Colorado further evidence Ron Paul will challenge Romney in Tampa

[LibertyForAll]

If Ron Paul had his way, that SuperStore would be built, whether he was POTUS, Governor or Mayor.


And you can't refute a word of it, you liberal freak.

Back it up with links then with quotes that show that Ron Paul said those things or the record will show that you are liar. Prove your assertions.

It is, of course, a silly illustration of what could and would actually happen if amoral Libertarians were in charge.

Would such a store be in violation of your Libertarian principles, or not?

I would say that no Libertarians would not be behind a POTUS who interfered with local zoning laws.

 

[SniperFire]

Refute what? The entire statement is so off base it's hilarious. Ever heard of state rights? Or are you so whitewashed you thingk the federal gubmint can permit such a thing?

If Ron Paul had his way, that SuperStore would be built, whether he was POTUS, Governor or Mayor.


And you can't refute a word of it, you liberal freak.

What does that mean, "if Ron Paul had his way"? Would he be king of America?

Try this.

We snap our fingers and America is a perfect Libertarian state. Congratulations. You have arrived.

But say one city in BF California is overrun with homeless beggars starving in the street. People can't even drive their cars around without getting mugged. A few of the city denizens get together and decide it would be a good idea to feed these beggars instead of getting mugged everyday.

So they start their own soup kitchen which helps a lot, but not enough. Soon they are able to recruit others in the neighborhood to help with the soup kitchen, and everyone in the neighborhood sees what is going on and says 'this is the right thing to do.' So the soup kitchen does well but it is not enough. Finally, a majority of citizens get together and say 'We should pass a small tax to help pay for feeding the freeloaders, because as citizens of this town we believe it is the right thing to do.' So they put such a welfare program on the ballot.

Would you:

1) outlaw such a decision by the voting majority, the passage of which would be the beginning of the end for your Libertarian state as more and more such laws for the 'greater good' came to pass? (employ a totalitarian crackdown on the will of the people to protect the purity of your Libertarian state) ?

2) Let the law pass and witness Libertarianism incrementally fail with every new voting act.

Pick one.

 

[Avorysuds]

If Ron Paul had his way, that SuperStore would be built, whether he was POTUS, Governor or Mayor.


And you can't refute a word of it, you liberal freak.

Back it up with links then with quotes that show that Ron Paul said those things or the record will show that you are liar. Prove your assertions.

It is, of course, a silly illustration of what could and would actually happen if amoral Libertarians were in charge.

Would such a store be in violation of your Libertarian principles, or not?

Hmmmmmm.... Once again you just use big language, "in charge." So do you mean if Libertarians had the Presidency, held a majority in congress and at least a Governor and a majority of the elected officials of one state?

The issue with your lack of understanding on libertarianism is that you seem to think it means anarchy. Libertarianism as an ideology is different that following the laws and constitution that we have in place.

For instance, the Republican party would try and dominate the world if “they had their way.” They are fear mongers who have no issue spending this country into oblivion as long as it means they can drop bombs on third world countries and control peoples sex lives. Of course, this is if they had their way… That is how you sound, fully out of context with reality.

 

[Avorysuds]

If Ron Paul had his way, that SuperStore would be built, whether he was POTUS, Governor or Mayor.


And you can't refute a word of it, you liberal freak.

What does that mean, "if Ron Paul had his way"? Would he be king of America?

Try this.

We snap our fingers and America is a perfect Libertarian state. Congratulations. You have arrived.

But say one city in BF California is overrun with homeless beggars starving in the street. People can't even drive their cars around without getting mugged. A few of the city denizens get together and decide it would be a good idea to feed these beggars instead of getting mugged everyday.

So they start their own soup kitchen which helps a lot, but not enough. Soon they are able to recruit others in the neighborhood to help with the soup kitchen, and everyone in the neighborhood sees what is going on and says 'this is the right thing to do.' So the soup kitchen does well but it is not enough. Finally, a majority of citizens get together and say 'We should pass a small tax to help pay for feeding the freeloaders, because as citizens of this town we believe it is the right thing to do.' So they put such a welfare program on the ballot.

Would you:

1) outlaw such a decision by the voting majority, the passage of which would be the beginning of the end for your Libertarian state as more and more such laws for the 'greater good' came to pass? (employ a totalitarian crackdown on the will of the people to protect the purity of your Libertarian state) ?

2) Let the law pass and witness Libertarianism incrementally fail with every new voting act.

Pick one.

You lack any ability to understand what a "perfect" libertarian society is.

 

[SniperFire]

What does that mean, "if Ron Paul had his way"? Would he be king of America?

Try this.

We snap our fingers and America is a perfect Libertarian state. Congratulations. You have arrived.

But say one city in BF California is overrun with homeless beggars starving in the street. People can't even drive their cars around without getting mugged. A few of the city denizens get together and decide it would be a good idea to feed these beggars instead of getting mugged everyday.

So they start their own soup kitchen which helps a lot, but not enough. Soon they are able to recruit others in the neighborhood to help with the soup kitchen, and everyone in the neighborhood sees what is going on and says 'this is the right thing to do.' So the soup kitchen does well but it is not enough. Finally, a majority of citizens get together and say 'We should pass a small tax to help pay for feeding the freeloaders, because as citizens of this town we believe it is the right thing to do.' So they put such a welfare program on the ballot.

Would you:

1) outlaw such a decision by the voting majority, the passage of which would be the beginning of the end for your Libertarian state as more and more such laws for the 'greater good' came to pass? (employ a totalitarian crackdown on the will of the people to protect the purity of your Libertarian state) ?

2) Let the law pass and witness Libertarianism incrementally fail with every new voting act.

Pick one.

You lack any ability to understand what a "perfect" libertarian society is.

You have to punt on actual issues of governance and fall back into esoteric theory.

The reason?

Libertariansm cannot deal with the vagrancy of human nature. It is identical to Communism in that you would require a totalitarian adherence to the principles for it to actually 'work.'

You guys are serious, serious daydreamers.

 

[Avorysuds]

This is insane lol. SF, you pretend that if you could “snap your fingers” and create this “perfect libertarian society” that there would be no laws, no constitution. But in doing so that same argument could be used against Democrats or Republicans. Neither Democrats or Republicans as a party created the constitution… Both parties relentlessly try and get around the very laws put in place to restrain them. What would a “perfect Democrat” or “perfect republican” society look like? You know, starting from zero laws and working your way up… lol.

 

[LibertyForAll]

If Ron Paul had his way, that SuperStore would be built, whether he was POTUS, Governor or Mayor.


And you can't refute a word of it, you liberal freak.

What does that mean, "if Ron Paul had his way"? Would he be king of America?

Try this.

We snap our fingers and America is a perfect Libertarian state. Congratulations. You have arrived.

But say one city in BF California is overrun with homeless beggars starving in the street. People can't even drive their cars around without getting mugged. A few of the city denizens get together and decide it would be a good idea to feed these beggars instead of getting mugged everyday.

So they start their own soup kitchen which helps a lot, but not enough. Soon they are able to recruit others in the neighborhood to help with the soup kitchen, and everyone in the neighborhood sees what is going on and says 'this is the right thing to do.' So the soup kitchen does well but it is not enough. Finally, a majority of citizens get together and say 'We should pass a small tax to help pay for feeding the freeloaders, because as citizens of this town we believe it is the right thing to do.' So they put such a welfare program on the ballot.

Would you:

1) outlaw such a decision by the voting majority, the passage of which would be the beginning of the end for your Libertarian state as more and more such laws for the 'greater good' came to pass? (employ a totalitarian crackdown on the will of the people to protect the purity of your Libertarian state) ?

2) Let the law pass and witness Libertarianism incrementally fail with every new voting act.

Pick one.

What if the majority wanted to kill off the beggars instead of feeding them? Should we allow that? No, because murder is a violation of the rights of the individual being murdered. The same goes for stealing money to feed them.

 

[SniperFire]

This is insane lol. SF, you pretend that if you could “snap your fingers” and create this “perfect libertarian society” that there would be no laws, no constitution.

We would have your perfect Libertarian laws and Libertarian Constitution.

But then, human nature being what it is, the people would want to change them.

Would you permit people to change the perfect Libertarian laws and the perfect Libertarian Consititution - thereby destroying Libertarianism, or would you jackboot and prevent the people from deciding for themselves?


Pick one.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I really wouldn't feed the troll. SF has no basis in reality for the assertions made. It's hyperbole puree...

 

[Avorysuds]

What does that mean, "if Ron Paul had his way"? Would he be king of America?

Try this.

We snap our fingers and America is a perfect Libertarian state. Congratulations. You have arrived.

But say one city in BF California is overrun with homeless beggars starving in the street. People can't even drive their cars around without getting mugged. A few of the city denizens get together and decide it would be a good idea to feed these beggars instead of getting mugged everyday.

So they start their own soup kitchen which helps a lot, but not enough. Soon they are able to recruit others in the neighborhood to help with the soup kitchen, and everyone in the neighborhood sees what is going on and says 'this is the right thing to do.' So the soup kitchen does well but it is not enough. Finally, a majority of citizens get together and say 'We should pass a small tax to help pay for feeding the freeloaders, because as citizens of this town we believe it is the right thing to do.' So they put such a welfare program on the ballot.

Would you:

1) outlaw such a decision by the voting majority, the passage of which would be the beginning of the end for your Libertarian state as more and more such laws for the 'greater good' came to pass? (employ a totalitarian crackdown on the will of the people to protect the purity of your Libertarian state) ?

2) Let the law pass and witness Libertarianism incrementally fail with every new voting act.

Pick one.

What if the majority wanted to kill off the beggars instead of feeding them? Should we allow that? No, because murder is a violation of the rights of the individual being murdered. The same goes for stealing money to feed them.

There is really no point as per SF libertarianism is code for anarchy.

 

[SniperFire]

What if the majority wanted to kill off the beggars instead of feeding them? Should we allow that? No, because murder is a violation of the rights of the individual being murdered. The same goes for stealing money to feed them.

But what if the vast, vast majorities of people did not agree with you totalitarians that taxation = theft and they wanted to change the Constitution accordingly?

Would you deploy jackbooters to the voting booths with billyclubs to stop it?

You would really be forced to act just like any other totalitarian state which came before you to protect the 'purity' of your regime.

Else, Libertarianism would be voted into oblivion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Ron Paul had his way, that SuperStore would be built, whether he was POTUS, Governor or Mayor.


And you can't refute a word of it, you liberal freak.

What does that mean, "if Ron Paul had his way"? Would he be king of America?

Try this.

We snap our fingers and America is a perfect Libertarian state. Congratulations. You have arrived.

But say one city in BF California is overrun with homeless beggars starving in the street. People can't even drive their cars around without getting mugged. A few of the city denizens get together and decide it would be a good idea to feed these beggars instead of getting mugged everyday.

So they start their own soup kitchen which helps a lot, but not enough. Soon they are able to recruit others in the neighborhood to help with the soup kitchen, and everyone in the neighborhood sees what is going on and says 'this is the right thing to do.' So the soup kitchen does well but it is not enough. Finally, a majority of citizens get together and say 'We should pass a small tax to help pay for feeding the freeloaders, because as citizens of this town we believe it is the right thing to do.' So they put such a welfare program on the ballot.

Would you:

1) outlaw such a decision by the voting majority, the passage of which would be the beginning of the end for your Libertarian state as more and more such laws for the 'greater good' came to pass? (employ a totalitarian crackdown on the will of the people to protect the purity of your Libertarian state) ?

2) Let the law pass and witness Libertarianism incrementally fail with every new voting act.

Pick one.

Not this again.

 

[Full-Auto]

What if the majority wanted to kill off the beggars instead of feeding them? Should we allow that? No, because murder is a violation of the rights of the individual being murdered. The same goes for stealing money to feed them.

But what if the vast, vast majorities of people did not agree with you totalitarians that taxation = theft and they wanted to change the Constitution accordingly?

Would you deploy jackbooters to the voting booths with billyclubs to stop it?

You would really be forced to act just like any other totalitarian state which came before you to protect the 'purity' of your regime.

Else, Libertarianism would be voted into oblivion.

Why is what if the best you can produce?

 

[Avorysuds]

This is insane lol. SF, you pretend that if you could “snap your fingers” and create this “perfect libertarian society” that there would be no laws, no constitution.

We would have your perfect Libertarian laws and Libertarian Constitution.

But then, human nature being what it is, the people would want to change them.

Would you permit people to change the perfect Libertarian laws and the perfect Libertarian Consititution - thereby destroying Libertarianism, or would you jackboot and prevent the people from deciding for themselves?


Pick one.

Answer me first.

Republicans get everything they want... Do you kill everyone that does not agree with you, here and around the globe, and steal their money to keep the system you can't pay for afloat or do people kill you off as you're just a common dictator.

I need your answer first because you’re setting the grounds that the question is based on.

Reality is we are looking at applying a libertarian ideology to the country and set of laws that we have currently, not starting over from scratch. Balance the budget, don’t try and take over the world, keep Government restrained by the powers of the laws per the constitution. You can’t see that because it destroys your idiotic snap of the fingers scenario where you’re on party would more than likely end up in a full collapse in record time.

 

[SniperFire]

Try this.

We snap our fingers and America is a perfect Libertarian state. Congratulations. You have arrived.

But say one city in BF California is overrun with homeless beggars starving in the street. People can't even drive their cars around without getting mugged. A few of the city denizens get together and decide it would be a good idea to feed these beggars instead of getting mugged everyday.

So they start their own soup kitchen which helps a lot, but not enough. Soon they are able to recruit others in the neighborhood to help with the soup kitchen, and everyone in the neighborhood sees what is going on and says 'this is the right thing to do.' So the soup kitchen does well but it is not enough. Finally, a majority of citizens get together and say 'We should pass a small tax to help pay for feeding the freeloaders, because as citizens of this town we believe it is the right thing to do.' So they put such a welfare program on the ballot.

Would you:

1) outlaw such a decision by the voting majority, the passage of which would be the beginning of the end for your Libertarian state as more and more such laws for the 'greater good' came to pass? (employ a totalitarian crackdown on the will of the people to protect the purity of your Libertarian state) ?

2) Let the law pass and witness Libertarianism incrementally fail with every new voting act.

Pick one.

What if the majority wanted to kill off the beggars instead of feeding them? Should we allow that? No, because murder is a violation of the rights of the individual being murdered. The same goes for stealing money to feed them.

There is really no point as per SF libertarianism is code for anarchy.

You have no answer to the tough questions, and the rest of us conservatives have figured that out long, long ago.

We like much of the Libertarian view of fiscal responsibility and even a lot of the monetary policy (short of the 'end the Fed nonsense), and to this end we welcome dialogue of people such as Ron Paul.

But when you bite the hand that feeds you, you need to be put down.

 

[SniperFire]

This is insane lol. SF, you pretend that if you could “snap your fingers” and create this “perfect libertarian society” that there would be no laws, no constitution.

We would have your perfect Libertarian laws and Libertarian Constitution.

But then, human nature being what it is, the people would want to change them.

Would you permit people to change the perfect Libertarian laws and the perfect Libertarian Consititution - thereby destroying Libertarianism, or would you jackboot and prevent the people from deciding for themselves?


Pick one.

Answer me first.

Pound salt. Answer me first.

 

[Avorysuds]

We would have your perfect Libertarian laws and Libertarian Constitution.

But then, human nature being what it is, the people would want to change them.

Would you permit people to change the perfect Libertarian laws and the perfect Libertarian Consititution - thereby destroying Libertarianism, or would you jackboot and prevent the people from deciding for themselves?


Pick one.

Answer me first.

Pound salt. Answer me first.

I in fact already have. You have not gotten back to me.

 

[SniperFire]

What if the majority wanted to kill off the beggars instead of feeding them? Should we allow that? No, because murder is a violation of the rights of the individual being murdered. The same goes for stealing money to feed them.

But what if the vast, vast majorities of people did not agree with you totalitarians that taxation = theft and they wanted to change the Constitution accordingly?

Would you deploy jackbooters to the voting booths with billyclubs to stop it?

You would really be forced to act just like any other totalitarian state which came before you to protect the 'purity' of your regime.

Else, Libertarianism would be voted into oblivion.

Why is what if the best you can produce?

Because there is no 'real world' examples of Libertarian government in action.

Reason being is that it couldn't hope but to work anywhere, and people know it.

Our last example was perhaps Deadwood, and it didn't work out so well then, either.

 

[Oddsfish]

Will the gop party die-hards rally around a Paul nomination if it, by a long shot, shoud happen?

Do you really have to ask? Of course they would; that's why Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Obama. He would get all of the mainstream republican/anti-Obama vote, and he'd obviously also get the vote of all those people who will refuse to vote for a moderate flip-flop in the name of "choosing the lesser of two evils" - you know, the people who didn't vote for McCain. Add to that all of the "Blue Democrats" Paul would steal from, well, the democrats, and you get the picture.


Romney, on the other hand, will only get those "GOP die-hards" as you rightly call them, which is why if he wins the republican nomination, and that seems very likely, he will lose to Obama.

 

[Avorysuds]

But what if the vast, vast majorities of people did not agree with you totalitarians that taxation = theft and they wanted to change the Constitution accordingly?

Would you deploy jackbooters to the voting booths with billyclubs to stop it?

You would really be forced to act just like any other totalitarian state which came before you to protect the 'purity' of your regime.

Else, Libertarianism would be voted into oblivion.

Why is what if the best you can produce?

Because there is no 'real world' examples of Libertarian government in action.

Reason being is that it couldn't hope but to work anywhere, and people know it.

Our last example was perhaps Deadwood, and it didn't work out so well then, either.

And there is no such thing as a Republican Government that has ever worked... There is the constitution, then there is the party trying to get around it.

This is getting retarded.