an unconventional view on the economy

Good mother fucking idea. Four AM. Fuck.

Oh, I know, meow. RP's entire identity is not wrapped up in his conservative interpretation of the constitution. lololololololololololololol
Or his conservative approach to government in every single way and in every single aspect lolololololololololololol
Instead I am the one mischaracterizing

The political positions of Ron Paul (R-TX), former United States presidential candidate, have been labeled conservative,[1] Constitutionalist,[2] and libertarian.[3] Ron Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[4] reflects both his medical degree and the insistence[5] that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[6][7] This position has frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Your own standard of evidence

Let's see...conservative deployment of troops overseas.
Lower spending and smaller government...how can that be termed as anything but conservative?
Is there anyone that cares to agree that RP is not a conservative? lol
Thanks for demonstrating just how intellectually honest you are again, meow

Conservative Political Action Conference

What I dont understand about that article is that they "ayn rand people" are kinda shooting their own theory in the foot to attack the current system. They bow to the god that is the free market, yet argue that a little government interference can create an environment that overturns the apple cart.

Why cant the almighty free market steer around these things?

Last time I checked people called George W. Bush a conservative. In any case, conservative is a meaningless word in politics. What is it that is being conserved? The traditions of ten years ago? Twenty? Fifty? Two hundred? One thousand?

What you call the "liberal" political ideology can just as accurately be described as conservative, in that "conserves" certain aspects of FDR, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and me, Mao. I suppose you are right then in saying that adherence to the U.S. Constitution is conservative as well. That seems to be the consistent definition.

I think a mistake you have been making and that I have failed to recognize is assuming that liberal and conservative are opposites. The opposite of conservative is progressive. Conserving the past and progressing to the future. Liberalism, is defined by certain political values, as are socialism and fascism. It would be appropriate and coherent to lump specific liberal, socialist, and fascist values into either category, categories that do not have absolute definitions with respect to values, rather, they describe a set of temporal relations.

In that case, progressive, as you have been defining liberalism, as exists today, includes some elements of the personal liberty aspect of liberalism (gay rights, abortion, secularism), socialist public programs (welfare, health care, education), socialist or fascist government interference in the economy (central economic planning, income tax, high levels of regulation), and less economic freedom.

Conservative then, as you call Reaganism, has some properties of economic liberalism a limited government intervention on the market, fewer regulations, lower taxes on the rich; in other respects it is fascist, government-corporate alliance, banking bailouts, privatization of gains and socialization of profits; minimal socialist programs; fascist in most areas of personal liberties (drugs, abortion, gay rights, church and state, nationalism).

Mao is right, this argument is tarded.

You did not write this. Where did it come from?

I would bet that he did write that.

I did write it. Doubting Thomas, search Google if you do not believe.

Given the average intelligence of the SFN Politics poster, I understand why you might be skeptical. But by definition some us have to lie on the right tail of the SFN IQ distribution curve, and I, in all humility, happen to be one. Unlike others who rant and rave, deflect and distort, I write in complete, coherent, and relevant sentences and paragraphs.

uh...dipshit...you assumed they are opposites. otherwise you would not have so much invested in denying RP's conservative philosophies. remember not to put words in my mouth, meow.

Well I just admitted that I was wrong to not recognize that error earlier. But you (or your sidekick Fdubya) were the one who brought the term conservative into the discussion. What I have been arguing in defense of Ron Paul is that the modern American definition of "conservative" is not an accurate description of his political views.

See my post above on conservatism and progressivism. Ron Paul supports the economic liberalism (free market) of conservatism and the personal liberty of progressivism. He opposes the fascist aspect of conservatism and the socialist aspect of progressivism. He does not fit into either of two categories your mind is limited to. The best description of his politics is liberal. And war has not even entered the discussion yet. On that very important issue he is more liberal than any person in Congress except maybe Dennis Kucinich.

"dipshit" "meow" ""

Why do you do it? It makes you look like a child. You should not want the same reputation as Fdubya.

I think this illustrates quite well the foolishness of using words like "conservative" and "right wing." In this one definition it means libertarianism and authoritarianism, laissez-faire and corporatism, free trade and protectionism, at the same time. How can those contradictions be reconciled? Better to just abandon that intellectually bankrupt way of thinking.

And the last time I checked Obama was called a liberal. Do you see how this works? And liberal is just as meaningless a term. So please don't pretend to correct me anymore.

And what you term liberalism is more accurately termed conservatism. True conservatism. As I said from the beginning, these words have no meaning outside of a context.
I don't think there is really anything conservative about Reagan repussicans. That doesn't mean I am using the terms incorrectly. And I don't think Obama is especially liberal. But to say I am wrong in general to term Obama a liberal and RP a conservative is bullshit. A pointless semantic game.

He is.

Stop acting the fool.

Its all contained in the definition of Liberalism. It isn't Liberalism without the socialism contained therein. Period.

You are an amazing example of a Grade "A" Stumpy-Cunt. You say you are using the accepted definition, and then proceed to use your own time and time again, since your delusions can't hold up if you were to stick to your word.

:drown:

Wrong Retaaad. Using the same Dr.'s quote, and the modern American definition that you accepted for the purposes of this argument:

Liberalism = a balance of Socialism, civil rights, checks and balances, independent press, and a pluralistic society

Also (for the third time):

Modern American liberalism is a combination of social liberalism, social progressivism, and a mixed economy. It is distinguished from classic liberalism and libertarianism

No shit. That's what everyone but you is talking about. Too bad you are too much of a cunt to hold to the definition you accepted earlier. Of course your entire delusional argument collapses when you do, so its not surprising a prissy twat like you has to retreat back to his Austrian fantasy world in order to pretend he hasn't been completely PWND and embarassed. (again)

:hw:

Well of course you are. Simple common sense dictates everyone should test out that way. Even NCStupid-Narc tested out that way.

But of course he, like you, end up supporting conservatives. This is a sign of a lack of personal insight, awareness and understanding. In your case, the level of denial involved also suggests some mental illness.

Stupid is just Stupid, but if we posit that you have a high IQ as you claim (although obviously not relative to mine), it can only be mental illness measured as an inverse ratio to your intelligence that could explain your pathetic delusions and denials.

:burst:

You suck his cock harder than anyone. To hear you carry on, he shits pearls and farts Chanel #5. He's an Austrian, you're and Austrian. He's halfafag, you're.....

And yet me and Hanzo manage to test out exactly where our political views are, with the politicians we follow and support. See how that works?

Its only you conservatives that have been DUPED into supporting views and people you really don't, upon even the most superficial examination.

Dogma first, right Loother?

Well, to be "faire", RP is lower on the authoritarian scale than most all of them. Didn't you notice? The test is saying that he is one of the LEAST authoritarian among them. The test must be more accurate than you pretend.

Which is why he is also further RIGHT than anyone. Because his economics (just as I have been saying) are as RIGHT-WING as they come. To the right of Friedmanism.

Sorry.

:hw:

Haven't you noticed? Threads and discussions go where I want them to, when I want them to, and how I want them to. Thanks for taking the bait, Genius!

:fish:

I don't have any problem understanding what you mean by calling RP a liberal. What I object to is you correcting my use of the term. But you will notice that I haven't called anyone a liberal. And I never said it was the opposite of conservatism. I realize that these words must have a context. That is why I call RP a conservative...because it precisely describes his approach to government. In addition to the fact that his economic policies are shared by many fake conservatives. But that is your problem that he gets lumped in with them, not mine. Just like you don't like that Obama is called a liberal. I just don't see that as a problem.
Further I do consider people like Nadar to be liberal. And our society does not have a problem with that. It is just the Austrian mutants all in a huff over a poorly defined word. You are the one with a limited concept.

How so?

There you go again! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! :burst:

This isn't Europe, Dipshit.

Give it up.