Quote: FP123 wrote in post #113

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #108

---

For the record, I lean conservative libertarian. I want the government to stay out of my business.

---

Your best bet to ever see that even begin to emerge in your lifetime is to insist on fidelity to the Constitution and Bill of Rights (whether or not adherence to those principles makes us feel good or not, in all cases). Political pragmatism plays a very significant role in getting us to the point that we are at.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #112

---

1. The question was on the "type" of candidate, not a particular candidate. (And the comment on that "type" of candidate stands.) And while you may disagree, emotional appeals (1577 people dying in Katrina) don't change principles. It may seem "heartless" to you, but even if 1.577 million people died there, or anywhere, it doesn't lessen the need for fidelity to principles. The kind of "pragmatism" that you describe is the type of satisficing behavior that has contributed greatly to our decline. It has to stop at some point, and it will, one way or another.

2. Apparently you've missed the point of my #2. completely. (And "anti-immigration" is a complete red herring in this discussion.)

3. Most people don't "welcome" others via a completely unfounded and gratuitous insult. (There are two sides to the whole Louisiana incidents during the 2012 primary season, but that is fodder for another thread.) Regardless of what Ron Paul supporters may have done, or not done; it doesn't justify a weak-handed play of the race and gender cards to smear Libertarians in toto.

---

Quote: Thunderbird wrote in post #116

---

Ron Paul has a racist following and has for quite a while.

---

It doesn't make Ron Paul a racist per se, but it leaves the door open for comparison.

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #113

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #108

---

For the record, I lean conservative libertarian. I want the government to stay out of my business.

---

Your best bet to ever see that even begin to emerge in your lifetime is to insist on fidelity to the Constitution and Bill of Rights (whether or not adherence to those principles makes us feel good or not, in all cases). Political pragmatism plays a very significant role in getting us to the point that we are at.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #121

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #113

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #108

---

For the record, I lean conservative libertarian. I want the government to stay out of my business.

---

Your best bet to ever see that even begin to emerge in your lifetime is to insist on fidelity to the Constitution and Bill of Rights (whether or not adherence to those principles makes us feel good or not, in all cases). Political pragmatism plays a very significant role in getting us to the point that we are at.

---

IMHO 'political pragmatism' is part of the story the cultural marxists dreamt up for those on the 'right'. Along with political pragmatism I'd include 'Free Trade', compassionate conservatism, compassionate amnesty, misinterpretation of the work of Smith and Ricardo, free movement of goods and natural persons, jobs americans can't / won't do, and short term 'profits uber alles' with no reference to patriotism or morality.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #118

---

Quote: Thunderbird wrote in post #116

---

Ron Paul has a racist following and has for quite a while.

---

A lot of racists buy Thunderbirds (and Ford products overall). Makes as much sense.

---

Quote: Thunderbird wrote in post #116

---

Ron Paul has a racist following and has for quite a while.

---

Thunderbird:

Zitat

---

. . . the underlying tone that accompanies any rejection of the Civil Rights Act is almost impossible for the average person [referring to myself here] to comprehend as not being racially motivated. It drives folk away at first blush. I certainly misinterpreted your attitudes and words as being racially motivated.

---

This is why i value reading FP's posts so much. He's very good at laying our traditional libertarian points of view. Whereas I'm good at researching sites where you can read about globalism / the NWO / world government / cultural marxism from various points of view, & laying out the corruption of our government stats, as a technical, math, and science oriented person I am constantly learning how my normal way of expressing myself can be misinterpreted by others. That being said, Steph's post sounded to me like she was calling all us libertarians racists and mysogynists.

IMHO, many misperceptions we are seeing are fueled by being drenched in political correctness that divides issues into false alternatives and produces knee-jerk responses, our being conditioned into getting information via sound bites, not reading and analysis.

How often has someone who does not believe that the GBLT community deserves special privilege say,'not that I would persecute them' as a preface?

Another example: if you don't worship at the altar of Gaia, you must have no problem with factories passing on part of the cost of production to the public at large in the form of gross pollution and environmental such as red China does.

OR if you you believe immigration ought to benefit the US, not global corporate, or those who want to expand big government, or those who want to swamp our traditional culture and ethics by demographics you are anti-immigration and pro eugenics.

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #119

---

FP thanks for patiently showing me how you came to your conclusions. That was helpful. I'm not that familiar with how Libertarians approach matters, I didn't know you were a Libertarian and I'd assume others here might be in my same category. It was a great discussion and we benefited from this chance to understand each other.

But you went one step too far [in my opinion], putting out the straight arm on Steph, calling her post "the most nonsensical post that I've read on this site! Congratulations!"

Well, that was a very big swipe at her, not just her post. She wrote the post after all, don't you see that as tantamount to calling her a nonsensical idiot? How is she not going to be offended by your harsh judgment? I'd say you should own your insult for what it was. It really was too bad because in trying to grasp how you think, that ad hominem attack was a big distraction, something that detoured the thread.

Steph countered with a pretty good point, that the underlying tone that accompanies any rejection of the Civil Rights Act is almost impossible for the average person [referring to myself here] to comprehend as not being racially motivated. It drives folk away at first blush. I certainly misinterpreted your attitudes and words as being racially motivated.

Knowing one's self isn't always as simple as it appears. Every once in a while my wife will tell me something that I've said sounds harsh. And for the life of me I don't know why. I'd say that's what Steph was getting at when she said the undertones of your "bitching about the Civil rights act being unconstitutional" are prone to alienate people.

Arguing for "States Rights" as a more cherished value than abolishing slavery also comes across the same way.

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #122

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #112

---

1. The question was on the "type" of candidate, not a particular candidate. (And the comment on that "type" of candidate stands.) And while you may disagree, emotional appeals (1577 people dying in Katrina) don't change principles. It may seem "heartless" to you, but even if 1.577 million people died there, or anywhere, it doesn't lessen the need for fidelity to principles. The kind of "pragmatism" that you describe is the type of satisficing behavior that has contributed greatly to our decline. It has to stop at some point, and it will, one way or another.

2. Apparently you've missed the point of my #2. completely. (And "anti-immigration" is a complete red herring in this discussion.)

3. Most people don't "welcome" others via a completely unfounded and gratuitous insult. (There are two sides to the whole Louisiana incidents during the 2012 primary season, but that is fodder for another thread.) Regardless of what Ron Paul supporters may have done, or not done; it doesn't justify a weak-handed play of the race and gender cards to smear Libertarians in toto.

---

1. The type of candidate who can make a difference in getting the agenda through has to be one who can actually win an election! Politics is also about strategy and math. We elect people to do certain things. When they fail to the point that it costs 1500 lives then you make damn sure to not waste your vote ever again. Louisiana learned that lesson the hard way. It went hard right after Katrina. People saw that electing corrupt and incompetent leaders can be deadly. Elections and the outcome do have some real consequences.

2. Nah, didn't miss it at all. I just disagree with you. I just don't think the R's will win any minorities as long as they are being duped by groups with a nefarious agenda. It's really not a red herring when you look at it and see who is pushing it.

3. I didn't insult you at all. How the heck could I make it personal when you never disclosed what your political affiliation was? I made a comment after searching who was behind the Civil Rights Act being unconstitutional and the links were to libertarians and Ron Paul. I said I wasn't libertarian for a reason. I gave the reason why in a previous post. I said nothing about you. If you took it personally then maybe you need to look into why.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #130

---

TM:

Zitat

---

. . . the underlying tone that accompanies any rejection of the Civil Rights Act is almost impossible for the average person [referring to myself here] to comprehend as not being racially motivated. It drives folk away at first blush. I certainly misinterpreted your attitudes and words as being racially motivated.

---

This is why i value reading FP's posts so much. He's very good at laying our traditional libertarian points of view. Whereas I'm good at researching sites where you can read about globalism / the NWO / world government / cultural marxism from various points of view, & laying out the corruption of our government stats, as a technical, math, and science oriented person I am constantly learning how my normal way of expressing myself can be misinterpreted by others. That being said, Steph's post sounded to me like she was calling all us libertarians racists and mysogynists.

IMHO, many misperceptions we are seeing are fueled by being drenched in political correctness that divides issues into false alternatives and produces knee-jerk responses, our being conditioned into getting information via sound bites, not reading and analysis.

How often has someone who does not believe that the GBLT community deserves special privilege say,'not that I would persecute them' as a preface?

Another example: if you don't worship at the altar of Gaia, you must have no problem with factories passing on part of the cost of production to the public at large in the form of gross pollution and environmental such as red China does.

OR if you you believe immigration ought to benefit the US, not global corporate, or those who want to expand big government, or those who want to swamp our traditional culture and ethics by demographics you are anti-immigration and pro eugenics.

---

(I'll step back in from my self-imposed exile from this thread since I didn't see your post until now!)

Thank you for your kind remark. Your excellent research and effort in posting so many topical links are probably more valuable in that they expose portions of a whole body of thinking, researching, and chronicling these issues over time by a lot more credible resources than a obnoxious crusty old bastard like myself! And you make some damn fine points in your own words (like this post right here!).

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #133

---

[quote=algernonpj|p16007]TM:

(I'll step back in from my self-imposed exile from this thread since I didn't see your post until now!)

Thank you for your kind remark. Your excellent research and effort in posting so many topical links are probably more valuable in that they expose portions of a whole body of thinking, researching, and chronicling these issues over time by a lot more credible resources than a obnoxious crusty old bastard like myself! And you make some damn fine points in your own words (like this post right here!).

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #133

---

(I'll step back in from my self-imposed exile from this thread since I didn't see your post until now!)

Thank you for your kind remark. Your excellent research and effort in posting so many topical links are probably more valuable in that they expose portions of a whole body of thinking, researching, and chronicling these issues over time by a lot more credible resources than a obnoxious crusty old bastard like myself! And you make some damn fine points in your own words (like this post right here!).

---