|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I wonder what will happen to all the rEVOLutionaries once Paul bows out of the primaries. Will they still rally around a private citizen Paul, or just switch over to the Rand bandwagon. Lots of passionate, obsessed, people will have a huge whole in their lives. |
It's a non-issue. Most libertarians (at least that I've met) are in it for the ideas and don't worship personalities like the Obamanoids do. It is not a fad, nor a cult (of course there are a bunch of phonies in the Tea Party movement who think freedom and patriotism means bombing other countries and setting up a police state back home, but nobody with an even superficial understanding would consider them to be real libertarians; and few if any of those types of people would vote for Ron Paul anyway). Ron Paul is hardly a charismatic or glamorous figure - he's just popular because he's the real deal. He's the same today as he was 30 year ago. He will be missed when he does finally bow out, but the movement will certainly continue unabated. |
^
I agree with this. Ron Paul definitely doesn't have the personal pull of Obama (or the total in-race appeal; he can't pull in over 80% support from all Caucasians). He exudes an old-man-on-the-bus vibe, and I say that sympathetically.
| Leon wrote: |
| A large part of the libertarian movement in the United States coalesces around Paul. Without him, who will they rally to? Rand . . . |
You should've just stopped there. They will rally to Rand, or whoever else. Let's hope Gary Johnson for 2016? |
I think you're underestimating the guys charisma, which is kind of difficult, but he does have some force of personality that mostly arises from his supposed ideological purity. I think that the cause will experince a dropoff of numbers. Rand does seem to be the heir, but he is less interested in ideological purity than Dad. Gary Johnson wasn't even allowed to join the joke of a debate, he has no future. He has less charisma then Paul, watching him at the first debate was painful, him going on about how he liked hiking. They let Herman Cain, who ran a pizza chain to his claim to fame debate, but not Gary. Hell, I like Gary Johnson more than any other Republican running, but he's a no go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I think you're wrong, again judging from the Libertarians I've met. A large part of the libertarian movement in the United States coalesces around Paul. Without him, who will they rally to? Rand, maybe but he is less ideologically pure than his dad. What do libs. do when they want to recruit someone, usually they use youtube links to Ron Paul. He gives the Libs. a reason to be interested in national elections, someone to rally to and hold fundraisers for and hold up signs and all that. It allows them to feel like they are part of the political process. With out a standard bearer they lose that. Hardcore Libs won't change, but like with any movement you have your core, and you have the people who dig it, but not fully invested. |
I realize this may be hard for someone with your preconceptions to understand, but I repeat: libertarians do not rally around Ron Paul like some Obamanoid personality cult. I disagree that anyone "digs" libertarianism because of Ron Paul (rather they dig Ron Paul because they are already sympathetic to or hold libertarian views). He has simply been the only serious and credible (based on his actions, not just words) libertarian candidate in the running over the years, so it gives people who already share those views a focal point to cast their vote.
Nevertheless, unlike cheerleaders for the Dems and Reps (basically one-track mind chumps who download propaganda from partisan media outlets directly into their feeble brains - see ya-ta boy for example) most libertarians already know the entire political system is a sham. Libertarians are far less interested in "feeling like a part of the system" than in challenging it fundamentally. Most understand concepts like the "tyranny of the majority" and that the US is supposed to be a constitutional Republic, and not a majority-rules democracy. This is also why we don't care that Ron Paul has never really "won" (or that he is basically forced to run as a Republican) - the point is that his position has allowed him to bring the issues to the forefront. But the issues themselves matter more than he does (and he understands it). Ultimately he is a product of the movement, not vice versa.
The biggest loss from him stepping down will not be the loss of his "personality", but the loss of having someone of his stature in Congress to directly spread the correct and logical ideas to other members as much as possible. Others will just have to step in and fill his shoes, simple as that. The movement on the whole will continue unabated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think you're wrong, again judging from the Libertarians I've met. A large part of the libertarian movement in the United States coalesces around Paul. Without him, who will they rally to? Rand, maybe but he is less ideologically pure than his dad. What do libs. do when they want to recruit someone, usually they use youtube links to Ron Paul. He gives the Libs. a reason to be interested in national elections, someone to rally to and hold fundraisers for and hold up signs and all that. It allows them to feel like they are part of the political process. With out a standard bearer they lose that. Hardcore Libs won't change, but like with any movement you have your core, and you have the people who dig it, but not fully invested. |
I realize this may be hard for someone with your preconceptions to understand, but I repeat: libertarians do not rally around Ron Paul like some Obamanoid personality cult. I disagree that anyone "digs" libertarianism because of Ron Paul (rather they dig Ron Paul because they are already libertarians). He has simply been the only serious and credible (based on his actions, not just words) libertarian candidate in the running over the years, so it gives people who already share those views a focal point to cast their vote.
Nevertheless, unlike cheerleaders for the Dems and Reps (basically one-track mind chumps who download propaganda from partisan media outlets directly into their feeble brains - see ya-ta boy for example) most libertarians already know the entire political system is a sham. Libertarians are far less interested in "feeling like a part of the system" than in challenging it fundamentally. Most understand concepts like the "tyranny of the majority" and that the US is supposed to be a constitutional Republic, and not a majority-rules democracy. This is also why we don't care that Ron Paul has never really "won" (or that he is basically forced to run as a Republican) - the point is that his position has allowed him to bring the issues to the forefront. But the issues themselves matter more than he does (and he understands it). Ultimately he is a product of the movement, not vice versa.
The biggest loss from him stepping down will not be the loss of his "personality", but the loss of having someone of his stature in Congress to directly spread the correct and logical ideas to other members as much as possible. Others will just have to step in and fill his shoes, simple as that. The movement on the whole will continue unabated. |
I know that you're wrong, at least on some scale, because of the Ron Paul supporters that I know. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I know don't know that much about ecomonics, and most don't know anything about the F.E.D. other than what Ron Paul says in his videos. Most Ron Paul supporters I know like him because of his stance on drugs and his stance on wars. Most don't care about Austrian economic theory, they just here less government, why that must be good! The man makes decent speeches, simplifies complex ideas pretty well, and comes off as authentic. I like drugs and I don't like war, gramps is pretty groovy. Maybe you're older than me, maybe older libertarians are true believers. I'm basing this off of college aged kids, which was the last time I was around a significant amount of Paul supporters. These people will not follow the libertarian party, once Paul is gone, they'll move on. I can't say what percentage that will be, but I know that once he is gone, there will be a drop off of support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I know that you're wrong, at least on some scale, because of the Ron Paul supporters that I know. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I know don't know that much about ecomonics, and most don't know anything about the F.E.D. other than what Ron Paul says in his videos. Most Ron Paul supporters I know like him because of his stance on drugs and his stance on wars. Most don't care about Austrian economic theory, they just here less government, why that must be good! The man makes decent speeches, simplifies complex ideas pretty well, and comes off as authentic. I like drugs and I don't like war, gramps is pretty groovy. Maybe you're older than me, maybe older libertarians are true believers. I'm basing this off of college aged kids, which was the last time I was around a significant amount of Paul supporters. These people will not follow the libertarian party, once Paul is gone, they'll move on. I can't say what percentage that will be, but I know that once he is gone, there will be a drop off of support. |
Oh I see. So even though your own understanding of the movement as a whole is trifling, you have some worthless anecdotal evidence to offer, so therefore I'm wrong. Okay then... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Most Ron Paul supporters I know like him because of his stance on drugs and his stance on wars. |
Exactly. They are issue-voting. Not voting on personality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Most Ron Paul supporters I know like him because of his stance on drugs and his stance on wars. |
Exactly. They are issue-voting. Not voting on personality. |
Yes and no, you have to have some with seeming crediability to deliver the message. Someone well known, someone who seems authentic, to deliver the message. The people I know weren't out looking for his message, they stumbled on it, or someone sent it to them. The press acts like they take him somewhat seriously, letting him go on in their debates and what not, he is in elected office, etc. Once he's gone, they'll lose focus and move on. No one currently is what Paul is, his son isn't as good with the media and makes too many gaffes, and Gary Johnson is treated as serious by the media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I know that you're wrong, at least on some scale, because of the Ron Paul supporters that I know. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I know don't know that much about ecomonics, and most don't know anything about the F.E.D. other than what Ron Paul says in his videos. Most Ron Paul supporters I know like him because of his stance on drugs and his stance on wars. Most don't care about Austrian economic theory, they just here less government, why that must be good! The man makes decent speeches, simplifies complex ideas pretty well, and comes off as authentic. I like drugs and I don't like war, gramps is pretty groovy. Maybe you're older than me, maybe older libertarians are true believers. I'm basing this off of college aged kids, which was the last time I was around a significant amount of Paul supporters. These people will not follow the libertarian party, once Paul is gone, they'll move on. I can't say what percentage that will be, but I know that once he is gone, there will be a drop off of support. |
Oh I see. So even though your own understanding of the movement as a whole is trifling, you have some worthless anecdotal evidence to offer, so therefore I'm wrong. Okay then... |
Not really, you said Ron Paul supporters are all some way. I said hey now what a minute I know some Ron Paul supporters and they aren't like you said they are. There fore, to some extent, you are obviously wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I know that you're wrong, at least on some scale, because of the Ron Paul supporters that I know. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I know don't know that much about ecomonics, and most don't know anything about the F.E.D. other than what Ron Paul says in his videos. Most Ron Paul supporters I know like him because of his stance on drugs and his stance on wars. Most don't care about Austrian economic theory, they just here less government, why that must be good! The man makes decent speeches, simplifies complex ideas pretty well, and comes off as authentic. I like drugs and I don't like war, gramps is pretty groovy. Maybe you're older than me, maybe older libertarians are true believers. I'm basing this off of college aged kids, which was the last time I was around a significant amount of Paul supporters. These people will not follow the libertarian party, once Paul is gone, they'll move on. I can't say what percentage that will be, but I know that once he is gone, there will be a drop off of support. |
Oh I see. So even though your own understanding of the movement as a whole is trifling, you have some worthless anecdotal evidence to offer, so therefore I'm wrong. Okay then... |
Not really, you said Ron Paul supporters are all some way. I said hey now what a minute I know some Ron Paul supporters and they aren't like you said they are. There fore, to some extent, you are obviously wrong. |
Actually I was generalizing. Your claiming to know a few exceptions to the rule (based on unverifiable anecdotal evidence, ie. 'your friends') is meaningless. Even more so since you yourself have a very paltry understanding of the views libertarians hold (as show in your usual posts), and more likely than not are simply misrepresenting their views. But that's neither here nor there. At the end of the day your claim that people who sympathize with libertarian views will cease doing so after Ron Paul retires goes against common sense and is unverifiable. That is all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I know that you're wrong, at least on some scale, because of the Ron Paul supporters that I know. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I know don't know that much about ecomonics, and most don't know anything about the F.E.D. other than what Ron Paul says in his videos. Most Ron Paul supporters I know like him because of his stance on drugs and his stance on wars. Most don't care about Austrian economic theory, they just here less government, why that must be good! The man makes decent speeches, simplifies complex ideas pretty well, and comes off as authentic. I like drugs and I don't like war, gramps is pretty groovy. Maybe you're older than me, maybe older libertarians are true believers. I'm basing this off of college aged kids, which was the last time I was around a significant amount of Paul supporters. These people will not follow the libertarian party, once Paul is gone, they'll move on. I can't say what percentage that will be, but I know that once he is gone, there will be a drop off of support. |
Oh I see. So even though your own understanding of the movement as a whole is trifling, you have some worthless anecdotal evidence to offer, so therefore I'm wrong. Okay then... |
Not really, you said Ron Paul supporters are all some way. I said hey now what a minute I know some Ron Paul supporters and they aren't like you said they are. There fore, to some extent, you are obviously wrong. |
Actually I was generalizing. Your claiming to know a few exceptions to the rule (based on unverifiable anecdotal evidence, ie. 'your friends') is meaningless. Even more so since you yourself have a very paltry understanding of the views libertarians hold (as show in your usual posts), and more likely or not are misrepresenting their views. But that's neither here nor there. You could try and generalize to the contrary of what I said, but then you'd be wrong.
At the end of the day your claim that people who sympathize with libertarian views will cease doing so after Ron Paul retires goes against common sense and is unverifiable. That is all. |
Well, it's obviously verifiable, we just have to wait until he's been gone for awhile, say maybe this time next year. It's against your prefernce, but common sense, I doubt it. As for not understanding the movement, it's very very simple and easy to understand. Time will prove one of us right, as such I don't really have anything more to say about this particularl issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Well, it's obviously verifiable, we just have to wait until he's been gone for awhile, say maybe this time next year. It's against your prefernce, but common sense, I doubt it. As for not understanding the movement, it's very very simple and easy to understand. Time will prove one of us right, as such I don't really have anything more to say about this particularl issue. |
Right, so you're making a BS claim that can't be verified until later on. This thread will probably be long forgotten by the time I'm proven right (which I'm very confident I will be), but your lack of understanding and smug overestimation of your own credibility (which is actually about as low as it gets) will no doubt remain undiminished. Oh well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Well, it's obviously verifiable, we just have to wait until he's been gone for awhile, say maybe this time next year. It's against your prefernce, but common sense, I doubt it. As for not understanding the movement, it's very very simple and easy to understand. Time will prove one of us right, as such I don't really have anything more to say about this particularl issue. |
Right, so you're making a BS claim that can't be verified until later on. This thread will probably be long forgotten by the time I'm proven right (which I'm very confident I will be), but your lack of understanding and smug overestimation of your own credibility (which is actually about as low as it gets) will no doubt remain undiminished. Oh well. |
The conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush and Obama might as well be nazis goes off on me about a lack of crediablity on a online message board. The jokes write themsleves. You're confident about a lot of things that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of experts, disagree with, so I'm not too concerned about your confidence in this issue. Like I said time will vindicate one of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush and Obama might as well be nazis goes off on me about a lack of crediablity on a online message board. The jokes write themsleves. You're confident about a lot of things that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of experts, disagree with, so I'm not too concerned about your confidence in this issue. Like I said time will vindicate one of us. |
You get your ass handed to you in every debate, and the best you can come up with is the same pitiful, unoriginal epithet "conspiracy theorist". Sorry, but that doesn't work anymore.
As for 'time will tell', no doubt it will - and to a large extent it already has: you and yours have been wrong about pretty much everything since Obama got elected. You can keep acting like a liberal chump if you want, but you don't get to act smarter than those you like to label "tinfoil hat wearers" anymore. Not when you get proven wrong about pretty every claim you make, in every debate you enter into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He was a noble Congressman. |
Ever since Don Quixote was published late in the 16th Century, the word 'noble' has had a problematic usage.
That aside, I rather regret my first response on this thread. I should have said:
| Quote: |
Ron Paul Declines to run again for Congress
|
Will anyone notice? 
Yes, I know it's glib, but I wish I'd said it.
In fact the man has been significant, even though his 'movement' has been hijacked by the Tea Party and his ideas are, as I write this, threatening to destroy the credit of the US. 'Ignoble' comes to mind. I'm sure whichever pope threatened to torture Galileo thought he was doing what was best for the world, too. Whichever Chinese emperor decided to destroy all the sea-going ships and retreat back behind the coastal islands thought he was on the path to ultimate victory, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush and Obama might as well be nazis goes off on me about a lack of crediablity on a online message board. The jokes write themsleves. You're confident about a lot of things that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of experts, disagree with, so I'm not too concerned about your confidence in this issue. Like I said time will vindicate one of us. |
You get your ass handed to you in every debate, and the best you can come up with is the same pitiful, unoriginal epithet "conspiracy theorist". Sorry, but that doesn't work anymore.
As for 'time will tell', no doubt it will - and to a large extent it already has: you and yours have been wrong about pretty much everything since Obama got elected. You can keep acting like a liberal chump if you want, but you don't get to act smarter than those you like to label "tinfoil hat wearers" anymore. Not when you get proven wrong about pretty every claim you make, in every debate you enter into. |
Maybe in the bizzaro world of Daves ESL current events forum, I do lose every debate. I would love to see you try to argue your ideas outside of a forum like this one though. Where have I been proven wrong, I'm still waiting? The libertarian movement is pretty marginal as it is, if anything it's been co-opted by the tea party, which I'm sure you hate. The one truly recognizable one that has proven staying power is leaving soon, probably after he gets 4 or 5% percent in every primary till he can't take it anymore. Obama has done lots and lots of thing I don't agree with. See, the thing is though my ideas have been tested out in the real world, yours are just on paper, or on hundreds of internet forums. By the way, still waiting to be proven wrong about anything I've said to you, I stand by my idea that Bush and Obama aren't comparable to Hitler, and that no other Libertarian candidate will be able to gather the same 5 or 6% percent support in republican primaries for president in the near future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| his ideas are, as I write this, threatening to destroy the credit of the US. |
What an absolute clown you are. Your lord-and-saviour Obama, whom you defend with practically feudal devotion, has given trillions of dollars to Wall Street banks, and you have the unmitigated gall to accuse Ron Paul of threatening to destroy "the credit" of the US? All Ron Paul does is preach in favor of sound money and against going further and further into debt.
Pretty much everything you post is fatuous nonsense (laughable really), but the above is taking it to a new level of absurdity, even for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
