"First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh At You...

[Mr.Nick]

The reality is that Dr. Paul is a factor in this race and his supporters are going be a factor going forward no matter what happens. There is another saying that is perhaps more apt in light of some of the responses here. He who laughs last laughs best!

He will be as much a factor in the race as Tim Tebow.

So says the man with the avatar of a fictitious Laughner...

 

[Liability]

You want change??

Which politician can offer you that??

I'm a libertarian myself and I don't agree with them man and his position(s)...

Romney is no different than Obama...

I presume you are talking to paulitish.

And he's a fucking kook.

I am not a libertarian, but I have some pals who are and I respect them a great deal. I don't even care if they admire Paul. I don't. But that's not a prerequisite for respecting a libertarian.

I am also not exactly happy about Romney. I am still holding out some hope that the primaries are gonna deal him a blow and we might be able to dodge having an Obama-lite running against President Obama.

I do want change. I want a different President.

You should embrace libertarianism/classical liberalism/individualism..

IMO, all the candidates outside of Paul are all the same...

The same doesn't work for me anymore - or IMO anyone else...

No. I do embrace the notion of classic liberalism which is today's equivalent of CONSERVATISM, not libertarianism.

YOU should reject the essential selfishness of libertarianism and incorporate the values of modern conservatism.

This is political conservatism of which I speak, not the so-called "social" conservatism which is often something very different than conservative.

Ron Paul is a jackass.

And as bad as he may be in some respects, it is simply and flatly not true that Romney is no different than President Obama. He is not SUFFICIENTLY different to make me happy. but his certainly different enough to justify voting for him to displace President Obama, if Romney happens to win the GOP nod.

Ron Paul, however, is a fubar.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Bravo,liability,bravo...

 

[Mr.Nick]

I presume you are talking to paulitish.

And he's a fucking kook.

I am not a libertarian, but I have some pals who are and I respect them a great deal. I don't even care if they admire Paul. I don't. But that's not a prerequisite for respecting a libertarian.

I am also not exactly happy about Romney. I am still holding out some hope that the primaries are gonna deal him a blow and we might be able to dodge having an Obama-lite running against President Obama.

I do want change. I want a different President.

You should embrace libertarianism/classical liberalism/individualism..

IMO, all the candidates outside of Paul are all the same...

The same doesn't work for me anymore - or IMO anyone else...

No. I do embrace the notion of classic liberalism which is today's equivalent of CONSERVATISM, not libertarianism.

YOU should reject the essential selfishness of libertarianism and incorporate the values of modern conservatism.

This is political conservatism of which I speak, not the so-called "social" conservatism which is often something very different than conservative.

Ron Paul is a jackass.

And as bad as he may be in some respects, it is simply and flatly not true that Romney is no different than President Obama. He is not SUFFICIENTLY different to make me happy. but his certainly different enough to justify voting for him to displace President Obama, if Romney happens to win the GOP nod.

Ron Paul, however, is a fubar.

Conservatism has more to do with morality.

The difference is where one draws the line.... That generally describes weather one is authoritarian or liberal....

I'm a conservative libertarian - cant make anyone be one.

Individuals can make choices...

 

[Liability]

You should embrace libertarianism/classical liberalism/individualism..

IMO, all the candidates outside of Paul are all the same...

The same doesn't work for me anymore - or IMO anyone else...

No. I do embrace the notion of classic liberalism which is today's equivalent of CONSERVATISM, not libertarianism.

YOU should reject the essential selfishness of libertarianism and incorporate the values of modern conservatism.

This is political conservatism of which I speak, not the so-called "social" conservatism which is often something very different than conservative.

Ron Paul is a jackass.

And as bad as he may be in some respects, it is simply and flatly not true that Romney is no different than President Obama. He is not SUFFICIENTLY different to make me happy. but his certainly different enough to justify voting for him to displace President Obama, if Romney happens to win the GOP nod.

Ron Paul, however, is a fubar.

Conservatism has more to do with morality.

False.

The difference is where one draws the line.... That generally describes weather one is authoritarian or liberal....

False and false.

 

[Liability]

I agree with Mark Levin that there is no one satisfactory definition of conservatism.

Nonetheless, certain fundamental attributes of conservatism are identifiable:

The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights.

-- from Levin's prior book, Liberty and Tyranny.

And the Founders and Framers ALSO understood that there is a give and take and balance to be sought in the interaction of and between Government and the People.

Embracing the notion of this very positive tension is a CONSERVATIVE hallmark. Libertarians tend to seek to impose so much restraint on government (favoring as they do their unimpeded almost selfish desire for personal "freedom") that they are seemingly incapable of recognizing that society needs for a government to be able to DO the very things we establish governments TO do. Modern liberatarianism is almost anarchical in that sense.

Modern liberals (including the so-called "progressives" who are really just liberals and socialists under another brand name) value government beyond reason. It is the font of all goodness and rectitude in their skewed vision.

A conservative is as likely to rebel against an over-grabbing government as he or she is to approve of governmental power and authority when properly channeled and confined to its legitimate purposes. This duality eludes the marginal thinking abilities of liberals.

And libertarians rebel against almost all governmental authority that in any way imposes upon their desires. For the basic flaw in libertarianism is the misunderstanding of the nature of liberty and freedom. It is not license. It is not without limits. The difficult question is where are the lines properly drawn? Which impositions are tolerable? Which aren't? But to flatly reject all impositions is narrow-minded and selfish -- and that's the kind of kooky crap we see from RuPaul.