when you realise the post you made 3 hours ago and has been quoted is missing a word.....
Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
"Compromise" is a dirty word in the US. That's why they're willing to arse**** their economy over the budget.
Arrogance and hubris, that's all it is - the notion that those who disagree with you have nothing constructive to add or worse are actively damaging to the nation by their very involvement/existence.
The anti-intellectualism is the worst thing. They actually have to not know or deny knowing what they're talking about, because they can't appear to be smarter than the voters. Really, really ****ing depressing.
I only watch Shakespeare for the knob jokes
Everyone would like an elite doctor to diagnose, an elite teacher to educate, and an elite athlete to entertain. However, a politician that seems somewhat intelligent is unacceptable since they won't be good people to have a beer with.
Joseph Heller couldn't have made this up.
For as long as there is limited overs cricket - of ten, twenty or fifty overs - there will remain the Sri Lankan spinners' mid-innings choke
No, you fail to understand the things Paul is not willing to compromise on. It is not merely an opinion subject to his own whims. It is not a selfish and hollow position merely to create a visage of consistency. He considers practical and legal grounds. He considers all angles, and that is why he cannot relent on the principles he carries forth.
Let's consider something like torture. It is both illegal and in terms of efficacy, for investigations, it is unreliable because people under torture are willing to say anything to get away from the duress. Why would you want someone to change his position against torture to appease the opposite party? Just because a large percentage of the populous might agree with something does not mean they hold a legitimate point of view. You should know this well.
Paul is strict and unwavering on things like that. WRT to positions he holds, you wouldn't want him to change his opinion on them because they are much like the above. It's a shame that people, just to have a stick to beat him with, would even bring this up as if it is a legitimate gripe. He should be praised for willing to take on the world and not letting up to the interests around him just to get ahead. It reminds me of the quote from Beccaria John Adams gave whilst defending the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre:
"If by supporting the rights of mankind, I shall save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny or of ignorance equally fatal; his blessings will be sufficient consolation for me for the contempt of all mankind."
No offence, but I find your criticism nonsensical and a facile understanding of his points of view. Maybe you should cite an example. Paul's points shouldn't really have a gridlock for anyone who really understands where his points of view are coming from. It is not so much that Paul advocates solutions just because he agrees with them. Take abortion; he thinks a person with rights exists upon conception. However, he is willing for the states to decide what they do WRT to abortion. How can there be a disagreement on that, really? It is simply not the role of the Federal government to decide over would-be criminal matters. This means his position is no position really at all either way...just a legal difference - which is very fundamental.
Last edited by Ikki; 17-02-2012 at 10:49 AM.
“If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator, who has not endorsed anyone and requested anonymity.
It would have to be somebody else, the senator said. Who?
No duh. I never said he doesn't believe what he says. For example, I don't give two ****s about "states rights". We fought a civil war over that and the North won. So people need to deal with that. (On a side note, I've been to the south, they still call it the 'war of northern aggression.' )No, you fail to understand the things Paul is not willing to compromise on. It is not merely an opinion subject to his own whims. It is not a selfish and hollow position merely to create a visage of consistency. He considers practical and legal grounds. He considers all angles, and that is why he cannot relent on the principles he carries forth.
I don't think the federal government is bad - I'd prefer it over my state government even when the party I don't support is in power. I'd rather the 10th amendment left the rights 'to the people' only not to states and the people. But more importantly, assuming I get someone like Romney in power - if I'm in Congress, I might be able to cut a deal and (for example) increase funding to department X or department Y if I make a concession in another area. That's how things get done. You think Paul would ever make any compromises that might increase taxes or change the scope of the government?
Romney or Obama I can work with, Paul - if it's something I disagree with, there is no leeway and nothing to work with at all. There is no back and forth to arrive at some sort of a middle ground. Look at how many laws he's been the sole dissenter on (or one of a very small amount). Some laws I praise him on, the ones I agree with, and they all come from his philosophy, but that's not good governance. Instead of just saying 'no', you can work with the other side and maybe come up with a solution you hate a little less in return for your support. If you aren't willing to do that, I don't want you as my representative.
Last edited by silentstriker; 18-02-2012 at 05:38 AM.
Hahaha, headlines today show pictures of an all male panel in the house talking about a woman's ability to get birth control.
Best thing EVAR.
17 point swing in single woman vote since November. It's even losing in the Catholic demographic!
So, the reality is that you're more at odds with Paul than Paul is at odds with the world. That's fine, but don't paint Paul out as someone who is strict for the sake of being strict without realising the underpinnings of his philosophy. The fact that you pick and choose what you believe from his viewpoint says more about you than it does him. For all his points are interrelated. But that's not new, especially for those that recognise themselves as left of centre - i.e. the modern day liberal. They are very contradictory in their views, especially when it comes to civil and economic liberties.
Also, you really didn't give an example. You could be for a government program and still be a Paul fan. Because Paul gives you a route through the States. As aforesaid, he may disagree with abortion; but he'll let you vote how you want it to be in your state - whether pro-life or pro-choice. So the only real compromise is not to have it at State level, and I'm yet to hear an argument that can beat that logic. So unless you're a centralist, where is the impasse? And if that is what you are, then who really is the one that is unbending to compromise?
Last edited by Ikki; 18-02-2012 at 09:07 PM.
Re-reading your first para it also reminds me of a speech Friedman once gave. He said he always found it curious how people defend the government so staunchly, when it is readily viewable that their representatives are actually doing what the majority wouldn't want them to do in many cases. There is one mechanism, however, where every voice is always represented and it is not reliant on the goodwill of a human being to keep their promise: freedom.
There once was a time where I wouldn't have been too far off where Manan stood. Now I read comments like that and I cringe. Too much trust with too much power; when history has already shown countless times that power corrupts...and still does.
Last edited by Ikki; 18-02-2012 at 09:02 PM.
I don't understand your point - I'm the biggest supporter of the rights of individuals, the reason 'states' even come into play are purely due to the structure of the country as it existed back then. Hell, the constitution wasn't even really 'supposed' to apply to the states individually (e.g they could restrict the first amendment if they so chose) - thankfully, we've moved past that.
State legislatures can be corrupted just as much as national ones, and often they are much worse because there is almost no transparency and no one is held accountable (ask who their state representative is). It's not about trusting someone vs. not, it's about whether I want relevant policy decided at the state level or the national level and I choose the latter.
And yes, I do have more of a problem with Paul's beliefs - but I've always said that. And yes I'm a centralist - I don't want my state to ****ing decide anything but the difference is if there is someone who believes in states rights, that's fine and good for him, but for most of them, they will give into practical considerations and maybe I can work with them to get some of what I want in return for my support (by 'me' I mean if I were a legislator looking to pass something).
Last edited by silentstriker; 18-02-2012 at 11:41 PM.
While I have ****all knowledge of American politics nor pretend to have any, I did the political compass thing a few days ago and I find that despite not being exactly congruent to him, It's still much much closer than to any politician I've ever seen before.
Seems rather interesting and will read about him when(or more realistically, if ever) I don't have a massive stack of college work to accomplish.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)