The Revolution needs you to vote for Obama

jmdrake said:
You've been the main one throwing around insults. And not just at me.

I disagree with your assessment that your idea "helps our cause", but you're free to believe what you want.

Do what you want. I'm not trying to control you.

If you ask for someone to point out the problem with your logic, don't get mad when they do what you ask.
Click to expand...

I've been under attack by narrow minded asshats from the beginning of this thread. It sucks that there are so many rednecks on this forum that a person can't present an unorthodox idea without a chorus of people shouting Troll at them.

I didn't "get mad" because of people questioning my logic, it's the snarky bullshit that goes with it that bothers me. Maybe I misinterpreted some of your statements. Maybe I didn't. Who cares now?

Giving you facts is not "circular reasoning". For example I linked to actual evidence that Clinton didn't "inherit prosperity". But you're so sold on your own ideas that you view any refutation of them as an "attack" or "circular" even if you don't present any counter facts.
Click to expand...

Your evidence that Clinton didn't inherit prosperity ignored the fact that most people perceived the economy as stable compared to now. I don't have time to follow every detour you try to use to derail the conversation.

You aren't interested in an honest debate imo, you're looking for someone to take out some pent up emotions on. That's not me.
 
jmdrake said:
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Click to expand...

Right. A winner is anyone who agrees with you.

And you accuse me of being rigid in my thinking. I'm not wasting anymore time with you.


Let's say you overpowered me with brilliance and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
1. Ten voters who believe in non-interventionism and following the Constitution are worth more to this movement than 1,000 disillusioned voters who are disappointed in the performance of their pro-socialist, pro-interventionist President.

2. Consolidation of voters around one of Ron Paul's positions is more likely to occur over Foreign Policy than economic policy. McCain is more likely to put the final coffin nail into the neocon Foreign Policy than Obama. Consider if Gore had won the last election and did not invade Iraq, there would be a lot less talk of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy. There would be virtually no one talking of pulling troops out of Germany, Japan, and Korea.

3. The very best outcome for the freedom movement is for third party's to throw the outcome of a number of battleground states. This will bring a significant amount of publicity to the popular positions of those third parties, sending fissures threw the two party duopoly.

Therefore vote Barr, Baldwin, or Nader. Do not vote Obama.
 
haigh said:
1. Ten voters who believe in non-interventionism and following the Constitution are worth more to this movement than 1,000 disillusioned voters who are disappointed in the performance of their pro-socialist, pro-interventionist President.

2. Consolidation of voters around one of Ron Paul's positions is more likely to occur over Foreign Policy than economic policy. McCain is more likely to put the final coffin nail into the neocon Foreign Policy than Obama. Consider if Gore had won the last election and did not invade Iraq, there would be a lot less talk of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy. There would be virtually no one talking of pulling troops out of Germany, Japan, and Korea.

3. The very best outcome for the freedom movement is for third party's to throw the outcome of a number of battleground states. This will bring a significant amount of publicity to the popular positions of those third parties, sending fissures threw the two party duopoly.

Therefore vote Barr, Baldwin, or Nader. Do not vote Obama.
Click to expand...

1. Can you explain why?

2. Interesting. Won't McCain play both sides of isle like he's done before?

3. Do you have some numbers to show that we can make such a difference?

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.
 
Fuck that shit! Vote third Party!

I will not abandon my principles!!!

Onward Patriots of the Republic!!!
 
neocon victory

haigh said:
1. Ten voters who believe in non-interventionism and following the Constitution are worth more to this movement than 1,000 disillusioned voters who are disappointed in the performance of their pro-socialist, pro-interventionist President.

2. Consolidation of voters around one of Ron Paul's positions is more likely to occur over Foreign Policy than economic policy. McCain is more likely to put the final coffin nail into the neocon Foreign Policy than Obama. Consider if Gore had won the last election and did not invade Iraq, there would be a lot less talk of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy. There would be virtually no one talking of pulling troops out of Germany, Japan, and Korea.

3.The very best outcome for the freedom movement is for third party's to throw the outcome of a number of battleground states. This will bring a significant amount of publicity to the popular positions of those third parties, sending fissures threw the two party duopoly.

Therefore vote Barr, Baldwin, or Nader. Do not vote Obama.
Click to expand...

2. is scary because that's neocon thinking, which is based on Hegalian dialectics. You think a McCain presidency will precipitate history, or war, or whatever disaster that you think would make our message more "appealing."

I believe that most Americans don't want to be in a war and are upset with the present state of affairs. Ron Paul at the National Press Club, did mention "the lesser of two evils." A vote for a third party, would, in my opinion, lead to an Obama loss.

Here's an interesting article on Ron Paul's effect on the 2008 elections. Our message has been co-opted for nefarious causes. It talks about Palin.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/74053
 
phree said:
1. Can you explain why?

2. Interesting. Won't McCain play both sides of isle like he's done before?

3. Do you have some numbers to show that we can make such a difference?

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.
Click to expand...

1. Take the fiasco known as Social Security. It's very hard to find anyone who will tell you the government has done a good job. Simultaneously there are few people, except us few libertarians, who advocate that the government should be out of the retirement business. It is about ideas. Once someone buys the idea the government should be in the retirement business their most likely reaction to a fiasco is to blame bad management and look for someone who will promise them good management. On the otherhand someone who already has the idea that government should not be in the retirement business has strong arguments that have the potential to permanently change another person's outlook.

I do agree that the disillusionment Obama is likely to create in government has potential for the freedom movement, but that potential can cut both ways. The influence of a committed and articulate libertarian is far more bankable. for the freedom movement.

2. The scenario I'm suggesting is McCain jumping into another foreign intervention, say Georgia, and the adventure going terribly wrong. The number of voices calling for the US to bail out of NATO would increase dramatically. McCain would be stuck like Bush, defending his actions.

3. I follow www.electoral-vote.com and watch the battleground states go back and forth. If one of those states say FL goes 48% McCain, 49% Obama, and 3% Barr, Barr and the Libertarian Party will draw a lot of attention. Which states will be close and how Barr will do is all speculative at this point, but it argues that the libertarians should consolidate around one candidate, even if they have to hold their nose. With the closeness of many states they could impact the outcome of the election. It would be historic for the libertarian movement.
 
zara oly said:
2. is scary because that's neocon thinking, which is based on Hegalian dialectics. You think a McCain presidency will precipitate history, or war, or whatever disaster that you think would make our message more "appealing."

I believe that most Americans don't want to be in a war and are upset with the present state of affairs. Ron Paul at the National Press Club, did mention "the lesser of two evils." A vote for a third party, would, in my opinion, lead to an Obama loss.

Here's an interesting article on Ron Paul's effect on the 2008 elections. Our message has been co-opted for nefarious causes. It talks about Palin.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/74053
Click to expand...

...neocon...hegalian..set aside philosophy for just one moment...I'm talking tactics....Consider how the fiasco in Iraq has caused a real focus on a non-interventionist foreign policy. In my many years of voting libertarian I don't recall an election that every had so much focus on foreign policy. Iraq's disaster really helped drive a lot of attention to Ron Paul. Much of Ron Paul's momentum would have never happened if democracy, freedom, and prosperity would have blossomed after Sadam was taken down. Likewise a US military debacle in Georgia would lead to a lot more voices calling for an end to NATO.
 
Phree, I haven't read every post here so I may be regurgitating something someone else wrote but here goes. You constantly use the word logic with arguing with people. Now think of those people right now who so ardently toot Obama's horn for change, health care is a right, blah blah blah blah blah. You know all that he wishes to do. Now do you think these people will be logical or think rationally when he is elected president and the failure that follows this past neoconservative agenda is multiplied by 10. No, the buck will be past to someone else because it can never be the governments fault, socialism will grow and as long as people receive money they will be happy.

Ron Paul for the past 18 months has been all over the internet, in many debates, but had rather sub-par to dismal coverage by the msm compared to others. Now if these Obamanites, or whatever his cult of personality is called, really weren't drowning in their shallowness for voting for this man based not on the issues, principles, thought, or lies that are shown in his legislative record (FISA vote, war funding, etc..), but rather for "change" and "hope", and whatever socialist nonsense comes out of his mouth then maybe they would be open to the message. I'm not saying some won't be. But the vast majority will just pass the buck of blame to someone other than their golden boy. Sorry for horrible punctuation, it's late and I don't care.
 
What's funny is that I don't remember you but I put you on my ignore list previously. I'm going to trust my original decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
The Musk Revolution
Replies
0
Views
701
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Swordsmyth
Trump to lift water curbs to 'make America's showers great again'
Replies
8
Views
95
CCTelander
C
jmdrake
Barack Obama now more libertarian than Donald Trump
Replies
16
Views
133
familydog
F
PAF
Voting: The Seen and the Unseen
Replies
2
Views
58
TheTexan
TheTexan
jmdrake
She sang for Obama and now she's singing the national anthem for Trump
Replies
0
Views
437
jmdrake
jmdrake
Back
Top