Comments on: Ron Paul, Alberto Moravia and Lord Bertrand Russell vs The Censors

By: Timur Rozenfeld

Timur Rozenfeld — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:01:33 +0000

Thanks, I think I will

By: lobobreed

lobobreed — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:33:21 +0000

Timur — I’m usually reluctant to go to these peripheral sites since there is so much good and necessary information to go through on the ronpaulforpresident2008.com and other places. I did eventually check the yesthattam site and it was garbage. Daphne Rosen’s paean of praise for the state and government programs shows the usual shoddy thinking of the pro-government conditioned Liberal. That’s what you get for eating bacon, clogs those bloodvessels leading to the cerebellum. Tests have shown that the average hog has an IQ slightly above any of the Republican candidates except Ron Paul, and all the Democratic candidates except George McGovern ( oh I forgot, he’s not running).
And yesthattams assertion of lots ofNobel Prize winners shooting holes in the “profit motive” theory, without naming them, —what immaturity—whereas it was F A Hayek who won the Nobel in 1973-4 for proving just the opposite. Almost everything in the world runs on the profit motive, but officially these people who have never read Hayek, Mises, Rothbard and Rand must keep repeating it’s wicked. Their economic I.Q. is pathetic.
So I’d say, don’t spin your wheels arguing logically with them; they’re as closed minded as religious fanatics, racists, and Democrats.
I checked your blog site too. You sound like you’re intelligent enough to post your own blog pieces instead of just hosting discussion. And you sound like a sane Libertarian. Why not give it a bash? —- Silverwolf

By: Timur Rozenfeld

Timur Rozenfeld — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:06:57 +0000

No, it was the link to which I referred to in the previous email. I am on LiveJournal and I get google updates on Ron Paul so I checked one entry out and started writing responses. I was not rude, but firm in my opinion as you can see for yourself if on the link I sent you above, if interested.

After a while though, I was banned for disagreeing with the author (which is their right to do so of course, but then they can’t claim they had a real discussion). Of course after I was banned, a whole bunch of people made responses regarding my posts which I couldn’t answer so I invited them all to post any questions or have any discussions with me on these issues on my blog at http://technomaget.livejournal.com/.

I notice it was a lot easier to have me banned and declare me the loser of a non-existent debate as well as have commenters call me disingenuous, argumentative and robotic than to really have an honest discussion.

By: Wynlong.Com » Ron Paul, Alberto Moravia and Lord Bertrand Russell vs The Censors

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:03:59 +0000

[...] an interesting post today on Ron Paul, Alberto Moravia and Lord Bertrand Russell vs The CensorsHere’s a quick [...]

By: lobobreed

lobobreed — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:56:43 +0000

Timur — I was unclear as to whom you were refering when you said the owner of the blog has banned you. I hope you are not refering to me, as I did not and would not ban you. I presume you mean the owner of that livejournal website. I wouldn’t ban anything unless it was racist in my view or inciting to riot or violence. Or sounded like it came out of a Hilary SpamBoilerRoom Op. And especially I wouldn’t ban you after a blog on the evils and dangers of censorship. But I reserve my right to do it. —Silverwolf

By: Timur Rozenfeld

Timur Rozenfeld — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:42:54 +0000

Never mind, the owner of the blog isn’t interested in discussing the subject and has banned me even though I was not rude.

By: Timur Rozenfeld

Timur Rozenfeld — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:13:42 +0000

I agree with what you say. I was repelled by Mr. Larson’s name calling and outright misrepresentation as opposed to his pro-choice stance.

If you feel like getting involved in another Ron Paul thread that came up on my google autobot, here it is:

http://yesthattom.livejournal.com/749623.html?view=3439671#t3439671

My userID is technomaget, by the way.

By: lobobreed

lobobreed — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:50:15 +0000

Timur — Your comment illustrates my thinking pretty closely. Mr. Larson is too censorious in my view, but as a Libertarian I can understand his feeling perhaps that the individual has complete dominion over his body, and thus he may be repelled by Ron Paul’s anti-abortion views. I think it is a very complicated issue and so maybe it would be better that States work it out for themselves and people knew that in this state, Utah for example, there were very strick anti-abortion laws, but in Libertarian Nevada the attitude was that a woman and her doctor should have power over her body. People could vote with their feet, and a woman could always probably obtain a legal abortion somewhere in the US, though it might mean a Greyhound bus ride. However, should a completely healthy fetus, one day before delivery, have its brains sucked out because a woman’s boyfriend leaves her and she goes to a doctor and says, it will harm me psychologically to have this child? That seems a bit absurd, especially when an anti-abortionist is forced through their taxes to pay for it. I stay out of the issue, but I would not force a woman who has been raped to not be allowed to abort the few day old zygote, and if you allow that, well isn’t that murder too since life starts at conception, and the question of rape should be immaterial to the argument. The answer probably is yes, it is murder, but the woman should still be permitted dominion over her body in cases of rape, and almost certainly in all cases in the first few weeks of pregnancy. In fact, under Libertarian doctrine and the Declaration, it is an inalienable human right that government must protect from enroachment. Quien sabe? Both sides are right on this one.

Galileo — Maybe James Madison was the first coming of Ron Paul? Wasn’t Madison great! —Silverwolf

By: Galileo

Galileo — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:13:54 +0000

Ron Paul is the second coming of James Madison.

By: Timur Rozenfeld

Timur Rozenfeld — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:02:09 +0000

“Ron Paul is as corrupt as any other doctor politician. The fact he is a “doctor” doesn’t mean anything. He makes a big deal about “constitutional” rights and authority being his main criteria for supporting legislation. Yet he is a rabid “pro-lifer” riding on his anti-abortion high horse. MOST doctors at least try to be scientists, or scientific. But not Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a goofy misogynistic screwball who thinks he can run everything just because he is a doctor. Yawn.”

This is all simply not true. He is not corrupt, so that is a lie and you can please show me evidence that you aren’t just making things up. His pro-life positions are based on his constitutional views and his view as life beginning at conception. If you read his reasoning, you will see where he is coming from. I am pro-choice, but I try not to have knee-jerk reactions when someone comes from another point of view. And he doesn’t claim he can “run everything” because he is a doctor.

The name calling and outright misrepresenment shows that you aren’t really interested in thinking but rather in spewing.