Uh, did you read the article?I find it very curious a Ron Paul supporter would post stories aimed at defaming the Tea Party.
Uh, did you read the article?I find it very curious a Ron Paul supporter would post stories aimed at defaming the Tea Party.
Uh, did you read the article?
I would love to see BO's grades etc....Oh yea he won't release them. Now, why wouldn't you release your transcripts if your as smart as all the liberals say you are. I mean what harm can come out of a transcript full of A's.
Unless your not as intelligent as all the libs think you are.
I hate to defend Obama, but he did get into Columbia University and Harvard Law, so I'm guessing his grades were decent. Not that grades are necessarily an indicator of intelligence...
Affirmative Action could have played a role. Bush went to Yale and Harvard MBA.
Admit it.
It's killing all y'all he wasted his cameo on popeye and myself.
She's also a 9/11 Truther, and a racist.
Ahahha. I may hang out for a bit. Getting burnt out on code, so I figured I may as well bicker with yall for a bit to regain sanity :updown:This is all we get folks, he's now seen his shadow and gone back underground for another year.
You don't get to be the President of the Harvard Law review because of Affirmative action.Affirmative Action could have played a role. Bush went to Yale and Harvard MBA.
I should note too - Cynthia McKinney is fucking insane and anyone who voted for her is a certifiable moron. I don't even think they fall under the category of 'liberal', they fall under the 'we let these people vote?' category.
See what I did there? It's not good to make the same sort of ad hom attacks against other people that are made against your guy. It's a race to the bottom (all politics is really) which no one wins.I should note too - Ron Paul is fucking insane and anyone who voted for him is a certifiable moron. I don't even think they fall under the category of 'conservative', they fall under the 'we let these people vote?' category.
Angry White Man | The New Republic
He's also a 9/11 Truther, and anti-Semitic.
Affirmative Action could have played a role. Bush went to Yale and Harvard MBA.
What is important to remember is that they are political ideologies. A liberal may be for abortion to protect the mother, or to help reduce population. A conservative may be for less spending because it is more efficient, or because debt leads to vice. They are political ideologies which reflect particular policy positions, not necessarily the same justification or moral basis for those positions.Liberal or Conservative are ideologies.
Libertarians are not conservative or liberal.There are plenty of liberals that don't think the democrats are liberal enough in some areas (green party for one) and plenty of conservatives that don't think the Republicans are conservative enough in some areas (Libertarians for example).
Opinions are indeed subjective. They differ from person to person, moment to moment. What is not subjective is objective reality. An apple is an apple for example. How we feel about apples, whether we want apples, that is subjective. That an apple is an apple is however key to being able to think without contradiction (law of identity).In the real world, there are more than two viewpoints. Everything isn't black or white, most of the time there are infinite shades of gray in between.
This is just a general post, not directed specifically at anyone (including UG).
What is important to remember is that they are political ideologies. A liberal may be for abortion to protect the mother, or to help reduce population. A conservative may be for less spending because it is more efficient, or because debt leads to vice. They are political ideologies which reflect particular policy positions, not necessarily the same justification or moral basis for those positions.
I think it is important to clarify that because...
Libertarians are not conservative or liberal.
Small "L" libertarianism is a moral philosophy, not necessarily a political one. In fact, libertarian anarchists are apolitical and still consistently libertarian.
Libertarians are driven by one moral axiom. Non-aggression. It is never morally permissible to initiate force against someone else for any reason. This axiom is based on self-ownership.
Progressivism, conservatism, neo-liberal/conservatism, liberalism, socialism, are not based on such a simple and coherent foundation.
Which brings me to...
Opinions are indeed subjective. They differ from person to person, moment to moment. What is not subjective is objective reality. An apple is an apple for example. How we feel about apples, whether we want apples, that is subjective. That an apple is an apple is however key to being able to think without contradiction (law of identity).
There are a lot of shades to morality. Facts however are black and white. 1+1 = 2.
It is a bad habit in all of us to confuse our morality with fact. That is why politics exist. So the largest group can impose their morality on the smaller group through the use of force, justified by some artificial legal construct that makes what is immoral for the individual (stealing, murder) moral for the majority (taxes, war).
Libertarians see a way that does not require politics (conservatism or liberalism) for all groups to have their personal freedom.
made me think of this shirt.That an apple is an apple is however key to being able to think without contradiction
Political libertarian aka Libertarian Party member. Comes in two basic flavors.1. So what's a big L libertarian?
It is based on the law of identity which is essential for logic.2. You say facts are black and white but that is on the premise that facts are, well, factual.
Those aren't facts though. Those are observations. Observations are subjective. Facts are not.Many time "facts" are just assertions formed by everyday people with flawed judgements and questionable perceptions. (look at the facts from multiple eye witness testimonies to one event and see how much they vary) Much like re-written history, a fact can be in the eye of the beholder.