How and who wrote the story is not of question, you said "show me" Kliesto did, and now your ranting about the quality. The simple fact is RP was skipped over, that was the ONLY point I was trying to make. Actually I don't give a hoot about your personal experiences with yahoo and what you deem poor choices in journalism. And I will apologize for saying yahoo didn't print the story, you're right, they did.

I thought we might get some answers to these questions by now. It's been quite some time. As a reminder, these are questions to which I don't believe the religion of Libertarianism has any satisfactory answers.

No apology needed. My point previously was that Ron is no more or less covered than any other politician in his situation. I did ask what was being referenced in another post about others being skipped and Ron not being mentioned, not to belittle but because I Wasnt sure the SUBJECT of that statment.

I appreciate the clarification.

I was speaking in terms of media, the variety we have of good and bad reporting, biased and unbiased, that I dont think Ron is done differently than anyone else in politics(depending upon the slant of the source).


I mentioned Yahoo, because their sources absolutely SUCK in terms of actual writing and editing of their pieces. Referring to Yahoo for anything professionally or fairly written would be tantamount to referring to the national enquirer for accuracy and validity.

Just my opinion.

i posted an answer to this once, but it disappeared... so what makes you think that RP cannot answer these questions? 30 years in politics, and he can't answer these?

yahoos writers suck too, IMO... but a lot of times they re-post real news stories, that are well written and edited...

possibly , but not often enough

8 out of 10 times that I read their news, I am left with a strong WTH feeling,,,,

lol, i get that same feeling

Guess we'll never know.

In other news today, Kim Kardashians butt exploded!

Kim is attractive, untl she starts speaking,,,

I really don't even know who she is or why she's famous, I just know the name.

I dont know why she is famous either..lol

she is the daughter of a famous persons wife,,,

Libertarianism is not a religion. There are numerous strains of libertarianism, and most stem from classical liberalism. If you actually knew anything about the philosophy, you'd know that there is voluminous literature about the issues you raise here-much of it available for free on mises.org (the Mises Institute's website). Just type in any subject you care to in the search box there, and you'll find links to voluminous books, articles, audio, and video. Libertarians have rational, practical answers to the major problems we face today. The primary reason they aren't accepted is because the philosophy of liberty does not benefit the power elite. Another is that it's much harder to be truly free than to rely on the government to take care of you cradle to grave (as the various so-called "leftists" and "rightists" prefer). There are other reasons, but that gets into micro-analysis and such.

"Democracy too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses". ~H.L. Mencken


ETA: Objectivists and members of the Ayn Rand Cult are not libertarians. Rand herself loathed libertarians. (some modern objectivists do consider themselves libertarians, though-and Rothbard thought highly of "Atlas Shrugged")

Libertarianism is a religion because nit relies on faith. There has never been a Libertarian regime that has functioned for the benefit of an country. Libertarians say that, "well, it has never been tried". I had to research that Austrian School, because it is shunned by all mainstream Economists as a short-lived, untenable philosophy. It achieved some limited popularity during the late 1800s and the early 1900s. This was a time of huge boom/bust cycles, leaving massive carnage in its wake. Even ultra-Consevative Milton Friedman doesn't think much of it. The philosophy itself, as I read about it, rejects scientific methodology for its rationale, and that is what makes it a religion. Granted, this is only one brand of Libertarianism, but the answers to those pesky questions have yet to achieve the light of public discourse. It doesn't seem to me to be a very productive line of inquiry to pursue in the search for answers.

Still wrong. Libertarianism is not a religion. Democracy and republicanism are, though. Since you admittedly don't understand libertarianism, I don't see how you can make any objective value judgement about it.
Libertarianism has been tried in this country, and was thoroughly successful. The "never been tried" variant of libertarianism you're thinking of is probably one of the variants of libertarian anarchism. Even at that, we have evidence from the American West that it does. See "The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality" http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo195.html

No major libertarian rejects scientific methodology. Physical and social sciences (especially the economic sciences) are critical to libertarianism. The Mises Institute's namesake was the father of Praxaeology. Many, like myself, recognize that science commits the inductive fallacy of asserting the consequent. (inductive reasoning is NEVER true) Thus, science can be useful, but does not necessarily lead one to "truth". (See philosopher of science Karl Popper)

Austrian economics is neither short-lived nor untenable. Austrians such as Ron Paul predicted the market and currency crashes accurately, and have been making accurate predictions for a very long time. It's true that there were cycles of booms and busts in the 19th and 20th century, but that does not invalidate Austrian business cycle theory. Rothbard, et. al. have demonstrated that the panics of 1819 (and others) were brought on by central bank policy. (see Rothbard's "The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies; Columbia University Press", 1962)

Why bring up "ultra-conservatives"? Libertarianism is neither "left" nor "right". Friedman gets some things right (which Rothbard gave him credit for), but he was not consistently correct as the Austrians are.

well it's a good basic philosophy that proponents of smaller government might like, but it has to fit into a reality of the way gov't actually is now.

but whatever tactics for poll stumping etc are being used by RP, I am sure other politicians do similar shite -I don;t like any of them - don;t watch debates so didn't see the gaffe lpdon mentioned....but before condemning him I'd like to know what his answer actually was (to the question) and I think to be taken seriously lpdon needs to discontinue personal attacks. Stuttering has no relationship to cognitive functioning, intelligence, or problem solving ability. It is not necessarily a sign of frustration with a true stutterer sometimes it "just happens" I am a mild stutterer and most days you'd never know that to listen to me....I have purposely taken jobs that required speaking to overcome my stutter and have done well but sometimes it flares up - sometimes when nervous or annoyed but really it's randomish - a lot of times when I am annoyed or rushed it doesn't flare up. That's the nature of this trait.

not really, her little sis is way better looking

its all personal taste, and i try not to compare beauty. They are both attractive, until they speak..lol

i just don't see what all the hooplaw is with kim...

Actually, there are entire books about this subject. You can read Block's "Privatization Of Roads And Highways" for free here: http://mises.org/resources/4084 (be prepared for heavy reading-it's about 494 pages long)

Again, try actually researching libertarianism before coming to your conclusions.