coerced by you to remove myself.

 I'm not coercion you, I'm advising you.

Rubén:

That is an attempt against my own freedom

You don't have freedom here, just as much as you don't have freedom in the owner of this sites house.

Rubén:

"Intellectally honest" sounds very vague to me.

I'd guess that he'd simply like to see a straightforward answer to one of the many unambiguous questions which have been put forth in this thread.

For example: Why do politicians, or state employees in general, have powers that we may not have? How is this justified?

GilesStratton:

Rubén:

I am extremely proud of my country.

Then you're a fool. A country is nothing more than lines on a map, decided by for the good of our masters.

Rubén:

I have disagreements with the system of government exactly as all of you have with your own countries and governments.

No you don't. The vast majority of us are sincere anti - statists, you simple are not anti state in the slightest. You say you detest Chaves and yet you are hysterical about the American version of him. What I meant when I said you deserve the country you have is that you deserve the state you have, and you deserve any burdens your leaders put on you.

Well, Obama and Chávez are not the same at all. Chávez promtes exclusion, Obama promotes inclusion.

Do you have any suggestions on how to remove countries from existence and removing lines from maps, practically. I read here lots of theory and an utter failure to propose any viable solutions whatsoever.

If there is anything I learned from anglo-saxon culture while I lived abroad, was to concentrate on practical issues instead of theoretical theses than often lead nowhere in the real world.

GilesStratton:

You don't have freedom here, just as much as you don't have freedom in the owner of this sites house.

Of course I have freedom here. I have been able to post anything I have wanted so far. The owner of this site gave me permission to do so when I first enrolled.

Sphairon:

Rubén:

"Intellectally honest" sounds very vague to me.

I'd guess that he'd simply like to see a straightforward answer to one of the many unambiguous questions which have been put forth in this thread.

For example: Why do politicians, or state employees in general, have powers that we may not have? How is this justified?

Society decided through its cultural exchanges to grant such powers.

Rubén:

Society decided through its cultural exchanges to grant such powers.

Society is a collective. It can't act to grant anyone powers. Only people can act. Most people decide to grant government those powers and the others are coerced into being ruled by them.

Rubén:

Society decided through its cultural exchanges to grant such powers.

Who is society?  What gives another group of people, either my ancestors or other citizens, the right to decide to grant powers over me, if I do not agree?  Am I not sovereign?

Rubén:

Sphairon:

Rubén:

"Intellectally honest" sounds very vague to me.

I'd guess that he'd simply like to see a straightforward answer to one of the many unambiguous questions which have been put forth in this thread.

For example: Why do politicians, or state employees in general, have powers that we may not have? How is this justified?

Society decided through its cultural exchanges to grant such powers.

Okay, so how does my society get them back?

Nitroadict:

Michael S:

it did seem that way. Whats with all the name calling? I am not a hypocrite!

You told me I shouldn't judge people, while judging me.  By definition, that action is hypocritical; please note, I said *action*, not *you* as a person, as i know nothing about you other than your words & actions on this forum.     

Michael S:

I told you that your "passing observation" was wrong, yet you still want to believe that it is right. Yes, you did make a (unfair) judgment.

That you continue to make an argument out of something which ,essentially, amounts to me not agreeing with you, is only reinforcing my opinion of you being a bit childish as not unjustified (note: not necessarily correct, but not an unreasonable perception, either). 

Essentially, while you think my passing observation is wrong, in my perception, your continued actions, to me, say otherwise.  I believe this falls under the category of constructive criticism, not libel.    

I do not apologize for having an opinion. I still think you are over-reacting.  

Michael S:

I'm not yelling at you I'm trying to educate you! Sure I might challenge you or I might challenge your comfort zone/level or what have you but I never judged you! I know that I use the wrong word sometimes. I do not have a college edumacation or a PHD, MD,  MBA, NFL,  NBA, NCAA, IRS, CIA or NASA like half the users of this forum.

1.) "Yelling" was an exageration, similar to your call of "what's with all the name calling?" is an exaggeration.

2.) I'm not threatened at all by you, nor do I have some type of comfort zone on this forum.  Your attempt to paint me as some unreasonable, older use talking down to a newer user is odd & unwarrented.

3.) I do not have a "college edumacation" either (incomplete one, actually).     

Michael S:

Your putting words in my mouth again! I never told you to stop judging other people. I was trying to tell you why you should not judge people, There is a big difference! You can live your life however you want to live it. Is it that bad or wrong to stick up for yourself? people disagree all the time, just because someone is different then you and you disagree with someone and, doesn't  give you the right to judge them. Instead of judging people try to understand them. Do whatever floats your boat, Just don't judge me in the process ok?

Is it that bad or wrong to stick up for myself?  People disagree all the time.

"The gun" was referrence to a phrase "the gun in the room".  I essentially said, nothing sort of physical force would stop me judging you or others, & if said physical force did not infact kill me, I would continue to judge.  Basically: "make me stop judging you, or anyone else." 

Odd; in all of this pointless argument that you desire to continue, I've never once said "stop judging me".  Why is that?   

I will judge whomever I want and/or need to.  If I didn't judge anything at all in life, I would not be here, let alone anywhere else. 

Additionally, if you desire to continue this, I suggest you message me instead, because the argument is fragmenting the thread itself.  There is no guarantee I will respond, however, as I view this argument as largely a personal one, on your part, that has run it's course.

This discussion ends here because you are wasting my time taking everything I say out of context!Do you keep taking everything I say out of context just so you can keep arguing with me and/or so you can portrait yourself as being a tough guy? If that is true, You can take that bully crap elsewhere! Not judging people has to do with being humilty and it's a strength not a weakness. you are creating problems where none exists!

Does judging people make you feel good about yourself or So you seem to win or perhaps you think you are perfect or think that you are better then everyone else? noone is perfect, including you! 

In all your replies, you always accuse me of judging you! Yet you do not prove me judging you. prove it.

Not judging people is being humilty and it's a strength not a weakness. To Show you what i mean by saying you shouldn't judge people , I will tell you a story about a man who owned his own business and who's business had money problem. this story will show you the consiquences of him blaming his employees instead of him blaming and fixing the real cause (himself)! if you don't want to know this story then I and noone else will be able to help you!

If you think everything I said on this thread was a lie then call me a liar, If you do be prepared to get debunked!

Rubén:

Society decided through its cultural exchanges to grant such powers.

Hmm.  There's one I haven't heard before.

Even if one assumes that society is an active agent (not a well thought-out idea), in no sense does this imply that it has certain powers that it can grant ('delegate' is the legal term if I'm not mistaken) to some of its members called the state.  Forget how society gives the right to tax, murder, conscript, &c. to the state; just how the hell did it have the right to do those things in the first place?!

Byzantine:

Not really.  We're just counting to see who could field the biggest army and instead of fighting, we just concede the point right there.

How does this bring us back to the subject: "Libertarians supporting Obama"?

Are there any libertarians who actually support Obama?

I predict he's going to be one of the most socialistic Presidents we've had, on par with Mr "you can't get rid of me until I die" FDR. And he's also entering his term during tough economic times. This is going to be 8 years in hell (I doubt he'll be allowed to lose reelection).

Yes, there are.  They are people who claim to be libertarians and support the invasion of Iraq as well as a central bank.  Libertarians who believe the Patriot Act keeps Americans safe.

They are not libertarians then.

Nope, but many are LP members, and have no problem telling non-libertarians that what they stand for is libertarianism.

The remnant is a lot smaller than many of us think it is.  Very small.

I guess the best way to destroy the movement is to pretend being part of it but that denounce everything it stands for.

Or to misrepresent it as pseudo-Republicanism, and then use it as a recruiting tool for people to participate in the big leagues.