User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 46

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    That depends on whether the Democrats are able to falsely label him as a racist, rather than a naive idealist.
    I don't think either label is going to stick. But we'll see. He had a 25 point lead over his Democrat opponent as of the latest Rasmussen poll, but that was before yesterday's shark attack...

  2. #22
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry View Post
    The guy is bright, a fast learner, and the demographics of Kentucky really make it unlikely that his criticisms of Federal regulation of private property will derail him (Kentucky is 1) a Southern state, and 2) Less than 10% black, and they weren't going to vote for him anyway).
    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    That depends on whether the Democrats are able to falsely label him as a racist, rather than a naive idealist.
    Democrats actually outnumber Republicans in Kentucky. And they have a Democrat governor. It's very perceivable he could lose, it's not just another all red state.

    His position that businesses should be allowed to discriminate racially isn't even that popular with regular conservatives. It's pretty much a settled civil rights consensus.

  3. #23
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Here's the deal with Rand Paul.

    The progressive media has always given Paul and his poppy huge megaphones as "principled" Republicans who attack Republicans, similar to the way Fox News loves Senator Lieberman. For example, the Pauls had no problem comparing Bush's policies to combat jihad as fascist imperialism-- the Pauls have a habit of recklessly throwing rhetorical bombs, usually directed at Republicans. Again, the liberal media sold this as being "principled" and being a "true conservative" unlike phony neo-conservatives like myself.

    Now, fast-forward. Paul wins the nomination, and goes over to talk to what he thought were his friends over at MSDNC. But these snakes are not his friends, and immediately after he won the nomination (but not before) he got ambushed big time. McCain learned the same lesson in 2008-- he was every Democrat's favorite Republican, a "maverick," as long as he was stabbing other Republicans in the back. But Republicans who live by the liberal media die by the liberal media.

    Paul should have been doing his victory laps over at Fox News. This is also a theoretical problem with libertarianism -- an over-rationalistic view of the world that blinds them to who their friends and enemies are-- and this applies to anything from jihad to immigration to violent criminals to even forming basic political alliances.

    Anyway, I hope the libertarians learn something from this experience.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Democrats actually outnumber Republicans in Kentucky. And they have a Democrat governor. It's very perceivable he could lose, it's not just another all red state.

    His position that businesses should be allowed to discriminate racially isn't even that popular with regular conservatives. It's pretty much a settled civil rights consensus.
    It's certainly conceivable that Rand could lose. However, given the demographics and locale (an average Democrat in Kentucky is probably "more conservative" than an average Republican in Massachusetts) I doubt having an unpopular view on this issue is going to hurt him much if at all...

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    This is also a theoretical problem with libertarianism -- an over-rationalistic view of the world that blinds them to who their friends and enemies are-- and this applies to anything from jihad to immigration to violent criminals to even forming basic political alliances.
    This is the part of your argument which does not make sense to me...

  6. #26
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Fecal: This is the part of your argument which does not make sense to me...
    I was talking about the Homo economicus.

    Libertarians have an individualist view of our world, as if humanity reduces to separate atoms of selfish calculation. When everything is exploitation, then nothing is; Rand Paul couldn't see that he was being used by people he thought were his friends until it was too late.

    Conservatives, both neo and paleo, usually are aware of allegiances, loyalties, ideologies, etc. since they have a philosophy that understands human beings in cultural terms. In contrast, a libertarian sees us all as rationally calculating our preferences; anything that infringes upon the autonomy of these calculations, we're told, is coercion.

    A conservative sees man as a primitive ape plus a little bit of culture; it isn't that difficult for human beings to revert to savagery under the right conditions. It is the same deal for religious conservatives, who believe in Original Sin. To talk about calculating our preferences in isolation is fine for the approximations of economic theory, but it makes no sense when we look at the big picture issues, the rise and fall of civilizations. After all, where do our preferences come from? A conservative would say indoctrination, acculturation, prejudice, passion, imagination, etc.

    So a libertarian, like a progressive, believes man is born innocent, and institutions make him evil-- they just differ on the boogeymen-- corporations for the progressives, government for the libertarians. A conservative in contrast believes men are inclined toward evil, and institutions are our best hope for making us self-moving citizens. Most progressives and libertarians are very nice, gentle people themselves, so perhaps they're generalizing their own personality to the rest of humanity. There is a definite naivety about the Pauls, like sheep in a world of wolves.
    [YOUTUBE="3j387pjjbv0"]L-Ron[/YOUTUBE]

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    I was talking about the Homo economicus.

    Libertarians have an individualist view of our world, as if humanity reduces to separate atoms of selfish calculation.
    You actually have this backwards, based on my experience with libertarians and as a libertarian...I know of no other group of people which so fully appreciates our interdependence and laws of cause and effect.

    For example: Blowback: Why They Try to Bomb

  8. #28
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    I know of no other group of people which so fully appreciates our interdependence and laws of cause and effect.
    Then we're saying the same thing-- that's the "billiard ball" model of human beings that I attributed to libertarians above.

    If jihadists blow stuff up, they must have had a rational reason, there must be root cause to explain their behavior. The alternative idea that it is purely religion that motivates jihad is ruled out a priori by all liberals, both classical and modern. Why? Sigh. The homo economicus.

    The blowback theory is absurd on its face. Muslim supremacists are killing people all over the world even where America is not involved-- Russia, India, China, Thailand, Nigeria-- as Samuel Huntington put it, Islam has bloody borders. In addition, we don't see victims of the Cold War in Vietnam, Chile, Hungary, Poland et cetera strapping bombs to their children to get revenge on the Americans or the Russians. Another words, American intervention is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Muslim violence. Therefore, the blowback explanation of jihad is false.

    Even worse, the a lot of these jihadists come from affluent, secular environments-- a lot of these guys are getting radicalized by self-hating progressives in Europe. Osama bin Laden is a multimillionaire from a secular family. Ziad Jarrah, studying aerospace engineering in Hamburg, was also from a secular family. Zacarias Moussaoui has a Master's in international business. Zawahiri is a medical doctor. Mohammed Atta-- degreed in architecture. These aren't poor, misunderstood proletarians unconsciously trying to overthrow the bourgeoisie so The People can get health care. These are intelligent, ideological human beings, that need to be understood on their own terms, not by some stupid mechanistic libertarian robot theory. Reading the writings of Sayed Qutb might be a good place to start to understand what Muslim supremacists are trying to accomplish, and why their defeat is urgent and necessary.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    Then we're saying the same thing-- that's the "billiard ball" model of human beings that I attributed to libertarians above.

    If jihadists blow stuff up, they must have had a rational reason, there must be root cause to explain their behavior. The alternative idea that it is purely religion that motivates jihad is ruled out a priori by all liberals, both classical and modern. Why? Sigh. The homo economicus.

    The blowback theory is absurd on its face. Muslim supremacists are killing people all over the world even where America is not involved-- Russia, India, China, Thailand, Nigeria-- as Samuel Huntington put it, Islam has bloody borders. In addition, we don't see victims of the Cold War in Vietnam, Chile, Hungary, Poland et cetera strapping bombs to their children to get revenge on the Americans or the Russians. Another words, American intervention is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Muslim violence. Therefore, the blowback explanation of jihad is false.

    Even worse, the a lot of these jihadists come from affluent, secular environments-- a lot of these guys are getting radicalized by self-hating progressives in Europe. Osama bin Laden is a multimillionaire from a secular family. Ziad Jarrah, studying aerospace engineering in Hamburg, was also from a secular family. Zacarias Moussaoui has a Master's in international business. Zawahiri is a medical doctor. Mohammed Atta-- degreed in architecture. These aren't poor, misunderstood proletarians unconsciously trying to overthrow the bourgeoisie so The People can get health care. These are intelligent, ideological human beings, that need to be understood on their own terms, not by some stupid mechanistic libertarian robot theory. Reading the writings of Sayed Qutb might be a good place to start to understand what Muslim supremacists are trying to accomplish, and why their defeat is urgent and necessary.
    Thank you for that enlightening perspective. You might enjoy this film. It's about a normal, happy family that accidentally adopts a little Muslim girl:

    The Bad Seed (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  10. #30
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    Then we're saying the same thing-- that's the "billiard ball" model of human beings that I attributed to libertarians above.

    If jihadists blow stuff up, they must have had a rational reason, there must be root cause to explain their behavior. The alternative idea that it is purely religion that motivates jihad is ruled out a priori by all liberals, both classical and modern. Why? Sigh. The homo economicus.
    There is always a cause. Whether or not it is rational is a matter for debate. What is not up for debate is your ability to stereotype groups of people incorrectly. But at least you managed to do it without blurting out blatant insults this time.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. How Much Of A Sociopath Are You?
    By Mondo in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 11-29-2017, 02:14 AM
  2. "How much sugar in a can of cola?"
    By Rasofy in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 12:35 PM
  3. How much of you is your psychology?
    By Xander in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 06:11 PM
  4. How much of strength/skill is mental??
    By mysavior in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 10:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO