A Sea Of Red

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -ron-paul/


This guy is a joke

That was hilarious. I wish I could get paid to write my baseless opinions on the internet.

well, he gets paid by LU to do just that

Im embarrassed to be associated in any way with the man who wrote that.

There wasn't a lot in that article. His best points were his quotes from other people!

jmdickens wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -ron-paul/


This guy is a joke

Yep.

This is such a random act of journalism. I'm also tired of the fox news template that Paul is left of Obama on foreign policy. Any historian remembers the Democratic party has always been the party of intervention, and Republicans (lone exception of TR and the Bushes) believed in a humble foreign policy.

So now Paul is the liberal for wanting us out of Afghanistan? What are we doing there anyway? It's utter nonsense, and Paul is right.

I bet this guy is the kind of conversative who is proud of going to the airport and taking off his pants to prove he's not a terrorist. After all, they're keeping us safe!

jmdickens wrote:well, he gets paid by LU to do just that

Let me preface by saying that I have never been involved with or even followed the development of the law school, but is the law school currently viewed as credible in legal circles? I don't hear much about it other than some things Staver gets involved in. Never heard of this Barber fellow, but isn't Liberty Counsel somewhat different from LU Law? Funny thing is that when Green was around I heard good things and now I hear very little and what I do hear isn't positive.

I didn't read page 2, but I don't get what you guys have a problem with. It's an opinion column. I don't see how it's baseless, embarassing, etc. Unless you're a Ron-bot like I know some of you are. I mean he didn't really say anything new or groundbreaking, but it's ok for people to disagree with you.

JBock. Reagan had an extremely aggressive foreign policy. We were very involved in South and Central America. We put medium and short range nukes in Western Europe. Helped fund Iraq with their war with Iran. Also sorta helped Iran in its war with Iraq. The Muj in Afghanistan got a lot of help from us against the Soviets. We 'encouraged' the Solidarity and Anti Apartheid movements. Had issues with the shoe queen in the Philpines. Put troops in Lebanon, even dusted off some WW2 Battleships for that one!
There were more and not all of them turned out the best. But under Reagan we were anything but non interventionalist. Or whatever the new word is.

LUconn wrote:Unless you're a Ron-bot like I know some of you are.

I don't get this term. The "bot" part seems to me to indicate people who aren't thinking for themselves. I don't think vehement support of a particular candidate is equivalent to being a mindless drone. Especially when you're talking about a candidate that has far different views on almost every issue than the others. It seems pretty reasonable that people who share his views would support him strongly.

This isn't an attack on LUconn, either. I see this all over the Internet. Seems lame.

ron bot? lol

LUconn wrote:I don't see how it's baseless, embarassing, etc.

I'm not sure if we read the same article, but the part where he calls Libertarians "...one part conservative, two parts anarchist." is pretty embarrassing. It shows a pretty small and ignorant view of what Libertarians believe. He spends portions of his editorial using ad hominem attacks, which is usually when I stop considering anyone's opinion in writing. Also embarrassing.

Baseless: Snapping off the legs of defense and social values. That's a sweeping comment with no fact to back it up. Ron Paul might disagree with him that social values should be enforced by policing, but it's okay for people to disagree.

I was talking to my mom again a couple nights ago and I wouldnt go as far as he did by calling them "two parts anarchist". The way she explained it (and just as a sidenote, she does have her J.D. from Georgetown AND a masters in public policy so she is someone I can go to for clarification of these things), Libertarians (at least full fledged Libertarians) are more like "two parts humanist".

BJ, I am now Dumber.

The way that she explained it to me, (and with a little help from a bit of online research) Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. Individual liberty is a wonderful thing, but the way it was explained to me and the way it was worded in what I read, there isnt any room for acknowledgement of responsibility to a "higher power". Here is what i found doing a quick perusal of Wikipedia:

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead. Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term "libertarianism" is synonymous with Left anarchism.

Libertarians can broadly be characterized as holding four ethical views: consequentialism, deontological theories, contractarianism, and class-struggle normative beliefs. The main divide is between consequentialist libertarianism—which is support for a large degree of "liberty" because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency—and deontological libertarianism (also known as "rights-theorist libertarianism," "natural rights libertarianism," or "libertarian moralism"), which is a philosophy based on belief in moral self-ownership and opposition to "initiation of force" and fraud.[citation needed] Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking. Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement, though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian Socialists with backgrounds influenced by Marxism reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.

As I said, individual liberty is a wonderful thing, but it shouldnt be the driving force behind what is good and right, and when you look at it in the terms as defined above, it is not as far fetched as you might think.

rogers3 wrote:

jmdickens wrote:well, he gets paid by LU to do just that

Let me preface by saying that I have never been involved with or even followed the development of the law school, but is the law school currently viewed as credible in legal circles? I don't hear much about it other than some things Staver gets involved in. Never heard of this Barber fellow, but isn't Liberty Counsel somewhat different from LU Law? Funny thing is that when Green was around I heard good things and now I hear very little and what I do hear isn't positive.

There are plenty of people in the legal profession who find LU a very good place for a legal education....but it is the face of LU that gets the not so positive reviews in legal circles. Trust me, after my stint at the law school I am both better educated and certain I will benefit from learning from the staff. Just look at the bios of the faculty and you can see why people should be confident that the school produces good lawyers. Truly men and women of God doing what they can to change the legal profession while practicing Christian principles.

But, the face of the school IMO is hurting the school. All we hear about are negative things that are happening with LC.....however, that is really something that the school and students must be prepared to deal with.

LC is technically different than the law school; however, that is more of a gray area than a black and white answer. The law school and LC are next to each other for convenience. There is an executive parking spot next to the law school for the president of LC. As of this year, all of the deans from the law school are also employed by LC, so take that for what it is worth. Barber is in charge of the Center for Career & Professional Development....but I have heard from members of the 2010 and 2011 classes and an overwhelming majority wonder what the man actually does, if anything for the law school. Search for LC on youtube and you might have the same question because of the number of videos the man makes and it is hard to see where he gets all the time to write for LC and do work for the law school. Plain and simple is that people wonder if LU is paying these people on LU time to do LC work.

Anyways, my girlfriend is an LU law grad and she works in Charlottesville as an attorney, but her boss hired her bc she interned for her while she was an undergrad at UVA. Her boss has made it clear that she would not have hired her if not for that internship.

I also have a close friend from LU law that graduated from UNC and top 10 from LU law but cannot find a job and I keep hearing it is bc lawyers in NC dont take the dean seriously....my job interview at a midsized firm confirmed this notion.

I just add "bot" to the end of things, not because people aren't thinking for themselves but because they are purposely obtuse for the sake of being a homer, for lack of a better term. It's ok for him to be or to have been wrong.

El Scorcho wrote:

LUconn wrote:I don't see how it's baseless, embarassing, etc.

I'm not sure if we read the same article, but the part where he calls Libertarians "...one part conservative, two parts anarchist." is pretty embarrassing. It shows a pretty small and ignorant view of what Libertarians believe. He spends portions of his editorial using ad hominem attacks, which is usually when I stop considering anyone's opinion in writing. Also embarrassing.

Baseless: Snapping off the legs of defense and social values. That's a sweeping comment with no fact to back it up. Ron Paul might disagree with him that social values should be enforced by policing, but it's okay for people to disagree.

Like I said, it's opinion. Not trying to convince you. Not trying to win a debate, just how Barber sees it. You don't see how someone who isn't for as limited government as a Libertarian is, would see that as close to anarchism? It's a very hands off way of governing.

Let me put Libertarianism in my words as I personally believe it to be.

Libertarianism believes that government exists only to repel illegitimate force and fraud. I believe that morality should come from the pastor, and not from the police. Just because I believe a behavior is a sin, does not give me a moral high ground to stamp out someone's personal behavior. I may however freely choose to not associate with that person, or dare I say discriminate my time, resources, or communication with them. This also means the citizens of a state decide under which laws they live. For example, if Hawaii votes to have gay marriage, and Idaho chooses not to, people may vote with their feet as to which state they would rather live in. Same way with taxes.

Yes, there should be a police force, and president. But the states should maintain their autonomy as well, as laboratories of democracy.

BJWilliams wrote: As I said, individual liberty is a wonderful thing, but it shouldnt be the driving force behind what is good and right, and when you look at it in the terms as defined above, it is not as far fetched as you might think.

I do not understand why you would think anything other than freedom is the answer.....by allowing individual liberty, you allow people to do things in a way that can be most honoring to Christ. That means that we can practice our faith without worrying what others will say. At the same time, every other religion, including atheists can do with their lives as they see fit and no one will whine about the other.....what is not to like?

jbock13 wrote:Let me put Libertarianism in my words as I personally believe it to be.

And this, right here, is one of the inherrent problems (if you could consider it that) of "libertarianism". Everyone has their own definition, which is part of the nature of that ideology. And it has evolved, just like most things do. From what I see (DISCLAIMER: OPINION) modern libertarianism has been too influenced by post-modernism and has thrown too many self-claimed libertarians into the libertine category, and that's what is so off-putting to me. They're just as guilty of ideological hypocrisy as the next, and someone really needs to tell them that Thomas Jefferson wasn't the sole founder of this country.

And Dickens, that post is historically ignorant. Human nature cannot allow that to exist.

ALUmnus wrote: And Dickens, that post is historically ignorant. Human nature cannot allow that to exist.

Well, can you give me an example when this happened? Yes, I am serious...

Also, do you prefer the Constantine model instead?

Also, youre arguing that a Christian's sinful human nature will not allow Christians to let others live their lives as they see fit.....this is what you call a theocracy and should never be advocated by a Godly people.....you sound like you should work at LC

I can agree with you on this regard alumnus, there's so many shades and nuances of libertarianism that it can never unify in a party. The Libertarian Party has this issue as they are pro-choice, and I am pro-life and believe that government should protect lives of the unborn. (the party also has been taken over by disgruntled republicans who have one or two libertarian views instead of many).

jbock13 wrote: Just because I believe a behavior is a sin, does not give me a moral high ground to stamp out someone's personal behavior.

Cool. just remember that next time you rip somebody off when selling them pot, and they come to your house with what may or may not be a real gun and take a couple hundy off you.

When you call 911, and I show up and then you ask me to press charges of armed robbery and agg assault- I'm going to remind you that just because I believe a behavior is a sin, does not give me a moral high ground to stamp out someone's personal behavior.

Life will be much easier without all that pesky crimes code and vehicle code enforcement.