A chance for real change: Ron Paul could win the White House

[Mr. Perfect]

[AzariLoveIran]

[skyhook77sfg]

it is under difficult circumstances that moral backbone or its absence is most clearly seen

To posit Mao was compelled to act as he did by outside forces is simply false.

He had many alternatives to choose from.

The one he chose was grim.

But it was his choice.

[Demon of Undoing]

We never owed China a D9. What was that Persian saying about scratching fingers in your backside ?

[monster_gardener]

[YMix]

[monster_gardener]

[AzariLoveIran]

[monster_gardener]

[AzariLoveIran]

[Hapax Legomenon]

[Mr. Perfect]

That's more like it.

[skyhook77sfg]

Libertarianism is purely infantile in character and basically amounts to a desire for the anarchy of the jungle.

Of course, this would be denied but logically the course of libertarianism is indeed the jungle. Consider the supposed incontrovertible metaphysic of libertarianism. This metaphysic states that the only legitimate function of the state is to safeguard individual contracts. Splendid on the face of it. But what these gentlemen are asking for is basically the forced socialization of protection. Naturally, libertarians would oppose the use of the word “forced”. But their idea of “legitimate government” necessarily implies some sort of the very force that they childishly imagine their utopia would not possess. Why would their minimalist state force individuals to support the protection of others that were of no concern to the individuals in question? Also, why is there even a requirement for a state, no matter how minimalist? Why not have a situation where individuals “take care of business” by themselves?

Why, for example, would “Mr.Galt” need a police force? Why would “Mr.Galt” need to beckon the assistance or the welfare of others to help him in the event that he may feel cheated or threatened? I assume “Mr.Galt” is a big boy and big boys with big mouths ought to know how to handle adversity. But they in fact don’t know how to handle adversity. So what do they do? They construct a hypothetical state to their liking but only to their liking and they dub this state the only state morally permissible – to the neglect of course of the standards of morality known to whole and complete and community-minded western man for millennia.

Libertarianism/Objectivism is the purest negation of traditional conservatism which is about the preservation of larger wholes. Libertarians and Objectivists strive to abolish/neuter/level all higher social orders (race, ethnicity, nation, culture, faith, family) with their prescription of anarchy and their ideological poison of radical atomistic individualism.

[Azrael]

Ron Paul could get the Republican nomination if he gets enough funding; but I doubt he'll get anywhere near enough. The billionaires like their handouts.

I think that Pawlenty will get it. Palin is a joke, Newt just shot himself in the foot with his comments over Ryan's budget and Romney has Romneycare.

Daniels is of Arab descent and was involved with LSD in the past.

Pawlenty wins by default, and then loses the general election, because he'll be painted as too radical: destroying Social Security, Medicare, etc.

[Colonel Sun]

[CgDs]

[Mr. Perfect]

John McCain was hitchiking before he won NH out of the blue.

Nobody needs to worry about anything.

[Mr. Perfect]

[skyhook77sfg]

In the words of Scottish Enlightenment ecrivant savant Carmichael....


“Each man should promote, so far as it is in his power, the common good of the whole human race,
and, so far as this allows, the private good of individuals
(albeit without need for divinities of any stripe).

The requirement that we cultivate sociability is a foundation of the well-lived life
as is the cultivation of mind which involves learning to judge well the objects
which commonly stimulate our desires, and acquiring rational control of our passions.
It also involves our learning to act on the knowledge that, as regards our humanity,
we are neither superior nor inferior to other people."

from this all else follows in the logical positivism of Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle.

You might say it follows Kant's categorical imperative without following Kant.

[Mr. Perfect]

I can't think of a better description of a moderate. For everything good, against everything bad, but don't you dare make me decide what is good or what is bad.

[skyhook77sfg]

the categorical imperative is available
for help in discerning what actions are good....

categorical imperative:

in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end. “Thou shalt not steal,” for example, is categorical as distinct from the hypothetical imperatives associated with desire, such as “Do not steal if you want to be popular.” For Kant there was only one such categorical imperative, which he formulated in various ways. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” is a purely formal or logical statement and expresses the condition of the rationality of conduct rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in another Kantian formula: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never as only a means.”

[AzariLoveIran]

[skyhook77sfg]

DR PAUL JUST DOUBLED HIS CHANCES TO WIN


New American
May 21, 2011

Congressman Ron Paul issued a blistering critique of President Obama’s recent proposal for Israel to surrender its territory to pre-1967 borders and create a Palestinian state.


“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs,” the Texas Republican wrote in a May 20 press statement. “There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.”

[Azrael]

[Demon of Undoing]

No , get ready for the humdinger. For Paul to be pro- aid to Israel and nobody else would be a refutation of his entire history of views. Instead , I think he is saying that Israel should do what she wants , and do it without our aid.

Actually , he is just being consistent.