paulsies

Nope Ron Paul is a loon who likes to hang out with survivalists, who write incessantly about the coming race war and other such nonsense.  I much prefer McCain but that is another thread entirely.  I suppose I stick myself under the libertarian label because I'm afraid my social values don't make me  fit in with the arch conservatives of the party. 

but if you take too long you could be stuck in that track forever

I could be a liberal forever!  That would be terrible.  But its good to know you think your growth stopped at eighteen.  I thought the same thing when I was twenty.  It's cute.

I was planning on just being a condescending asshole

I didn't notice that.  It's probably cause it comes so naturally for you.

What I find ironic is how like a teenaged highschooler you have judged me based on the clique I seem to fit into and not by any substance I have presented therewith in my words or behavior, and so have gone on to shower me with masturbatory flame-light condescension.  But I'm sure this behavior comes from deep seeded altruism and not some insecure egotistical need to be dittoed and cockstroked by the peers in your clique.
 

but this could actually be an interesting debate if anyone would feel like taking the opposing side again. But if you don't want to debate, I guess my only advice is to not mention libertarainism and objectivism, because it tends to make people wanna beat it out of you.

Considering my first impression of you, you seem to be an intolerant little fag who would much prefer a circle jerk, so I have my doubts on debating you.  You'll see me around on the issues, but I'm not interested in navel gazing with you at the moment.  I don't have much to go on, so I withhold further judgment on the matter and say possibly a rain check in the future when I am more sure that you are not a faggot. 

libertarainism is a horrible extreme btw, stop saying you're moderate because you can't be both.

Thank god I lean toward Libertarianism then.  Really the way I designate myself comes from the imperfection of American political labels where liberal means a wider range of social freedoms coupled with a psuedo socialist welfare economic agenda, and Conservative means a free market economic agenda with an authoritarian stance on a whole bunch of social issues.  I'm a free marketer with a stay out of the bedroom attitude on social issues and government.  Traditional bedrock of Libertarianism.  But unlike the Libertarians I don't want an end to the federal and state systems of government or any of that nonsense that comes from the far right Ruby Ridge tax evading Libertarians.  Hence I add moderate as a modifying adjective.  You do understand that moderate can be used as an adjective, right?  I prolly fit best as a McCain Republican, or an American centrist.  Your average swing voter most likely.

how do you feel about mccain switching his positions on almost every major issue

At least he didn't tell the people he would take public funding for the POTUS race and then turn around and renege on it.  I would have a bit more respect on the matter if Barak had at least been honest and said that it was because he could potentially raise more money.  Instead they spun it as a protest against the broken public financing system in dire need of reform.  Please.  But I challenge you to be more specific on your claim.  On another thread perhaps?

You are awesome. Welcome to GW.

objectivism is pretty bad. like, if you want to be an egotistical fuck there are better writers out there, like max stirner or nietzche. ayn rand was a terrible human being and her books are both terribly written (thats why nobody outside the us reads them) and terribly philosophically and she was mad with the whole left because the bolshies seized her pharmacies boohoohoo.

Usually when I see someone reference something in a sentence that is meant to be sarcastic and ironic I take it with a grain of salt.  I am not an Objectivist.  Ayn Rand's only book that is close to decent is We The Living.  The rest is preachy and unreadable.  Ironically We the Living is disliked by Objectivists for reasons that sort of escape me, prolly cause it has a soul and moral ambiguity.  Otherwise I find you're oversimplifying why she left.  The Bolshies ruined Russia's economy, butchered thousands during the revolution and incarcerated thousands more.  The reasons for leaving such a place are legion for those capable.  What's your opinion on Solzhenitsyn?  I mean the Soviets did give him a free room to stay in, right?  He should stop whining.

Nietzsche has a good spirit on how we should challenge ourselves as individuals to be great and enlightened.  But I can't palette his conception of being extraordinary giving you the right to be above morality for a vague higher morality that you get to make up.  I defer to Dostoevsky who argues that there are immutable basic ethics and morals, and that the breaking of them isolates, lessens, and potentially destroys the individual life and freedom. 

I did enjoy the egotistical fuck comment.  Yeah I know selfishness serving the common good.  Invisible hand. Yada yada yada.  I'm in the camp that there may be no such thing as true altruism.  I wouldn't therefore turn to say that being as egotistical as possible is a good thing for everyone.   We'd be better off if we were more self aware on such.

f...formal debate....please....

man someone just delete that fucking wiki already

while i agree that this was a pretty large backpeddle on obama's part, come on! he clarified his position a few months before it even happened and said he would agree to take public financing if him and mccain sat down and etched out a deal regarding the 527s and swiftboating shit.

There is a ninety million dollar reason why Obama chose to opt out, and it was the potential to raise ninety million more than he could under public financing rules. 

Second 527's is a non issue.  The FEC after '04 clarified once and for all that it is illegal for 527's to advocate for or against a candidate.  They were meant to be issue lobbies and that is what they have been, since.  Also I urge you not to live in a parallel universe where the only 527 smearing candidate's in '04 was Swiftboaters for truth.  Moveon.org, America Votes, and America Coming Together did their fair share of smearing as well as an all too eager National news anchor with a pile of fake documents.  The politics of smear and dirty laundry are universal and frankly nothing new.  Andrew Jackson's opponents smeared that his wife was a bigamist and whore and that his mother was a prostitute.  If anything smear could be considered less vicious than it used to be.  Kerry had bigger problems than Swift Boats.  He couldn't answer why he voted against Iraq War I and for Iraq War II, during the debate he merely dittoed the president on the strategy for Iraq, but added he would do it better with no explanation as to what that means or how, and said that he would only take defensive action if it passed the global test.  He was manhandled by himself.

how is that any worse than say mccain, who during his 2000 run called jerry falwell an agent of intolerance and in '08 gave the commencement address at liberty? or his complete reversal of his opinion on offshore drilling? or his complete reversal on torture and habeus corpus?

Jerry Falwell.  One who cares.  Two who cares. Three who cares.  He's on the margins and becoming of lesser importance by the day, and second he said that personal remark eight years ago.  People are allowed to change their minds on people.  For example I have changed my mind on Rendpppppr.  But really in the grand scheme of things it means little about anything.  Its just a photo op and attempt to heal ties with the Christian Right of the party.  It wasn't like he was a pro-choice atheist suddenly finding Christianity and a respect for unborn children.  Personally I'm pro choice but there are bigger more important things than Roe V. Wade and Gay marriage.

Okay number two.  There is no complete reversal on offshore drilling.  He was asked at a townhall meeting if he would be willing to revisit (think once more) his stance on ANWAR and he said yes.  That's a big nothing.  His voting record on the matter speaks for itself.

The final one.  The bill was DOA anyway.  George said he was going to veto, and he did.  Perhaps it was some security for the General Election, or perhaps he traded his show of Republican solidarity for support on something else.  Who can know.  At least he has a record.  Obama can't claim much of the same.  Though interestingly enough with the Primary in hand Obama changed his position on FISA and voted for the changes the POTUS sought.  I'm sure that leaves you warm and fuzzy inside.

Also I heard an interesting tidbit on NPR while I was on my way to walmart to purchase some vise grips.  Fresh Air had some longtime Obama supporter from the Illinois State senate days.  He regailed us listeners with the interesting tale of how he won his first election.  To summarize Barak had his aids challenge his opponents' nomination petitions (including a longtime democrat that held the seat but that's a longer story) and had them kicked off the ballot.  He ran thusly unopposed by using the same tactic the state's political machine uses to keep people off the ballots and control the seats.  That's the politics of change and virtue for you.

But frankly we can trade these barbs of political gossip and snipe away childishly over details that are often inane.  Personally I look for reason to be for a candidate, not against.