Was Ron Paul's presidential campaign a success?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

On the other hand, who owns the life inside? That is why the issue is not easily categorized and either position can fit comfortably into a true libertarian philosophy.

[Mechaman]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will.

Aborting a fetus is no more an act of murder than a landlord kicking out a tenant.

That's right I just made that comparison.

[Scam of God]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

On the other hand, who owns the life inside?

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

[paul718]

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

My mother cannot legally "dispose of me", despite creating me.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

On the other hand, who owns the life inside?

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

Because libertarianism seeks to expand human rights and you are overlooking the human that is the fetus. It is a subjective point of view, and either side fits in with the idea of self-ownership. Why doesn't the fetus have the same right to self-ownership? Here you are getting in to a grey area that isn't easily clarified. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that a fetus is entitled to "rights" but I do believe that it is a valid libertarian position.

[Scam of God]

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

My mother cannot legally "dispose of me", despite creating me.

Nor should she, because you are now fully sentient. But, as per Locke, human rights are entitled only to those organisms capable of self-reflection.

But that's a-okay. We all know there's no serious grounding for your political philosophy.

[Scam of God]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

On the other hand, who owns the life inside?

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

Because libertarianism seeks to expand human rights and you are overlooking the human that is the fetus. It is a subjective point of view, and either side fits in with the idea of self-ownership. Why doesn't the fetus have the same right to self-ownership? Here you are getting in to a grey area that isn't easily clarified.

Because the fetus is non-sentient. Human rights are derived from cognition under traditional liberal theory, which is libertarian political theory. That which does not cognate, does not possess rights.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

My mother cannot legally "dispose of me", despite creating me.

Nor should she, because you are now fully sentient. But, as per Locke, human rights are entitled only to those organisms capable of self-reflection.

But that's a-okay. We all know there's no serious grounding for your political philosophy.

You do not even know his political philosophy. Your entire means of operation is based on attacking anyone with a blue avatar as being a fake libertarian. You're constantly making a fool of yourself.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

On the other hand, who owns the life inside?

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

Because libertarianism seeks to expand human rights and you are overlooking the human that is the fetus. It is a subjective point of view, and either side fits in with the idea of self-ownership. Why doesn't the fetus have the same right to self-ownership? Here you are getting in to a grey area that isn't easily clarified.

Because the fetus is non-sentient. Human rights are derived from cognition under traditional liberal theory, which is libertarian political theory. That which does not cognate, does not possess rights.

So those who may have disabilities, handicaps, or medical conditions that cause them to be "non-cognate" therefore lose their rights? What about those two young to ponder serious "self-reflection"?

[Scam of God]

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

My mother cannot legally "dispose of me", despite creating me.

Nor should she, because you are now fully sentient. But, as per Locke, human rights are entitled only to those organisms capable of self-reflection.

But that's a-okay. We all know there's no serious grounding for your political philosophy.

You do not even know his political philosophy. Your entire means of operation is based on attacking anyone with a blue avatar as being a fake libertarian. You're constantly making a fool of yourself.

I know his political philosophy better than you, as we've hashed out these very issues before. I also know he's willing to spread his cheeks and get pumped with whatever cock the Religious Right is offering this week, and to make excuse after excuse for whatever political credos his holds at any given movement, provided they don't conflict with the Republican agenda.

[Scam of God]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

On the other hand, who owns the life inside?

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

Because libertarianism seeks to expand human rights and you are overlooking the human that is the fetus. It is a subjective point of view, and either side fits in with the idea of self-ownership. Why doesn't the fetus have the same right to self-ownership? Here you are getting in to a grey area that isn't easily clarified.

Because the fetus is non-sentient. Human rights are derived from cognition under traditional liberal theory, which is libertarian political theory. That which does not cognate, does not possess rights.

So those who may have disabilities, handicaps, or medical conditions that cause them to be "non-cognate" therefore lose their rights? What about those two young to ponder serious "self-reflection"?

Protip: vegetables already don't have any rights. They are given over to their next-of-kin to make their decisions for them, and this is fine (naturally the oh-so-libertarian GOP felt differently, e.g. the Terri Schaivo case. This is to be expected of them.).

[Alexander Hamilton]

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

My mother cannot legally "dispose of me", despite creating me.

Nor should she, because you are now fully sentient. But, as per Locke, human rights are entitled only to those organisms capable of self-reflection.

But that's a-okay. We all know there's no serious grounding for your political philosophy.

You do not even know his political philosophy. Your entire means of operation is based on attacking anyone with a blue avatar as being a fake libertarian. You're constantly making a fool of yourself.

I know his political philosophy better than you, as we've hashed out these very issues before. I also know he's willing to spread his cheeks and get pumped with whatever cock the Religious Right is offering this week, and to make excuse after excuse for whatever political credos his holds at any given movement, provided they don't conflict with the Republican agenda.

You never said anything to me when I had a green avatar. As soon as I got a blue one you made these typical attacks.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Paul is not libertarian, while yes, he does oppose that abhorrent war, and the Patriot Act, he still opposes Gay Marriage, Women's right to choose, and other social issues that make me feel a little uncomfortable about him.

Marriage should not be a government institution, and abortion is subject to whether or not you view it as murder. A libertarian could be against abortion on the basis that they are against murder. Would you support the legality of homicide?

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

On the other hand, who owns the life inside?

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

Because libertarianism seeks to expand human rights and you are overlooking the human that is the fetus. It is a subjective point of view, and either side fits in with the idea of self-ownership. Why doesn't the fetus have the same right to self-ownership? Here you are getting in to a grey area that isn't easily clarified.

Because the fetus is non-sentient. Human rights are derived from cognition under traditional liberal theory, which is libertarian political theory. That which does not cognate, does not possess rights.

So those who may have disabilities, handicaps, or medical conditions that cause them to be "non-cognate" therefore lose their rights? What about those two young to ponder serious "self-reflection"?

Protip: vegetables already don't have any rights. They are given over to their next-of-kin to make their decisions for them, and this is fine (naturally the oh-so-libertarian GOP felt differently, e.g. the Terri Schaivo case. This is to be expected of them.).

I can only speak for myself, but I opposed how the Schaivo case was handled, as well as the Bush administration entirely.

[Scam of God]

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

My mother cannot legally "dispose of me", despite creating me.

Nor should she, because you are now fully sentient. But, as per Locke, human rights are entitled only to those organisms capable of self-reflection.

But that's a-okay. We all know there's no serious grounding for your political philosophy.

You do not even know his political philosophy. Your entire means of operation is based on attacking anyone with a blue avatar as being a fake libertarian. You're constantly making a fool of yourself.

I know his political philosophy better than you, as we've hashed out these very issues before. I also know he's willing to spread his cheeks and get pumped with whatever cock the Religious Right is offering this week, and to make excuse after excuse for whatever political credos his holds at any given movement, provided they don't conflict with the Republican agenda.

You never said anything to me when I had a green avatar. As soon as I got a blue one you made these typical attacks.

Oh poor, pitiful, persecuted you. You really ought to be a Christian Fundamentalist; you share their same martyr-complex.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Who made the life inside? Am I not entitled to the ownership of that which I myself made? If so, then that principle ought to be applied no differently on the issue of abortion. Just as a libertarian would not tell me what to do with a cabbage I grow, likewise no-one shall tell me what to do with any other form of life of my own creation.

My mother cannot legally "dispose of me", despite creating me.

Nor should she, because you are now fully sentient. But, as per Locke, human rights are entitled only to those organisms capable of self-reflection.

But that's a-okay. We all know there's no serious grounding for your political philosophy.

You do not even know his political philosophy. Your entire means of operation is based on attacking anyone with a blue avatar as being a fake libertarian. You're constantly making a fool of yourself.

I know his political philosophy better than you, as we've hashed out these very issues before. I also know he's willing to spread his cheeks and get pumped with whatever cock the Religious Right is offering this week, and to make excuse after excuse for whatever political credos his holds at any given movement, provided they don't conflict with the Republican agenda.

You never said anything to me when I had a green avatar. As soon as I got a blue one you made these typical attacks.

Oh poor, pitiful, persecuted you. You really ought to be a Christian Fundamentalist; you share their same martyr-complex.

LOL. What a laughable excuse of a response.

[paul718]

Hamilton,

Einzige is one of the most fundamentally dishonest posters on Atlas.  Don't get too worked up in the back-and-forth with him, as he talks himself in circles and usually resorts to ad hominem attacks.  He's one of the most partisan and passionate Democrats here, yet somehow espouses some noble belief in libertarianism.  Even the other Democrats here can't stand him.  Just take a look at the "Opinion of Einzige" threads.  Most posters have had him on ignore at one point or another.  

And you're right in that Einzige doesn't really know my politics.  On more than one occasion he's projected religious-right and neo-conservative opinions on me, when I truly held no such opinions.  Which is odd because he and I have had numerous debates.  But again, it's not really a secret that Einzige has an honesty problem.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Hamilton,

Einzige is one of the most fundamentally dishonest posters on Atlas.  Don't get too worked up in the back-and-forth with him, as he talks himself in circles and usually resorts to ad hominem attacks.  He's one of the most partisan and passionate Democrats here, yet somehow espouses some noble belief in libertarianism.  Even the other Democrats here can't stand him.  Just take a look at the "Opinion of Einzige" threads.  Most posters have had him on ignore at one point or another.  

And you're right in that Einzige doesn't really know my politics.  On more than one occasion he's projected religious-right and neo-conservative opinions on me, when I truly held no such opinions.  Which is odd because he and I have had numerous debates.  But again, it's not really a secret that Einzige has an honesty problem.

I know about Einzige. I just love seeing him defend his indefensible claims. He is like one of those little dolls where you pull the string and they say 1 of 5 sayings.

[Mint]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Trade. And for many abortion.

Basically his trade position is a little out of whack with a pure libertarian, but he's certainly a libertarian imho.  Although I've always considered myself to be a libertarian when many don't

How is it out of wack? NAFTA and other agreements like it all contain hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, restrictions, etc. in addition to putting un-elected bureaucrats in charge of large segments of policy (just like the WTO). The truly libertarian position would be to oppose that and tariffs.

Now as for the question? I'd say it laid the groundwork for conservatives (actual, not neo con) and libertarians to have a say in the GOP again, yes. But it's far from a certainty that the party will pay more than lipservice to the movement, even if things like more party leaders working with him and growing anxiety over the DHS, the Federal Reserve, etc. in the party base are welcome signs. I'm going to continue to lean 3rd Party unless we see serious leadership change basically.

[CJK]

No.

[Psychic Octopus]

Come on over the water's fine... we would absolutely love to have more libertarians or social liberals in the GOP...

[pogo stick]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Abortion
Public Prayer
Gay Marriage
Any social issue pretty much


Paul would've made a great republican if it weren't for his Anti-Israel stances...

After Mitt lost in 2008, I seriously considered Paul as a choice, but his foreign policy stances are too horrible to stand.

[cannonia]

(naturally the oh-so-libertarian GOP felt differently, e.g. the Terri Schaivo case. This is to be expected of them.).

I can only speak for myself, but I opposed how the Schaivo case was handled, as well as the Bush administration entirely.

Ron Paul criticized that government intervention as well.  Einzige is trolling.

[cannonia]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly beyond Ron Paul's wildest expectations.  The buzz, the donations, and the following he got took most everyone by surprise.

[Mint]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Abortion
Public Prayer
Gay Marriage
Any social issue pretty much


Paul would've made a great republican if it weren't for his Anti-Israel stances...

After Mitt lost in 2008, I seriously considered Paul as a choice, but his foreign policy stances are too horrible to stand.

Sigh.

If the US adopted the policies a lot of Conservatives and Libertarians wanted we'd still be trading with Israel and recognizing their government. It's just that we wouldn't be giving them billions in aid or as aggressive overseas. That's a healthy relationship, not a hostile one. Although I wonder what you mean by 'as a choice' since you were only what, 13 last year?

[dead0man]

please please please stop responding to the idiot.