Posted on 09/04/2012 1:25:02 PM PDT by Shout Bits
You lose my attention when you can’t even spell MAINE...credibility goes way down....
Boy, you are surely right. Very bad error.
Well stated.
Reagan was a grownup.
Next question.
I did not say that everything on the list was pure white truth. I certainly did not demand you agree with the list. What I was showing are common examples of how politicians sell their agenda through mild subterfuge.
You don’t hear Dems shouting “socialism,” instead they shout “justice.” That is the idea.
The point of the article is that libertarians have to play the game to hope to ever win.
Where Is The Libertarian Reagan?
Reagan was a grownup.
Next question.
Again, you miss the point entirely. Reagan was a conservative, as are you I imagine. What I am saying is that libertarians need a communicator like Reagan or Obama. I did not even imply that Reagan was a libertarian.
so you are looking for a way to deceive people - since they reject your theories
how sad is that
- doesn't have “truther” leanings and
- has some concept on the realities of modern warfare (WMDs, proxy armies, cyberterror, the risks of open boarders, etc)
Yes, exactly. Libertarians have to get away from the weirdos and ideologues if they ever want real power. Ron Paul does not need the truthers at all, and I have no idea why he refuses to renounce them. Maybe he is afraid that if the OTM picks off the low hanging fruit of his coalition, they will aim for the heart next.
“lololol
so you are looking for a way to deceive people - since they reject your theories
how sad is that”
Very sad, but that is politics, and everybody plays the game. Politics is ugly, and it always has been.
he DID NOT deceive people into buying into wackjob theories
to suggest that he did is insulting
I quite agree that libertarians need to package their ideas better.
I just don’t think this list is a very good example of doing so.
They’re either not libertarian at all or they are inaccurate.
For instance, the claim that corporate welfare is a bigger problem than welfare for individuals. It may or may not be true, that depends on your definitions and the numbers.
But “welfare” of either type is not the real problem. It’s the accumulation of entitlements as a whole, of which “welfare” is rather a small piece.
No offense intended. Your heart is in the right place, but I think you need to give this idea some more thought.
Well, I’m all in favor of that.
The problem is that increasing numbers of Americans don’t understand the Constitution at all, and see appeals to its authorities as mainly motivated by selfish desire of rich people to keep others from getting what they need in life.
IOW, when you appeal to the Constitution to justify your position I think you’re mostly preaching to the choir. Elections are won by converting people to your position.
Paul is not a truther. He has been highly reluctant to repudiate those followers who are.
You can say Paultard all you want, but the GOP just nominated a RINO, a socialized medicine advocate, and a social moderate that has been on both sides of every major issue.
I’d take Paul any day over Romney. In any event, the article was not praising Paul, but arguing that the movement has to get beyond him.
but since you did - why is he reluctant to repudiate them? part of the ‘we need to deceive’ platform?
ron paul is a fool and would be worse than obama
so you have said reagan was a deceiver - that you need to deceive so you can get power
your problem is NOT ron paul - its your wackjob ideas that you can't defend - while claiming to be the only ones that understand the constitution, you ignore what it says
and now - a romney distraction - and again - sad
Very true and well-said.
And that’s where another Great Communicator is needed.
My problem is that many conservatives don’t stop to question recent conservative positions that have no basis in the Constitution, such as the ination-building that we never seem to stop trying.
I disagree.
The Constitution is not so much about what the government should or should not do. It expresses few ideals or goals, with the obvious exception of Bill of Rights.
The Constitution, as I’m sure you know, vests the war-making power jointly in the President and Congress. It says nothing about what the goals of a war conducted under it should be. It nowhere says nation-building is prohibited. The war-making powers, except for some irrelevant quibbles about how long an army budget can be for and suchlike, is essentially unlimited.
I agree in general that nation-building is not a good idea. But conservatives should be the last people to claim that anything they disagree with is therefore “unconstitutional.” That is a good part of how we wound up in this mess, with judges “finding” new interpretations of the Constitution to suit their druthers.
Many, many disagreeable things are not unconstitutional.
True, the argument is weak. I was also thinking “common defense” not “offense”, but I recognize that’s not an enumerated power. I’m sure there is an original intent argument. But they won’t change people’s minds either.
The best argument for non-interventionism: we’re broke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.