Say it aint so Ron Paul?

[Kung Wu]

This is probably a subject for another thread: while I understand its appeal, I don't see where Libertarianism touches ever really touches the ground. Honestly, I've never put much thought to it, but my quick take away is that it relies heavily on terminology that is abstract, pressed into service and then traded upon by disciples who rarely take into account the effortful conceptual construction required before their axioms become logically valid.

Wow, either you're trying to show off, or you're testing my reading comprehension. Either way it worked.

I'm not sure if you meant "Libertarianism" with a capital "ell" or "libertarianism" with a lower-case "ell"? There is a big difference, I'm sure you're aware. A "Libertarian" is a member of a party with a platform that purports to be "libertarian", and has concrete stances on different issues. I am not current on their platform at all, but I think @RoyalShock: has the pulse on that? It sounds like you are more talking about "libertarianism", though which is more of a philosophy like conservatism and liberalism? In that regard, I think the ideas are _more_ solidly planted than both conservatism and liberalism -- which have taken on a more topical approach.

That said, Ron Paul is running for an office he can never obtain. The generally understood qualifications for the position are endogenously produced by an institutional establishment with which he claims to be at loggerheads.

True, but didn't they say the same thing about Reagan?

[RoyalShock]

I'm definitely not big-L. There are some party hardliners who have some far-out political positions.

[Maggie]

Down time for me - I need a break, and this has got out of hand. Query: Historically, who were the Palestinians? Second question: After all these years, does it matter any more?

Don't expect a reply from me for a few days.

Edit: What happened against CU?

[RoyalShock]

In case anyone is interested, here is a good summary and time-line of the whole newsletter controversy. Note the response by the Austin, TX NAACP president and the guy (Dondero) who, IIRC, was credited for bringing up the newsletters last election in an attempt to smear his former boss.

http://pithy.butnowyouknow.net/the-facts-about-ron-pauls-newsletters-and-the-racist-articles/

What should be most telling is that outside of those newsletters no one can find anything else he has actually said to align him with that way of thinking. One of his primary oppositions to the drug war is that it unfairly targets and imprisons minorities.

[Wu du Nord]

Wow, either you're trying to show off, or you're testing my reading comprehension. Either way it worked.

Hm... maybe I'm just trying to say that reducing a wide variety of human activities and relationships into simple abstract terms (e.g., labor, property, liberty, rights, etc.) and then trading on those expressions away from the initial environment - without going back to re-account for the activities subsumed under the initial accounting term - is untenable as a serious theoretic construct of how people exist and could be expected to exist if things were kinda different. Holy-moly, I swear that makes sense.

I'm not sure if you meant "Libertarianism" with a capital "ell" or "libertarianism" with a lower-case "ell"? There is a big difference, I'm sure you're aware.

Guess what you get for assuming, yep! ;-) Actually, I wasn't really aware, but now I'm wondering where the People's Front of Judea fits into this arrangement. I don't exaggerate when I say that I don't really ever discuss politics. Mostly, it feels like tribalism to me.

True, but didn't they say the same thing about Reagan?

There you go again... ;-)
This ain't 1979, and Ron Paul ain't Ron Reagan.

[shockmonster]

In case anyone is interested, here is a good summary and time-line of the whole newsletter controversy. Note the response by the Austin, TX NAACP president and the guy (Dondero) who, IIRC, was credited for bringing up the newsletters last election in an attempt to smear his former boss.

http://pithy.butnowyouknow.net/the-facts-about-ron-pauls-newsletters-and-the-racist-articles/

What should be most telling is that outside of those newsletters no one can find anything else he has actually said to align him with that way of thinking. One of his primary oppositions to the drug war is that it unfairly targets and imprisons minorities.

If it wasn't for the blue dress, we wouldn't have been able to tie Clinton to Lewinsky either.

[Wu du Nord]

Sorry, I didn't want to start a thread, so I grabbed this one.

Quick question: Off the cuff (meaning I don't have the link handy, but it's found easily enough I'm sure), why did Ron Paul only beat Romney in NH with people making less than 30k/year? That's a pretty low income mark.

Edit: here. I haven't read this article, but it mentions the same factoid that I heard elsewhere. Thanks Google.

[Kung Wu]

That's a weird question to ponder. How did he do in other income categories? We know he lost but what's the breakdown?

Also, how did Paul get any votes at all in a Northeastern state?

And finally, what does it matter? The media have elected Romney. Game over.

[Maggie]

It is not surprising Romney did well in N.H. The fact that Paul beat Romney with voters earning less than $30K might be explained, in part, by the fact that he enjoys widespread support among college students.