If you were truly diverted by my so-called diversion, I feel sorry for you. Of course, if we disagree, I'm probably some evil totalitarian trying to hoodwink you.
P1: Me too. In fact, I find the Constitution to be a flawed document that hasn't aided liberty much at all. Most of the time, the Constitution's words are directly used to necessitate an increase, not decrease, in the size and range of authority of the government. The notion of using a piece of paper to restrain government is flawed in the first place and history has proven it ineffective.
P2: You and I have the same position on guns rights, aside from apparently how scared you are of losing it due to Kucinich's actions - something I find impossible and absurd. There is one difference though clearly, I don't believe that the second amendment is the most important right we have. I believe that they're all important.
P3: Your own mention of the Constitution as your means test leads to that.
P4: Maybe if I shared your perspective in this matter your insults would sting as much as you want them to, but I don't.
P5: No, I don't. I haven't abandoned or excused any my positions. I still strongly hold all of my positions.
P6: Yes, the notion of compromising to get more of what you want than what you don't want is very old. As far as my brand of compromise leading to totalitarianism, that's absurd and necessarily relies on revisionist history. You're forgetting that not everyone holds anything anywhere near my own views or yours, and that in fact, many people are against the common interpretation of liberty because they genuinely believe the government has to act to solve problems. Oh, but of course, that's all just a matter of compromisers not seizing liberty, right? Take off your blinders.
P7: So, some prefer to see the world in black and white, others see many shades of grey. The options often are: 1. Get 70% what you want, 30% of what you don't want, or 2. Get 0% of what you want and 100% of what you don't want. The black and white crowd might choose option 2 on principle. I choose option 1 because in my view it's better suited to my long-term goals. You can wait around for the perfect candidate to run, that's fine with me. I'm not going to childishly insult you based on how you choose to direct your political action, especially considering we probably agree on most issues. That would just serve to make me look like some kind of arrogant elitist. "Oh, you disagree ever so slightly? TYRANT! EVIL!" pffffffft
P8: Good point. I agree - people who stick to principle and exclude themselves from the process intentionally are incapable of accomplishing much except standing on their principle.
P9: A return to your easily refuted revisionist history, I see. Liberty minded people like myself, who specifically search for candidates who are more in favor of liberty than against it, did not bring about the current fascist state of the U.S. You have to ignore all of the actual fascists in our history who were voted for sincerely. In other words, you're grasping at straws.
P10: Kucinich has much overlap with the liberty movement. Go ahead and write him off though, I don't care one bit.
P11: I'm part of a herd now? Go ahead and lay on that propaganda nice and thick.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise