Further proof that Ron Paul is the most sane person in Washington

[Msut77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3n0vBcW5fc

Fascinating.

[TurboChickenMan]

Y'see what I mean? It may have been snotty (and for good reason too), but at least my post contained meaningful content. You can't argue right vs. left at all. Your instincts just tell you that I'm a nazi/greedy banker/other oft-used right-wing stereotype.

:roll:

[Msut77]

Y'see what I mean?

No.

It may have been snotty

May?

but at least my post contained meaningful content.

No.

You can't argue right vs. left at all.

I can.

Your instincts just tell you that I'm a nazi/greedy banker/other oft-used right-wing stereotype.

My instincts tell me you are a troll.

[IRHari]

I clicked on the link and it really is kind of amusing. The post argues that capitalism is awesome and tons of empirical evidence proves it. It goes on to argue that liberalism is like a religion not based on evidence. It goes on to say this:

2. The hypocrisy of it all. I want to know the number of global warming zealots that mock christians and religious people in general. No seriously, think about that. How many leftists who believe in this global warming RELIGION in the same breath then slam on religious people. The brush could be plied to leftists in general. How many socialists scoff or mock people for believing in something that has no empirical evidence to support it yet at the same time swallow the socialist religion whole?

Yes, it is totally ok to compare global warming (that has actual evidence to back it up) to religion (which is based on faith).

Oh yeah and all liberals are socialists, apparently.

[Clak]

Yeah I just got my National Socialist Party card in the mail last week, you guys get yours yet?

[TurboChickenMan]

Yeah I just got my National Socialist Party card in the mail last week, you guys get yours yet?

National Socialist = Nazi (facism). Or is that what you were going for?

The #1 thing I can't stand about liberal/leftist/socialist/diluted communist arguments is the way they state almost everything as matter of fact. You want to argue a large/important point? Forget about it. Their way or the highway. The only things they actually debate are small details which have little impact on the bigger picture.

#2? Arguing about the way the other side debates rather than discussing the content.

And #3 - Are you too right-wing/conservative/capitalist/libertarian? Prepare to be ganged up on with smug insults (troll, weirdo, greedbag, nazi, etc.), then when you try to defend yourself/counterattack, you're abused/mocked (uber troll, worth ignoring, tinfoil hatter with a limp, mama's boy, etc.) for it. Only THEY are allowed to be nasty.

Just in case there's one of you who actually reads what I have to say, here's the most important point I want to get across.

Government itself is inherently susceptible to abuse of power. The Constitution was created to limit the power of government. The Federal Reserve, undeclared wars, various so-called "rights" and "anti-terrorism" laws are all unconstitiutional. Even certain constitiutional amendments were passed under suspicious circumstances.

Read these two sections if you want. All others, continue your Marxist utopia jargon. I can't stop you... :ziplip:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=16
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=15

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Will the effort be worth it? I bet it won't.

National Socialist = Nazi (facism). Or is that what you were going for?

Reread the last thrustbucket reply with the word "nazi's" in it to find the beginning.

The #1 thing I can't stand about liberal/leftist/socialist/diluted communist arguments is the way they state almost everything as matter of fact. You want to argue a large/important point? Forget about it. Their way or the highway. The only things they actually debate are small details which have little impact on the bigger picture.

Yet those leftists are always caving in to the rightists. The leftists controls the legislature and the executive branch but we're still in two elective wars, there's still no single payer health care system on the table for this country, cap and trade isn't happening, alternative energy is still negligible while off shoring drilling is open season and the queers still can't get married anywhere.

#2? Arguing about the way the other side debates rather than discussing the content.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CQyU4ayBifw/S7oMbxPGH8I/AAAAAAAACm8/37_j-fUUmbU/s400/HAR.jpg

Do you mean criticizing this? Right. This sign has so much content.

And #3 - Are you too right-wing/conservative/capitalist/libertarian? Prepare to be ganged up on with smug insults (troll, weirdo, greedbag, nazi, etc.), then when you try to defend yourself/counterattack, you're abused/mocked (uber troll, worth ignoring, tinfoil hatter with a limp, mama's boy, etc.) for it. Only THEY are allowed to be nasty.

Nobody gangs up on me. Then again, I can accept data that goes against my world view.

Just in case there's one of you who actually reads what I have to say, here's the most important point I want to get across.

Government itself is inherently susceptible to abuse of power. The Constitution was created to limit the power of government. The Federal Reserve, undeclared wars, various so-called "rights" and "anti-terrorism" laws are all unconstitiutional. Even certain constitiutional amendments were passed under suspicious circumstances.

Read these two sections if you want. All others, continue your Marxist utopia jargon. I can't stop you... :ziplip:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=16
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=15

Were Bush and the six years of Republican controlled Congresses Marxist, too?

[UncleBob]

Do you mean criticizing this? Right. This sign has so much content.

To be fair, posting this picture isn't any worse than the idiots that post giant .jpgs calling other forum members trolls or the facepalm.jpgs and such. I mean, it's not like we have any of those people around here.

[Clak]

The German National Socialist Party was the party of the Nazis, doesn't mean it would be everywhere else. That's what I keep talking about, everyone has this knee jerk reaction that Socialists=Nazis. Considering that conservatives usually aren't the most racially tolerant people in the country, they're closer to Nazis in that regard than most liberals.

[IRHari]

To be fair, posting this picture isn't any worse than the idiots that post giant .jpgs calling other forum members trolls or the facepalm.jpgs and such. I mean, it's not like we have any of those people around here.

It's the glaring shit-in-your-face hypocrisy of the dudes post that foc was pointing to.

[Clak]

That and his man crush on Paul is wearing a bit thin. Dude worships Paul like he's part of a cult.

[UncleBob]

It's the glaring shit-in-your-face hypocrisy of the dudes post that foc was pointing to.

I'm just saying, it's no better or worse than the glaring poop-in-your-face name calling that all too many people on this forum partake in.

[TurboChickenMan]

Were Bush and the six years of Republican controlled Congresses Marxist, too?

Close. Neo-conservative.

See my inital post a few pages back for R.P.'s "Neo-Conned!" speech.

That and his man crush on Paul is wearing a bit thin. Dude worships Paul like he's part of a cult.

Reminds me of the Obama cult.

Doesn't the right-wing deserve a messiah-esque figure too? :-|

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Close. Neo-conservative.

See my inital post a few pages back for R.P.'s "Neo-Conned!" speech.


Have the neocons been purged yet?

If Obama's "socialist ilk" in Congress are removed from power this November, won't the neocons just start back up again?

...

As an aside, did anybody catch Valerie Plame prepping us for the war with Iran on Countdown?

<sigh> I guess fighting one contiguous piece of land is smarter than fighting on two fronts.

[UncleBob]

If Obama's "socialist ilk" in Congress are removed from power this November, won't the neocons just start back up again?

Yes. Sadly. :(

I've had this argument a million times over. One party knows, no matter how bad they screw things up, the other party will eventually screw up again and they'll be back in power. It's an endless cycle.

[TurboChickenMan]

^ Quite true. Until Ron Paul is elected, though.

No predidential candidate has talked in the way he does in a long, long time, back when things made more sense.

Just think back to the presidents of recent times. Democrat or Republican, did any of them ever accomplish any real change to the system, or were the same old pieces of the puzzle just moved around?

Obama promised change. Sure, things are a bit different now, and more is in the pipeline, but is there, and will there be any real, major difference anywhere? We'll still have anti-privacy laws and the Federal Reserve, and there are still rumblings about Iran, even though the old warmongering Republicans are gone (remember Bill Clinton's foray into the Balkans?).

[Sporadic]

^ Quite true. Until Ron Paul is elected, though.

No predidential candidate has talked in the way he does in a long, long time, back when things made more sense.

lolololololololololololololololololololololololol

[TurboChickenMan]

lolololololololololololololololololololololololol

One "lol" plus a proper rebuttal would have sufficed.

[Sporadic]

One "lol" plus a proper rebuttal would have sufficed.

Not for the amount I laughed after I read your comment.

What do you think? If Ron Paul is elected president, he can clean everything out and start from scratch?

I would also love to see him do his Dr. No gimmick as president

[IRHari]

I certainly did not have that much faith in Barack Obama's election. Ron Paul's not the messiah dude. He is a creationist. God did it, the free market will fix it. Faith based policies.

[Msut77]

It's the glaring shit-in-your-face hypocrisy of the dudes post that foc was pointing to.

There was at least one regular con poster here who admitted to trolling me.

Not like it is anything new, the only problem is wingnuts are so out there and insane you cannot tell Poe's Law or trolls from the genuine article.

Chickenposted a youtube clip to a comedian in a reply to me pointing out that condoms help fight std's... So Yeah...

[TurboChickenMan]

Chickenposted a youtube clip to a comedian in a reply to me pointing out that condoms help fight std's... So Yeah...

I was explaining why many men don't like wearing condoms.

And he's a musician, actually.

[cindersphere]

^^^ ???????

[TurboChickenMan]

^^^ ???????

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7407497&postcount=153

Or have you already read that, and actually meant something else by your statement?

[nasum]

Maybe it's just a sign of the times that people will get behind Ron Paul or Barrack Obama in such a steadfast manner.
After 8 years of a stammering nincompoop, Ron Paul's ability to give a straight answer that at least seems to have some conviction and thought behind it is incredibly refreshing. Obama reminds me of the same suave and smooth talking used car salesman we got with Clinton.

At any rate, with how far down the rabbit hole we are into destroying this country (and that's the last 20 years, not the last 20 months) I don't think any one person can come along and change anything. To use an admittedly weak analogy, it's going to take something as insane as Polar Shifting to really ahve anything change. And as long as people can make a career out of being a politician, and become wealthy in doing so, nothing will change and it's just a huge puppet show.

[dorino]

Maybe it's just a sign of the times that people will get behind Ron Paul or Barrack Obama in such a steadfast manner.
After 8 years of a stammering nincompoop, Ron Paul's ability to give a straight answer that at least seems to have some conviction and thought behind it is incredibly refreshing. Obama reminds me of the same suave and smooth talking used car salesman we got with Clinton.

At any rate, with how far down the rabbit hole we are into destroying this country (and that's the last 20 years, not the last 20 months) I don't think any one person can come along and change anything. To use an admittedly weak analogy, it's going to take something as insane as Polar Shifting to really ahve anything change. And as long as people can make a career out of being a politician, and become wealthy in doing so, nothing will change and it's just a huge puppet show.
Obama does remind me of a car salesman.
The car he sold, though, seems as described. A little beat up around the edges, but I knew that before hand. I read the fine print, after all.

Ron Paul's ability to give a straight answer is stunning. He does think about his answers, amazingly, but that doesn't make them any less wrong so very often.

[TurboChickenMan]

Ron Paul's ability to give a straight answer is stunning. He does think about his answers, amazingly, but that doesn't make them any less wrong so very often.

Could you please explain why his statements are supposedly wrong?

Let's do premptive foreign wars & occupation (he says they're wrong), the Federal Reserve (he says it's evil), and the Constitution (it puts limits on the government, which he says is a good thing) to start with...

[Sarang01]

I thought I'd throw some more comments in here.

First off I believe in a Free Market but there are some precautions I'd add. A Free Market is only truly as free and working properly if it's OPTIONAL. If it's something where a person can place you over a barrel and force you to buy their product it won't work properly, if at all.
A few examples are food and water. Food is what I'd call a limited free market. Sure you have many choices but you are going to HAVE to buy one of them. They are going to compete but not to the extent you'd get if you could opt out completely. Water is SO neither a limited free market OR a free market. Adam Smith apparently scratched his head about water and the free market. There's nothing to scratch your head about. If you try to gouge people on something so vital they pay out the nose you're asking to be killed, maimed, multilated, etc.

For clothing it's limited. The type of it might be construed as free.

[nasum]

Then how many utility companies do you have to deal with before you find the one that provides the service you want at the price you can afford? That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Free Market. Certain things will, as they need to be, enforced monopolies.

Re: Ron Paul
The items pointed out above are instances where he is fairly correct. I direct you to this quote from his page regarding health care:
There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.

What does free market health care look like? Dr. Bob's Heart Clinic accross the street from Dr. Nick's Heart Clinic? Would they compete in the same way that Jiffy Lube and whatever the name of a Jiffy Lube competitor is by sending out coupons and buying ads on the radio during drive time? I should hope not. I don't want Dr. Bob or Dr. Nick concerned about advertising or bottom line. I want them to be 100% focused on my health and not on the profitability of my visit.

This "Free Market" can't be the solution to everything. Sure, it works great for consumer electronics and hamburgers, but it doesn't work for utilities/health care/disaster management/military (seriously, military contractors are basically a bunch of guys with A-Team fantasies and a desire to get paid for murder)/etc...

[TurboChickenMan]

(seriously, military contractors are basically a bunch of guys with A-Team fantasies and a desire to get paid for murder)/etc...

So are government-funded police...

[IRHari]

I wouldn't want to privatize the police force. The government's job is to protect us. A business' goal is to make money. I'd rather the primary goal of police be protection and not profit.

[dmaul1114]

I wouldn't want to privatize the police force. The government's job is to protect us. A business' goal is to make money. I'd rather the primary goal of police be protection and not profit.

Exactly. Think of how bad it is already with traffic and parking enforcement sweeps when the city needs money etc. Imagine if it was a private company out to make money first and foremost?

A good idea would be the scumbag towing companies that take advantage of lack of signs, poorly placed signs on private property (apartment complexes, privately owned parking lots etc. etc. to tow cars a couple miles and charge $200-300 to get them back etc.

[nasum]

I don't know man, saying that cops and blackwater are basically the same is quite the stretch.

I was on a path at one point to be a cop, though only because I wanted to be a detective and not really a patrol type cop. Once I found out that you have to "work the beat" for at least a couple years before getting into Det. work I said to hell with it.
Though I will grant you that a person has a 50/50 chance of running into an asshole cop who is on a power trip because he just found out that his wife is sucking some other dude's dick and he wants to take it out on you.

Private police = Mall Cops. Notice how they don't carry guns? Also, private police would open the door to way too much vigilantism...

[speedracer]

Then how many utility companies do you have to deal with before you find the one that provides the service you want at the price you can afford? That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Free Market. Certain things will, as they need to be, enforced monopolies.
Texas deregulated its energy market. I have over 30 companies to choose from when I buy power. There are fixed rates, variable rates, 100% renewable energy choices, 10%, 0%, you name it.

Four years after deregulation, the average electricity bill had gone up 57.7% in Texas, the largest state increase in the country.

Yay free market.

[thrustbucket]

Cops are one thing that should not be privatized, agreed.

Protection and police are one of the few things the government should do and can do well.

[cindersphere]

What about fire dept's?

[dorino]

lol i love how ron paul has left the discussion

[thrustbucket]

What about fire dept's?

Yes, almost all physically protective services should be state run.

It's when various people start trying to make the case for other types of protection that the state should provide that government turns into a planet-sized hydra that usually does more harm than good.

[speedracer]

Yes, almost all physically protective services should be state run.
How can we trust the government with such important services but not private industry?

[IRHari]

I agree, I heart smog in California, it was extremely harmful for CARB to start imposing all these bogus regulations. The answer is less government and more free market.

[dmaul1114]

How can we trust the government with such important services but not private industry?

Because essentially services should be profit motivated but quality of service motivated.

[speedracer]

Because essentially services should be profit motivated but quality of service motivated.
But if the market is king, why defer to the government when your bacon is on the line? If the free market provides such better service at such better rates, wouldn't that be doubly so when lives are on the line? I'm hearing "we trust the market explicitly EXCEPT when we need quality and service guaranteed. Then we cannot trust the market". But if that's the case.. I mean wtf?

If that makes sense.

[dmaul1114]

Somethings profit motive makes sense--good way to spur technological innovation for instance since companies have to out do each other to make money etc.

Things like police service, fire department etc. aren't really helped by profit--and it can hurt public safety. For instance a private police agency could make more money by never investigating any property crimes, not spending a lot of time on robbery etc. since those are so seldomly solved.

[dorino]

Funny how some of our best technological innovation comes from government funded places like NASA.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, its not an either or proposition for sure.

But I don't think you'd see the innovation in say cell phones if there was just one government agency allowed to make them, vs. having multiple companies having to try to out do each other to get people to buy their phone instead of a competitors.

The free market (in a loose sense as some regulation is needed to prevent monopolies from forming and stifling progress etc.) has it's uses. But so does government in areas where the public good is harmed if certain services are profit motivated.

Though if you think about, even a lot of NASA's work is promoted by capitalist sentiment--especially the tremendous progress in the 50s and 60s when we couldn't let those damn communists get to the moon first! :D

[TurboChickenMan]

It's when various people start trying to make the case for other types of protection that the state should provide that government turns into a planet-sized hydra that usually does more harm than good.

Yes, but the thing is a government that is already big can implement those forms of protection without any outsider having made a case for them.

R.P. on freedom. (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=7) (See, he's back in the discussion now...)

Please recall that I said the free market isn't perfect. I much prefer the barter-based Social Credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) system. But it's too different from what we currently have for it to be implemented anytime soon. When you put the free market against government, the free market is the lesser of the two evils.

Government = One choice x
Free market = Many choices ✔

Government = Supceptible to abuse of power x
Free market = Supceptible to collusion x

Government = Vote on pre-selected options x
Free market = Create your own options ✔

Government = Guaranteed source of funding (taxpayers), therefore bureaucratic x
Free market = Must compete for funding, therefore efficient ✔

Government = Creates laws, both positive and negative ✔/x
Free market = Doesn't force you to do anything, but could offer poor quality necessities of life ✔/x

Government = Inherent monopoly x
Free market = Potential for monopoly ✔/x

Government = Attracts people hungry for power x
Free market = Attracts people hungry for money x

I must point out that these are all extreme generalities meant mainly to generate discussion. Plus, we have never had a true socialist government or true free market anywhere, so it's hard to see what a future with them would be like. But for the time being, I'd say that a half-assed free market is better than half-assed socialism.

P.S. Don't take my word for anything. Try having a look through the Ron Paul Library (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/) instead. One of his articles is better than a thousand of my posts... ;)

[thrustbucket]

How can we trust the government with such important services but not private industry?

Because it's LAW Enforcement.

In a Democratic society the purpose of the Government is the people consent to abide by laws for the protection of the individual. A law with no penalty attached is not a law, it's merely a statement of desire (see immigration).

Because the government is the body of the law, they must execute all aspects of the law or the law is not theirs (the people's).

Law Enforcement can't be privatized for the same reason the court system can't.

The legal system (Government) and it's elected officials must execute all phases of the law: the establishment of the law, the execution of the law, and the judgement of the law. Those are also the three branches of government.

You can't privatize any branch of the government because the goal of a private entity is profit, while the goal of Government must always be the protection of the individual.

[SpazX]

Well dude you already said yourself that a paper from a 12th grader is better than your posts.

[TurboChickenMan]

Well dude you already said yourself that a paper from a 12th grader is better than your posts.

I'm not a fan of age discrimination. Everyone has different IQ's, even the young.

[Sarang01]

Because it's LAW Enforcement.

In a Democratic society the purpose of the Government is the people consent to abide by laws for the protection of the individual. A law with no penalty attached is not a law, it's merely a statement of desire (see immigration).

Because the government is the body of the law, they must execute all aspects of the law or the law is not theirs (the people's).

Law Enforcement can't be privatized for the same reason the court system can't.

The legal system (Government) and it's elected officials must execute all phases of the law: the establishment of the law, the execution of the law, and the judgement of the law. Those are also the three branches of government.

You can't privatize any branch of the government because the goal of a private entity is profit, while the goal of Government must always be the protection of the individual.

Bingo thrust!

Yeah I'll say for profit prisons, i.e. privatized prisons. All we see with that is more Draconian and absurd laws so more people can be jailed, to the profit of said corporation.

[dorino]

I'm not a fan of age discrimination. Everyone has different IQ's, even the young.
That doesn't make your posts any better. Stop spouting off Ron Paulisms, you sound like 4chan.

[TurboChickenMan]

That doesn't make your posts any better. Stop spouting off Ron Paulisms, you sound like 4chan.

No worse than Obamaisms.

The other side has a right to exist.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=communist&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

*braces for ignorant retorts*

[Indigo_Streetlight]

Texas deregulated its energy market. I have over 30 companies to choose from when I buy power. There are fixed rates, variable rates, 100% renewable energy choices, 10%, 0%, you name it.

Four years after deregulation, the average electricity bill had gone up 57.7% in Texas, the largest state increase in the country.

Yay free market.

We've had similar problems with the deregulation of Baltimore Gas and Electric here in Maryland. It pretty much amounts to handing a whole bunch of infrastructure that was built by the government and footed by the taxpayers over to a private cabal who gets to profit off it for free.

And here I thought innovation and the American spirit was about investing your own money and putting your neck on the line, not receiving a fat slice of corporate welfare.

[Msut77]

We've had similar problems with the deregulation of Baltimore Gas and Electric here in Maryland. It pretty much amounts to handing a whole bunch of infrastructure that was built by the government and footed by the taxpayers over to a private cabal who gets to profit off it for free.

And here I thought innovation and the American spirit was about investing your own money and putting your neck on the line, not receiving a fat slice of corporate welfare.

See all the great things thirty years of deregulation has done for the saving and loans industry and companies like Enron and all the others...

[mykevermin]

I also thought it was common knowledge that deregulation and corruption on Enron's end led to the brownouts in California as well as the price gouging that pillaged Californians of their earnings and helped, in part, lead to Gray Davis' recall election.

I thought it was common knowledge until I read the monumentally misinformed and naively simplistic "tax breaks to build an energy plant in india led to Enron's demise," courtesy of Ron Paul.

But I guess life is a bit simpler when you start your day of knowing the conclusion to everything in your head, merely using your brain to think of ways to fit within that framework.

[Indigo_Streetlight]

But if the market is king, why defer to the government when your bacon is on the line? If the free market provides such better service at such better rates, wouldn't that be doubly so when lives are on the line? I'm hearing "we trust the market explicitly EXCEPT when we need quality and service guaranteed. Then we cannot trust the market". But if that's the case.. I mean wtf?

If that makes sense.

Free market police would only work if they received high pay for high performance, essentially becoming mercenaries. The advantage to this is that if you had enough money you could send high-tech paramilitary killers into the local ghetto to deal with the Crips who wasted your little brother. However, if you don't have enough money, or your criminal issues are minor and not profitable, what guarantee would you have of getting a better bang for your buck? If little Suzy gets her cat lost in a tree, does she now have to pay the fireman or police officer to get him down? Should she have to calculate the current market rate for getting cats out of trees versus the quality of service she would receive? Will there be FDIC insurance in case the privatized servant drops the rescued cat, resulting in injury to the animal? How much more wasteful bureaucracy would be created by attempting to "simplify" the system? :) I can see it now, once the police are privatized there will be a call for more government oversight :roll:

[TurboChickenMan]

But I guess life is a bit simpler when you start your day of knowing the conclusion to everything in your head, merely using your brain to think of ways to fit within that framework.

I could say the EXACT same thing about left-wingers.

The things Ron Paul says make sense to me, but all I hear from the other side is slogans and blatent know-it-all-ery.

*reverse*

The things Obama says make sense to me, but all I hear from the other side is slogans and blatent know-it-all-ery.

---------------------------------

You see, at our level of debate there's no way for anybody to get anywhere. In order to get a make a good point you need to dig up all kind of hard evidence like statistics and detailed historical events. But it's more fun (this is a gaming forum, y'know) to post easy-to-read/biased articles, then spout out sarcastic slime afterwards (BOTH sides have been doing this, BTW).

I'm stepping out at this point, for the above reason, and because like I've mentioned before, gaming forums are dominated by snotty lefties who use spin and taunts to "debate".

Call me a coward, but I've been crazy to stick around this low-IQ thread* for this long... :roll:

*Your reply: "You made it that way, you greedy little money worshipper! :evil:"

(Y'see? Fun! :D)

[mykevermin]

Ron Paul places the fall of Enron squarely at the feet of tax incentives to build a plant in India. He doesn't look anywhere else.

He doesn't look at:
1) Enron Energy Services, an idea of Liu Pai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_Energy_Services
2) Enron's Blockbuster deal: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/709941/Blockbuster-Kills-Video-On-Demand-Deal-with-Enron.htm
3) The *insane* idea to use mark-to-market accounting for long-term investment instruments that were so volatile in the market (energy) that they were literally lying about virtually every so-called 'asset' they had
4) Executives selling off stock at the same time they froze the stocks of employees, causing people to turn hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement savings into about $5,000. Enron stock peaked at nearly $90/share, and bottomed out as junk stock
5) The creation of offshoot corporations where more liabilities were hidden, which was the other side of the math equation that helped Enron bullshit their quarterly and annual financials in order to bamboozle their investors and the SEC. One shadow company where they disguised their liabilities? M. Yass. Think about it.

With regard to Enron, Ron Paul is at best woefully, woefully misinformed about the cacophony of problems surrounding that corporation. At worst, he is knowledgeable, yet deliberately withheld the bulk of the story because it can't be pinned on government in any way, shape or form. The India deal resulting solely from tax incentives is purely speculative, as there's no way to demonstrate they wouldn't have tried to move into the Indian market anyway. So Ron Paul's best argument for why Enron is not evidence of the failure of the free market comes down to nothing more than conjecture.

Your move, hombre.

[SpazX]

I'm not a fan of age discrimination. Everyone has different IQ's, even the young.

I actually read the paper, it wasn't very good (I especially liked the useless charts). It also barely had anything to do with what we were talking about as it had few points of comparison to the past.

But anyway, continue with myke.

[thrustbucket]

Your move, hombre.


But anyway, continue with myke.



I'm stepping out at this point, for the above reason, and because like I've mentioned before, gaming forums are dominated by snotty lefties who use spin and taunts to "debate".

Call me a coward, but I've been crazy to stick around this low-IQ thread* for this long... :roll:

*Your reply: "You made it that way, you greedy little money worshipper! :evil:"

(Y'see? Fun! :D)


:roll:

[TurboChickenMan]

I've decided that R.P. should have the last word.

Here, he explains exactly what is coming economy-wise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8URI8-BlRI

Do you you really think that sloganeering wind-up puppet Barry Soetoro is really going to do anything besides get perpetually quoted & interviewed by kiss-up mass media marxists?

(Take a good listen at yourselves. The above is an almost exact copy of your speech pattern. Just replace Barry with Ron, and marxists with profiteers... :drool:)

[Feeding the Abscess]

I've decided that R.P. should have the last word.

Here, he explains exactly what is coming economy-wise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8URI8-BlRI

Do you you really think that sloganeering wind-up puppet Barry Soetoro is really going to do anything besides get perpetually quoted & interviewed by kiss-up mass media marxists?

(Take a good listen at yourselves. The above is an almost exact copy of your speech pattern. Just replace Barry with Ron, and marxists with profiteers... :drool:)

Pro-tip:

If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the birther crap.

You and your ilk have done a really good job of turning people away from hearing arguments against the drug war, an interventionist foreign policy, and a growing surveillance state by being fucking lunatics.

[TurboChickenMan]

Pro-tip:

If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the birther crap.

You and your ilk have done a really good job of turning people away from hearing arguments against the drug war, an interventionist foreign policy, and a growing surveillance state by being fucking lunatics.

Thank you for proving my point about your kind's argument methods! :D

[Feeding the Abscess]

I campaigned for Paul during the Republican primary. Want to try that one again?

[cindersphere]

Libertarian prick waving.

[Feeding the Abscess]

More like calling a spade a spade.

[Clak]

Ron Paul places the fall of Enron squarely at the feet of tax incentives to build a plant in India. He doesn't look anywhere else.

He doesn't look at:
1) Enron Energy Services, an idea of Liu Pai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_Energy_Services
2) Enron's Blockbuster deal: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/709941/Blockbuster-Kills-Video-On-Demand-Deal-with-Enron.htm
3) The *insane* idea to use mark-to-market accounting for long-term investment instruments that were so volatile in the market (energy) that they were literally lying about virtually every so-called 'asset' they had
4) Executives selling off stock at the same time they froze the stocks of employees, causing people to turn hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement savings into about $5,000. Enron stock peaked at nearly $90/share, and bottomed out as junk stock
5) The creation of offshoot corporations where more liabilities were hidden, which was the other side of the math equation that helped Enron bullshit their quarterly and annual financials in order to bamboozle their investors and the SEC. One shadow company where they disguised their liabilities? M. Yass. Think about it.

With regard to Enron, Ron Paul is at best woefully, woefully misinformed about the cacophony of problems surrounding that corporation. At worst, he is knowledgeable, yet deliberately withheld the bulk of the story because it can't be pinned on government in any way, shape or form. The India deal resulting solely from tax incentives is purely speculative, as there's no way to demonstrate they wouldn't have tried to move into the Indian market anyway. So Ron Paul's best argument for why Enron is not evidence of the failure of the free market comes down to nothing more than conjecture.

Your move, hombre.
I know this has absolutely nothing to do with Enron itself, but i just thought the bit about accounting was funny.

http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/111784/is-law-school-a-losing-game?mod=edu-continuing_education

"Enron-type accounting standards have become the norm," says William Henderson of Indiana University, one of many exasperated law professors who are asking the American Bar Association to overhaul the way law schools assess themselves. "Every time I look at this data, I feel dirty."

[thrustbucket]

More like calling a spade a spade.

Proof you are a racist.

[Feeding the Abscess]

:((((((((

[TurboChickenMan]

I campaigned for Paul during the Republican primary. Want to try that one again?

Doesn't change the fact that the way you made your point was incredibly vile.

I still stand by my view that nothing is absolutely proven or disproven until a concensus has been made based on physical evidence which has been independently analyzed via the scientific method (this hasn't occured in a VERY long time - everything is politicized & spun nowadays).

P.S. I only made this post so it wouldn't look like I was running away from a losing argument. The people involved in this discussion remain either too simple-minded (the majority) or too lazy (me and maybe a few others) to ever reach a concensus... :roll:

[IRHari]

I still haven't seen TurboChickenMan address the Enron posts above. Just because you have the last word doesn't mean you're right, right?

[camoor]

Pro-tip:

If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the birther crap.

You and your ilk have done a really good job of turning people away from hearing arguments against the drug war, an interventionist foreign policy, and a growing surveillance state by being fucking lunatics.

:applause:

[IRHari]

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html

An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

I am John Galt.

[Clak]

I know that was posted somewhere already because I replied to it, but I can't remember where it was.

[nasum]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110213/us_ac/7848546_ron_paul_wins_presidential_straw_poll_at_t he_2011_cpac

Granted this is the same deal that Bachmann was somehow or another able to get the crowd riled up, but it's interesting to see some stock in Ron Paul rising. He isn't perfect, but I think the fact that he's willing to stand against (and work with) both parties gives him an edge at least idealistically

[mykevermin]

Ron Paul's stock is rising, huh?

Find out who won last year's CPAC straw poll.

[RAMSTORIA]

Ron Paul's stock is rising, huh?

Find out who won last year's CPAC straw poll.

quit being so negative. i would think youd like paul over 94% of other potential republican candidates.

[thrustbucket]

A lot of people can never get past the R in front of anyone's name. They would be more likely to accept a member of Al Queda.

[willardhaven]

Libertarians do not exist in the same world as everyone else.

That said, I give him credit for bashing the president for continuing the wars.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm glad Rand's campaign rhetoric was just that; rhetoric.

He forced debate on the PATRIOT Act, and the Senate pushed a three month extension that passed 86-12. Rand Paul and Mike Lee were the only Republican NO votes.

I'm looking forward to six (and hopefully many more) years of Senate headaches because of Rand.


“The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned. However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps,” Paul wrote his Senate colleagues on Tuesday.


“The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state,” he added. “It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of ‘security.’”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49589.html#ixzz1E4qOuJL6

[mykevermin]

quit being so negative. i would think youd like paul over 94% of other potential republican candidates.

Of today? Without a doubt.

Historically, though, I would vastly prefer a more moderate Republican - the kind that doesn't exist in today's political environment. Like Nixon, or Reagan.

[willardhaven]

You know things are in the shitter when you prefer Reagan.

[Clak]

Based on what I know about him, I think Goldwater would probably be considered a liberal today. That just tells you how much the parties have changed.

[thrustbucket]

Proof that FoxNews distorts the facts about Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk&feature=player_embedded

[mykevermin]

Yow. That was some pretty creepy editing at the very end there. Not the sort of thing you want to view uncaffienated.

So...FOX is a kingmaker who supports all Republican causes except those of the fringe (i.e., Ron Paul, white nationalists). And they make things up to support their view. They start with their desired outcome and build the news backwards to lead in that direction.

Welcome to 1997, thrustbucket. Did you know NYPD Blue is still on the air?

[thrustbucket]

I've never been in denial that there are many producers and higher-ups at Fox that are Republican party shills.
I've just never thought that sort of thing was really out of the ordinary for a major news network though.

[mykevermin]

I've just never thought that sort of thing was really out of the ordinary for a major news network though.

this is worded oddly. it reads like you expect to see the shilling occur on the program systematically.

but I don't think you do, based on past experience and the context of your prior posts.

go contrast Fox's coverage of the egyptian protests, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, with their (muslim brotherhood's) op-ed from yesterday. you'll see the same thing. anything that doesn't fit Fox's worldview is distorted or omitted.

Let me simplify: anytime you see a news channel whose coverage you are satisfied with 100% of the time, or even close - you're being bullshitted. The news should reflect the real world, which means it involves facts, figures, and analyses that should disappoint, infuriate, and also reaffirm. For FOX viewers, that is not the case. There are no perspectives or facts presented that are unfortunate for the FOX viewer.

[Clak]

Hmm, but couldn't you get at least those first two thing by switching news networks? I mean if I watched fox news I know I'd eventually be infuriated and disappointed, kinda doubt reaffirmed, my opinion of them probably would be I suppose.

It is nice to know that fox news isn't really about shilling for conservatives, but rather the republican party. Which is weird since if Paul runs it will probably be as a Republican again.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Read his "We've Been Neo-Conned" speech to see why Paul is persona non grata in establishment circles.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

You'll find stuff about Fox in there, too.

[IRHari]

But but......MSNBC guys! MSNBC!!!!!111

Cue Bob in 3...2...1...

[thrustbucket]

Read his "We've Been Neo-Conned" speech to see why Paul is persona non grata in establishment circles.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

You'll find stuff about Fox in there, too.

I've been kind of wanting a quick concise short-list on what neo-cons believe and that article had it:

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means — that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

[mykevermin]

I've seen that list in a number of places. I don't believe it's complete, but what is does state is largely accurate.

Ron Paul is an astute critic. But his problem is that he thinks he can reclaim the party from neocons.

[IRHari]

I've seen that list in a number of places. I don't believe it's complete, but what is does state is largely accurate.

Ron Paul is an astute critic. But his problem is that he thinks he can reclaim the party from neocons.

Meh, I was one who believed Obama would change the way Washington works. We've all got some idealism in us I think.

[mykevermin]

touche, good sir. touche.

[Clak]

I'm not sure about the welfare state part. Equality doesn't seem to be a priority at all for them, and all welfare programs get labeled as "entitlements".

[Dr Mario Kart]

After re-reading it, I believe its mostly correct. The statement is that they dont EXPRESS an objection to the welfare state. It may be that they have an opinion on the matter, but they dont write about it, nor or they asked to come on radio/tv to comment on that topic. They're pinpoint focused on this national security paranoia. If they care, they dont care that much.

[Clak]

Maybe they don't call it a welfare state, but they certainly have spoken out against programs associated with a welfare state.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Nah, guys like Bill Kristol dismiss the welfare state as an issue, whereas his father (godhead of the neocon movement) openly praised it and wished to expand it.

I also take issue with calling a welfare state (be it corporate or otherwise), with our current monetary and government system, as a means to equality. Put all three together, and you've got something more akin to class enslavement than any sort of equality.

[nasum]

Put all three together, and you've got something more akin to class enslavement than any sort of equality.

ding ding!
Have there not been a couple of times since the 60's where there has been a (R) majority that could have pretty much gone with their agenda to the extreme? In all of that time, abortion is still legal, we still have social security, still have EBT and WIC, still have public education, etc... The whole god damn thing is a farce.