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

[thrustbucket]

I know there are those here that can't stand him or think he's a nutjob, and I can't wait to hear their problems with this video (mostly those of you that tend to think more regulation is usually the answer to everything).

New video from 1/5/2009 in the Madoff hearings.

He lays the smack down on a number of issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLUGqC9_oQ

My favorite is from 2:25 to 2:50. Pure verbal gold that Americans just don't care enough about, and will continue to economically suffer for.

After watching this, it further reinforces for me that writing his name in on the ballot was the right thing to do; that is if voting for the best man for the job was the goal.

Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to a Thomas Jefferson today; he has a more firm grasp on the corruption gripping government and works hard to expose it. Most other politicians, especially the most popular this last election, seem more resigned to just work with the corruption rather than risk the seismic changes we desperately need.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Dont taint Jefferson's name like that. He was for free public education up to the college level for anyone able at the expense of taxpayers. He wouldve likely been for universal healthcare as well for similar reasons.

Can anyone point to a period in history when libertarian principles have been widely adopted by a country to their benefit?

[mykevermin]

Yes. Madoff would have never happened if we had less regulation. Thanks Ron Paul. :roll:

He's also unnecessarily dismissive of the Sarbanes-Oxley act (the corporate crime prevention act in response to Enron) and the policy that it is. Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't *meant* to prevent changes in the economy, good or bad, numbskull. It was simply a law that makes corporate executives personally accountable for the *truth* of their financial statements.

Imagine where we would be financially right now if Sarbanes-Oxley never happened: executives would have seen from the example of Enron that there are loopholes to lie about finances without taking personal responsibility. How much better off would we have been there?

Pfff. Just because he's a contrarian doesn't mean his ideas are any good. It's not like he has a cogent grasp of Sarbanes-Oxley in the first fucking place.

[Quillion]

Dont taint Jefferson's name like that. He was for free public education up to the college level for anyone able at the expense of taxpayers. He wouldve likely been for universal healthcare as well for similar reasons.

Can anyone point to a period in history when libertarian principles have been widely adopted by a country to their benefit?
Plus, good ol' TJ was into sweet sweet slave lovin'.

It's definitely inappropriate to label him today's Thomas Jefferson. I can point to a period in history though. The United States of America in the latter half of the eighteenth and the entirety of the nineteenth.

I too oppose Sarbanes-Oxley, but from more of a functional standpoint. Complying with the regulations involved hasn't improved either of the companies I've worked for in the interim. Most companies take it further than it needs out of a fear of fines. He's got a point with the commentary that all of the Enron executives were prosecuted by laws already on the books. Sarbanes-Oxley didn't make it any more illegal, it just caught honest companies up in regulations that didn't really do anything other then create busywork, legal and accounting expense.

[mykevermin]

Think of the money saved in court costs had Sarbanes Oxley existed prior to Enron happening.

Is it red tape? Sure, but it's red tape that's inherently tied to the nature of corporate crime: if you treat the corporation as a legal body, how do you prosecute criminally for abuses of this order?

*Shouldn't* companies be fully aware of the truth of their financial reports?

[Quillion]

Think of the money saved in court costs had Sarbanes Oxley existed prior to Enron happening.

Is it red tape? Sure, but it's red tape that's inherently tied to the nature of corporate crime: if you treat the corporation as a legal body, how do you prosecute criminally for abuses of this order?

*Shouldn't* companies be fully aware of the truth of their financial reports?
Yes, they should, but the argument about court costs is misleading.

There will always be malfeasance. There will always be bypassing of regulations. Making things more illegal doesn't prevent crime - Punishment is not effective prevention. You've said so yourself. It's best to find the people who commit these frauds and remove them from the system. Perhaps a court order to never let them run a company or serve on a board.

Saddling all companies with red tape to punish the few (or many) who aren't honest does nothing other than create new costs.

[Reality's Fringe]

Yes, they should, but the argument about court costs is misleading.
things more illegal doesn't prevent crime - Punishment is not effective prevention. You've said so yourself.

That statement reminds me of study I came across in my Law and Economics course in which data showed that increasing prison sentences were not a crime deterrent, but made it so difficult for the inmate to return to regular life that crime levels increased. Rather, the best deterrent was to increase the probability of being caught in the first-place.

It's usually not prison that is the problem, but the dis-utility of being caught.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I can point to a period in history though. The United States of America in the latter half of the eighteenth and the entirety of the nineteenth.

In what respect? I dont think the span of 100 years of aggressive expansion, wars and lawlessness between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, on either end of which we didnt have a entirely cogent country or government, would be a prime example of a government purposefully adopting such principles.

Regarding the later half of the 19th century, I would point to the government subsidies/loans/land grants that went towards building the national railroad system, and the Homestead Act doling out federal lands to individuals.

Isnt it even contradictory for a national government to adopt libertarian principles? For the most part, the existance of government tends to stand directly in the way of those principles.

Theres a difference between a government not having power, and a government that does voluntarily adopting such principles.

[Quillion]

In what respect? I dont think the span of 100 years of aggressive expansion, wars and lawlessness between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, on either end of which we didnt have a entirely cogent country or government, would be a prime example of a government purposefully adopting such principles.

Regarding the later half of the 19th century, I would point to the government subsidies/loans/land grants that went towards building the national railroad system, and the Homestead Act doling out federal lands to individuals.

Isnt it even contradictory for a national government to adopt libertarian principles? For the most part, the existance of government tends to stand directly in the way of those principles.

Theres a difference between a government not having power, and a government that does voluntarily adopting such principles. I'll give you the financial aid to the railroads.

However, everything else proves the point. Aren't grants of federal lands the epitome of libertarianism? a recognition that individuals can use the land better than the government?

You're right in your last sentence, but you miss the point slightly, the federal government was created weak. On purpose. They threw out the Articles of Confederation that they felt gave too little power, but the attempt was always to make a weak federal because they felt that the states and individuals could do it better.

Our federal government has been grabbing more and more power in the last century, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but at least we have that illustration of "libertarian" principles.

[speedracer]

So that's got to be a new kind of record, huh? Turning this load of horse shit around and somehow finding a way to use some of the most damning evidence against capitalism and free market worship into complete and utter support! Brilliant!

A complete and utter breakdown of market principles by the strongest market actors and the problem is the regulator. The same regulator that everyone agrees has been ineffective. But where were the systems of checks and balances inherent in markets to prevent this kind of damage? Why, they were always there skippy! They just don't work, and I for one am sick and tired of pretending they do. I'd rather believe in the fuckin tooth fairy m'self. At least that bitch actually paid.

So, we if regulate more, we're bad guys to the poor small business man that's eating it due to SOX (lollerskates for the absurdity of that). And if we regulate less, we're idiots.

I guess I'll take the libertarian way out then: when you open a business, you sign a contract with the city and state saying you will play by their rules. Don't like regulation?

THEN DON'T SIGN THE FUCKING SHEET IF YOU DON'T AGREE TO THE TERMS.

Amirite?

[Dead of Knight]

I don't know about the most sane, but he's definitely the most honest, which counts for a LOT.

[thrustbucket]

When I said he was like Thomas Jefferson I didn't mean to say he was like him in every respect. Thomas Jefferson, in his time, was famous for constantly warning against the power of privatizing currency creation, the extreme danger of central banks, and corruption in general.

Of course, like any historical figure, they tend to become more and more deified over time and people will cringe to such comparisons.

There have been few others in our nations history that have been as honest on just how deep corruption is embraced in the government. One other is Rep. Louie McFadden (http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=McFadden1932) (D-PA):

The Aldrich bill was condemned in the platform upon which Theodore Roosevelt was nominated in the year 1912, and in that same year, when Woodrow Wilson was nominated, the Democratic platform, as adopted at the Baltimore convention, expressly stated: "We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank." This was plain language. The men who ruled the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "king's bank" to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave.

And Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)
This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.

The problem, I've noticed, with anyone mapping out exactly how corrupt the government is, in detail, is that everyone then asks "Ok, what should we do about it then?" And most Americans don't have the stomach for the types of radical change/solutions that answer that question; it's easier to continue voting for those on the same path of more bureaucracy , more government, more divisiveness, spend more money, raise taxes, and more regulation.

Edit: and here (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59217.html)is the contrasting view, and like Dr. Paul says, will continue to happen; digging deeper holes is all most elected officials know how to do to "make themselves relevant".

[KingBroly]

Having enough Regulation isn't the problem. The regulators are the problem because they weren't and aren't doing their job. We have far more regulation laws than needed. They just don't enforce, probably because of kickbacks you'll never hear about.

[Capitalizt]

Too bad we can't regulate the government. The amount of theft, fraud, and ponzi scheme spending programs in Washington put Enron to shame.

[JolietJake]

Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"

[Capitalizt]

Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"

Ron Paul along with other people who follow the Austrian school of economics like Peter Schiff have been predicting these events for years. They have been dead right on the asset bubble and subsequent burst. The reason you haven't heard of them until now is because their views were marginalized and ignored in favor of the status quo big gubmint Keynesian economists that always make it onto mainstream media.

[Msut77]

If anything we have been listening to the Randroids a wee bit too much, it was the hardon for deregulation and basically letting these brigands in business suits walk around like lords of creation that got us into this mess. The last few years have been again if anything a vindication of Keynes.

[thrustbucket]

Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"

Spend 30 minutes on youtube watching his speeches from the past 2 years and you'll change your mind. If anyone in Washington has the right to say "I told you so", it's him, but he doesn't say "I told you so".

His message hasn't changed much at all. The times have changed to better illustrate his message's relevance.

[SpeedyG]

Too bad we can't regulate the government. The amount of theft, fraud, and ponzi scheme spending programs in Washington put Enron to shame.
You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.

[elprincipe]

You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.

Hmm, that may be more heavy-handed than Sarbanes-Oxley. ;)

A real possibility would be a national referendum system put in place. It won't happen because the federal government would have to give up some powers, but it would be a nice check of the people on Washington.

[gareman]

You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.

Well if you are thinking that way, what is the point using the second amendment?

"We don't want the government to take away our guns so we can overthrow the government lawfully(?) under the rules of said government. We need to tell the government to not take away our guns....."

[Sarang01]

If anything we have been listening to the Randroids a wee bit too much, it was the hardon for deregulation and basically letting these brigands in business suits walk around like lords of creation that got us into this mess. The last few years have been again if anything a vindication of Keynes.

You're joking right?! Here's what you first need to know. What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one. Right now and ever since HEARST got Hemp banned here and perhaps before, the Free Market has not been that. Instead rich individuals have used their money to have government block things that would threaten their profit margin. Hearst had a large amount of land with lumber on it that he owned and Hemp was a huge threat to it. Consider that you can yield 4 times as much paper on one acre of Hemp as you can over the same acre of trees. Also consider you can regrow the Hemp as well.

The Pharmaceutical Industry is also looking to try to get Natural Medicines under the regulation of the FDA. I suspect if this happens many things could happen. Besides being deliberately discredited in some fraudulent study or another said herb might be banned as well. Those are just a few examples. Pharma is doing it because natural medicine threatens their financial bottom line in at least two ways: 1.They can't patent it so they can't corner the market on one Herb for any set amount of time to really milk it. 2.These medicines most likely do not damage your body subtly, sending you to the doctor later for another prescription.

Seriously if we'd get rid of some of this nonsense banning of certain things, not allowing the government to do it to begin with we'd be a lot better off.

[Msut77]

What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one.

Call it whatever you goddamn wish, deregulation i.e. the push for what you are referring to as free markets does not work and is responsible for much of the current mess. Can you even name an example of a place that has an entirely "Free Market"?

[thrustbucket]

The most amazing thing about all of this is that there are those that truly still believe that the problem was not enough government to begin with and the answer, clearly, is we need more government involvement to fix things.

Truly phenomenal.

[JolietJake]

You're joking right?! Here's what you first need to know. What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one. Right now and ever since HEARST got Hemp banned here and perhaps before, the Free Market has not been that. Instead rich individuals have used their money to have government block things that would threaten their profit margin. Hearst had a large amount of land with lumber on it that he owned and Hemp was a huge threat to it. Consider that you can yield 4 times as much paper on one acre of Hemp as you can over the same acre of trees. Also consider you can regrow the Hemp as well.

The Pharmaceutical Industry is also looking to try to get Natural Medicines under the regulation of the FDA. I suspect if this happens many things could happen. Besides being deliberately discredited in some fraudulent study or another said herb might be banned as well. Those are just a few examples. Pharma is doing it because natural medicine threatens their financial bottom line in at least two ways: 1.They can't patent it so they can't corner the market on one Herb for any set amount of time to really milk it. 2.These medicines most likely do not damage your body subtly, sending you to the doctor later for another prescription.

Seriously if we'd get rid of some of this nonsense banning of certain things, not allowing the government to do it to begin with we'd be a lot better off.Herbal "medicines" can also be dangerous in some cases. It isn't a good idea to self medicate when you don't know how something may affect you. Herbal medicine should be regulated by the FDA.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Any game needs rules. That includes markets. Football without goalposts, tick marks or refs isnt "free football". Its just chaos.

[thrustbucket]

Any game needs rules. That includes markets. Football without goalposts, tick marks or refs isnt "free football". Its just chaos.

Of course. Nobody is advocating a 'no rules' game, that's not what Paul is saying.

The rules are already there. They aren't enforced as they should be, is the biggest problem. But the real danger when something bad happens (like the economy now) is many politicians tendency to come up with even more rules as the answer.

To use your analogy, just because you lost a football game, doesn't mean you should lobby for more rules that you hope help you win next time.

[Dr Mario Kart]

There are definitely people advocating for LESS rules.

And less rules is primarily responsible for this. If investment and commercial banking hadnt been allowed to merge, there wouldnt be an economic crisis. Sure, some bad loans wouldve still been made, and some people would be out homes. But there wouldnt be investment vehicles whose total is far greater than the GDP of the planet. Secondarily, regarding companies: If you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist.

Enforcement of existing rules is a legitimate problem though.

[Frogurt.man]

I stopped watching when he said get rid of the SEC.

Thanks for the laugh thrustbucket.

[thrustbucket]

Yeah. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS gets laughed at all the time too. But it would fix quite a bit.

[Sarang01]

Herbal "medicines" can also be dangerous in some cases. It isn't a good idea to self medicate when you don't know how something may affect you. Herbal medicine should be regulated by the FDA.

Did you even READ a fucking thing I posted?! If it happens most Herbal Medicines will likely be banned and illegal. Watch people getting arrested for brewing up Green Tea, Oolong, Gingko Biloba, etc. How the fuck can I trust most doctors out there when their school Med programs are most likely primarily funded by Pharmaceutical companies?
I haven't even gotten into how the FDA is totally fucking corrupt. They passed NUTRASWEET for godsakes! They let Donald Rumsfeld ramrod it through. I haven't even gotten into how they let the Department Of Health and Human Services push for annual Flu shots when they should be all but BANNED for anyone who isn't elderly in my opinion.

[thrustbucket]

And now he talks about Israel, Hamas and Gaza.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z6vMAoFwf4&eurl=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread426327/pg1&feature=player_embedded

[speedracer]

Yeah. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS gets laughed at all the time too. But it would fix quite a bit.
Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.

[thrustbucket]

Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.

There is no data, it's all theory. Nobody asked the founding fathers to provide data for why the creation of this country should work, did they?

Provide data for why we NEED the Federal Reserve and IRS for our country to function well, or even survive. Both are institutions of enslavement and bondage put in place simply to make you and me legally obligated to rely on others.

[Msut77]

Someone should have told speedracer not to bother, oh well he found out for himself.

[Sarang01]

Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.

The Constitution is his data. Why would you borrow money and pay interest on it when you could legally make it from scratch? It's in the framework of our Constitution and by extension part of the backbone of our government is we can print our own money. Originally it was backed by gold, like in Fort Knox.

[Msut77]

Sarang, people have been reading what you post. It just happens to be nonsense.

You and thrust invoke the Founding Fathers like some magic argument winning talisman.

[Sarang01]

Sarang, people have been reading what you post. It just happens to be nonsense.

You and thrust invoke the Founding Fathers like some magic argument winning talisman.

I've never said it was. Bottom line, the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it. Remind me why anyone BUT the government should be doing it, especially when the government doesn't charge interest for one. Also we have no idea how much they're printing now. Word up, the M-8, which is the info that lists how much money is in circulation supposedly, the Fed is so arrogant they don't put that out now. Publish, whatever, the public doesn't see it.

[mykevermin]

Well, publicize it, then. Does that potentially solve economic issues and more or less than eliminating it altogether?

[thrustbucket]

I've never said it was. Bottom line, the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it. Remind me why anyone BUT the government should be doing it, especially when the government doesn't charge interest for one. Also we have no idea how much they're printing now. Word up, the M-8, which is the info that lists how much money is in circulation supposedly, the Fed is so arrogant they don't put that out now. Publish, whatever, the public doesn't see it.
~Just fyi, all you need to do is go to dailykos.com or huffingtonpost.com, read a smattering of comments from users under any story related to what you are discussing here, and you'll save yourself having to read msut's posts, so you can put him on ignore. ~

The public doesn't care about this stuff, that's the underlining issue here. They are too worried about the Republican bad / Democrat good daytime drama being played out on our mainstream media outlets to care.

Well, publicize it, then. Does that potentially solve economic issues and more or less than eliminating it altogether?

How can any of us get it publicized though? The Fed ultimately answers to nobody, that's the way it was set up on purpose. They don't even "owe" our government a yearly audit.

The only way the Fed can really be stopped, as I understand it, is to get Congress to pass laws removing power from the Fed that they were given originally in 1913; and/or adding power to the government to audit them.

Why this hasn't happened is anyone's guess. Apathy, it seems to me, being the main culprit. People only care about the items on CNN's front page at any given time.

[mykevermin]

That seems plausible - more plausible, even, than simply eliminating it.

Perhaps it's apathy. I think it's more complex than that. Take the national debt for instance: people are becoming more and more concerned about the size of it now that we went from $5T to over $10T in Bush's 8 years (try and beat THAT, tax and spend Democrats!). But now we're adding to it even further with these bailouts we can't afford: I believe I've read our national deficit ended up being over $1.2T just in 2008 alone. But do we need it? I dunno: spending money we don't have to help recover to pay off money we already didn't have but spent before seems like a peculiar fiscal policy (yes, you have to spend money to make money, but perhaps after a quarter century of massive deficit spending and supply-siding, with only 2 years of a surplus under Clinton, you'd think that we'd stop trying this exercise). But, yeah, it's a problem, but the depression "recession" and getting out of it is a more pressing issue. We're told that we had to save AIG and Detroit to survive economically. And many of us are skeptical of that. But saving the economy and avoiding increasing the national debt would not have been a very easy thing to accomplish. If at all possible.

[Msut77]

I've never said it was.

Actually that is exactly what you and thrust (to the extent that thrustmuppet ever says anything) are saying.
I don't blame you, it is much easier after all.

the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it.

There is a bit more to it than that understatement of the year I know; your main beef however seems to be the US going off the gold standard something I am not going to even bother to respond to.

To tie in with what Myke was saying people are stating to notice the deficit and debt again because a Democrat is about to take office and they are the only ones who ever have to worry about paying for shit. Now I am not sure whether Myke thinks we should cut X program(s) or not but I would like to hear if he has anything in mind specifically.

The deficit will probably not be going anywhere and may get even worse (but probably at a much slower rate) from what I have read it will go to what should be looked at as an investment in America such as job creation and repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

[cindersphere]

Getting tired of the matrix.

[elprincipe]

That seems plausible - more plausible, even, than simply eliminating it.

Perhaps it's apathy. I think it's more complex than that. Take the national debt for instance: people are becoming more and more concerned about the size of it now that we went from $5T to over $10T in Bush's 8 years (try and beat THAT, tax and spend Democrats!). But now we're adding to it even further with these bailouts we can't afford: I believe I've read our national deficit ended up being over $1.2T just in 2008 alone. But do we need it? I dunno: spending money we don't have to help recover to pay off money we already didn't have but spent before seems like a peculiar fiscal policy (yes, you have to spend money to make money, but perhaps after a quarter century of massive deficit spending and supply-siding, with only 2 years of a surplus under Clinton, you'd think that we'd stop trying this exercise). But, yeah, it's a problem, but the depression "recession" and getting out of it is a more pressing issue. We're told that we had to save AIG and Detroit to survive economically. And many of us are skeptical of that. But saving the economy and avoiding increasing the national debt would not have been a very easy thing to accomplish. If at all possible.

Oh, the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) will try to beat Bush's (and Congress's) insane deficits of the last eight years, believe me. No need to encourage them. Bush has already left them $350 billion in bailout money to spread around, and they want another $1 trillion (or more). Keep in mind that's NOT INCLUDED in the $1.2 trillion number that came out this past week. Also keep in mind the fact that we did not have surpluses under Clinton, only smaller deficits (unless you count stealing Social Security money to make a "surplus" as valid). Keep in mind that, similarly, the $1.2 trillion is not only before another predictably ineffectual "stimulus," but it does not include the Social Security surpluses we are stealing and someday hope to pay back (yeah right). What a tangled web we weave, indeed.

The only way this situation will ever be solved is for the government to be completely shaken to its roots. Dramatically expanding government is exactly the wrong direction to be headed, although both parties agree that is what's best! I wonder after which trillion dollars we print inflation will rear its ugly head.

[Sarang01]

You want to hear some of my fucking solution's to cut spending msut? Well so be it.

First before I get into that I do think it's an issue NOT to have money backed by something concrete, especially when you have a trade deficit. I'll be the first to admit the debt wouldn't be what it is now if not for that. I think the people who get us out of it will be the small businesses who get big lately and REFUSE to Outsource their products at all as well as pay their people a living wage. It will also take a decent amount of them tied together to do this.
The Fed makes this whole thing harder considering the fact they create inflation on top of what normally exists. Top this with business wanting to make a profit and inflation as we know it as high as it is and the worker really gets screwed. If the government printed money inflation wouldn't be at the 7%(I think that's the number we're talking) it is.
My solutions to cut spending are that you cut Corn subsidies completely for one as well as Dairy subsidies. In WIC you cut out Dairy, instead putting up stuff like Broccoli, beans and rice for their calcium and protein intake. This would be cheaper easily. As part of vitamin B12 you make Hemp and Rice Milk that have it added an option. Note I don't mention Soy as it has Phytoestrogens(plant based Estrogens) that we know do harm to very young boys at later ages.
I would also mention, this is on a consumer spending tip, that we completely cut out the government ban on Hemp and let it tangle with lumber for paper costs. The cost of paper will plummet in the process and we'll all benefit.
Now cutting a bunch of military spending would help too. We spend way too much on it. I will say that when cut you spend at least half of the money saved paying for the training of every military person to pay for college courses to make sure they have the most optimal chance of getting a job in the civilian sector. I'm referring to the one's let go.
Back to the Gold standard, I've heard there has been a bill proposed by Paul to deal with this. Though I'll be the first to admit it makes me uncomfortable not having our money backed by something concrete.

[Msut77]

You want to hear some of my fucking solution's to cut spending msut?.

I don't recall asking you that.

[thrustbucket]

There are some valid arguments against going to a metal/gold standard for money. One of the main reasons being that currently there is way too much gold and precious metals in very few hands.

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

Anyway, how to get from where we are now, to there, is the real trick - and one that will be extremely painful no matter what angle you look at it.

[Sarang01]

There are some valid arguments against going to a metal/gold standard for money. One of the main reasons being that currently there is way too much gold and precious metals in very few hands.

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

Anyway, how to get from where we are now, to there, is the real trick - and one that will be extremely painful no matter what angle you look at it.

Well considering that both presidents who did that(Kennedy and Lincoln) were assassinated, I would say so. Also they dang near killed Jackson. I suspect if Jackson would've been their patsy we would've heard little about the Trail Of Tears and whatever there was would be downplayed.
Truthfully I wouldn't weep if the Federal Reserve people got caught and had their heads put under the Guillotine. I wouldn't actively encourage it but I would see it as Karma and take no hand in preventing it. You reap what you sow.

[thrustbucket]

Maybe their heads could at least become the currency so it has something real backing it?

Man the more I think about it, the more it is truly amazing; that the one and only thing that backs the Dollar is faith in it.

[Msut77]

What I find truly amazing is that thrust is only just now realizing something the rest of understood when we were in elementary school.

Paper money makes just as sense as the idea that my house is worth less than a tiny amount of shiny rocks.

[speedracer]

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

I always thought we should base our currency on SOJs.

[willardhaven]

OP, relativity is a dangerous concept with regard to personal standards.

[The Crotch]

I always thought we should base our currency on SOJs.
I hate the fact that I get this joke.

[thrustbucket]

A message from Dr. Paul dated 1/12:

He is ranting about our involvement in Israel and calling out Bernake for canceling appointments with hearings for little secret meetings with central banks in Switzerland this week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETx6wW1C04g&eurl=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread427558/pg1&feature=player_embedded

I'm sure there is plenty there for the ani-Ron Paul crowd to hate. Why waste so much time trying to expose the Fed when our congressmen should be more concerned about how they are going to "Fix" everything with bailout money and/or getting more bailout money. Right?

[thrustbucket]

A great new video from the Dr from just a few days ago on CSPAN. I like it better when he ad-libs, but it's still good stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTVn2tMI3E

[crazytalkx]

I love how Ron Paul fans circle jerk to the man. It's hilariously endearing. Not that I have anything against the man.

[Kayden]

I like what he's saying, but I'm afraid of what he means.

Who is the beneficiary he promised to fight for de-regulization for?

[thrustbucket]

I love how Ron Paul fans circle jerk to the man. It's hilariously endearing. Not that I have anything against the man.

That's because we haven't had a politician on capitol hill nearly as honest in our lifetime, or your parents lifetime. It's worth jerking off to.

[thrustbucket]

Ron Paul to Bill Maher: America's drug war must end. (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ron_Paul_Dispose_of_drug_war_0221.html)

With video.


Congressman Ron Paul is the most conservative, grandfatherly man to ever be admired by America's marijuana enthusiasts. On Friday night's episode of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, he reminded those who may have been suffering an impaired short-term memory at that late hour why, exactly, they should like him.

Speaking live from Clute, Texas, the libertarian-leaning Republican did what few other members of Congress will and openly called for the United States' War on Drugs to be abolished.

"What about when FDR came to office in '33," asked Maher. "One of the first things he did was repeal prohibition. He said we can't afford this anymore. Well, we have prohibition in this country. ... When he was making radical changes he said look, we're serious now. We're going to make serious changes and people like liquor."

"Well, in this country, people like pot," said Maher to a wave of cheers and applause. "If we ended that prohibition, that would be a giant pooling of money."

"I don't like pot," said the congressman. "But I hate the drug war, so I would repeal all of prohibition. But, I wouldn't even bother taxing it. People have the right in a free country to make important decisions on their own lives. If they want to make mistakes, they can. They just can't come crawling to the government to get bailed out or taken care of if they get sick.

"I believe in freedom of choice in all that we do, as long as the individual never hurts anybody else. So that means I would get rid of all the federal laws. I would dispose with the drug war. We're spending tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars on this, then we march into places like California, override state laws, arrest sick people and put them in prison."

"It makes no sense whatsoever," he insisted.

"Amen, stoner," joked Maher.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

If you smoke weed, Al Queda wins.

[Kayden]

You mean all this time... I've been toking for terrorism!? :hot:
If you smoke weed, Al Queda wins.

[The Crotch]

You didn't get the newsletter, man?

[speedracer]

I hate the fact that I get this joke.
I never saw this response. I thought I was all alone in the universe.

[thrustbucket]

My favorite: "We have a total misunderstanding of credit versus capital".

Is it just me or is he basically talking about a currency change coming and/or NWO type stuff?

Absolutely loved how MSNBC hosts were pretty much speechless, and tried to down lplay/write him off like the media has done all along.

[rickonker]

My favorite: "We have a total misunderstanding of credit versus capital".

Is it just me or is he basically talking about a currency change coming and/or NWO type stuff?

Absolutely loved how MSNBC hosts were pretty much speechless, and tried to down lplay/write him off like the media has done all along.
No, he's talking about credit versus capital...

[Birakon]

ron paul is one of the best people for the job. It's sad that he will never have a chance at getting elected.

even if he was nominated (which won't happen) the american people would never elect someone like him, americans today don't want to work for anything and want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

[mykevermin]

Hey, look.

words.

[Paco]

Hey, look.

words.

America at its finest. My sister said that when she saw a book and had this confused look when the teacher asked her to read pages 50-75

[The Crotch]

Hmm.

It seems that Birakon's signature and avatar come from the HotShotX school of brand management...

[thrustbucket]

Paul's article from a recent http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1116/opinions-great-depression-economy-on-my-mind.html:

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.

What a negative nancy. Everyone knows we had no choice but to bail out everything, and everyone knows things will only get better. Right?
Further proof that Ron Paul is just about as kooky as those nutty conspiracy theorists that think both party's are worthless.

[mykevermin]

Roosevelt made the depression worse?

What a ridiculous premise.

[Capitalizt]

He did actually.. The dumbass prevented wages and prices from falling as they must in a correction (though to be fair, it wasn't his idea..He merely continued Hoover's policies). Artificially propping things up sends false signals through the economy.. This can only lead to further distortion and malinvestment by economic players..destroying more wealth and prolonging the corrective process. FDR's constant tinkering and intervention made businessmen incredibly uncertain about the future, and left them unwilling/unable to make long term investments to create real (private sector) jobs. When the government is doing sh!t like this..jumping in and out of different areas of the economy and making tax and regulatory changes on a weekly basis, it pretty much guarantees economic instability will continue for longer than it otherwise would have.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

[thrustbucket]

Yep, I think when company's feel there is even the slightest of possibilities that the government will step in and try to 'stabilize' things, they are going to keep their wings folded and play very conservatively. Not until they feel assured that the government is done rolling economic dice in random sectors will things iron out. That will take years and probably another administration or two.

[speedracer]

He did actually.. The dumbass prevented wages and prices from falling as they must in a correction (though to be fair, it wasn't his idea..He merely continued Hoover's policies).
But Hoover didn't start out intervening, did he? Didn't he go hands off and watch the entire economy crumble under him, prompting him to reverse course because he thought, in real time, that what you're advocating for was not working?

[Capitalizt]

But Hoover didn't start out intervening, did he? Didn't he go hands off and watch the entire economy crumble under him, prompting him to reverse course because he thought, in real time, that what you're advocating for was not working?

That's a common misconception. Hoover was the one who got the ball rolling on everything in an attempt to fight recession.. He pushed through dozens of subsidies, wage floors, price floors, taxes, tariffs, etc. His policy was the opposite of laissez faire in every respect..and he was largely responsible for turning a garden variety recession into a depression.

[speedracer]

That's a common misconception. Hoover was the one who got the ball rolling on everything in an attempt to fight recession.. He pushed through dozens of subsidies, wage floors, price floors, taxes, tariffs, etc. His policy was the opposite of laissez faire in every respect..and he was largely responsible for turning a garden variety recession into a depression.
Right. But he didn't start out that way was my point. And he didn't flip six months in. He espoused free markets as the savior for years before changing course.

I read that Hoover was pissed that Roosevelt was going to take credit for Hoover's finally figuring out that Keynesian theory was going to fix the economy. He certainly didn't start out a Keynesian. I think "Randian" would be most appropriate.

[Capitalizt]

I don't think so speed.. Hoover might have paid lip service to limited government just as Dubya did, but in practice he took the opposite approach. The only thing he "stubbornly" clung to was the gold standard. He did not want to abandon it entirely, and this is what likely contributed to his "rigid conservative" image but apart from that, the man was lock step with FDR on economic policy.

[elprincipe]

Roosevelt made the depression worse?

What a ridiculous premise.

It's not an unreasonable viewpoint. I'd like to hear from you why you think FDR made things better. Obviously, this has a direct application to our modern situation, where the government is doing all sorts of crazy things due to the belief they can "fix" the economy.

[speedracer]

I don't think so speed.. Hoover might have paid lip service to limited government just as Dubya did, but in practice he took the opposite approach. The only thing he "stubbornly" clung to was the gold standard. He did not want to abandon it entirely, and this is what likely contributed to his "rigid conservative" image but apart from that, the man was lock step with FDR on economic policy.
Not exactly the authoritative source I was looking for, but Wikipedia touches on it.
Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[34] Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman, who wrote The Conscience of a Liberal, contend that Hoover shared Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint.[35] Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression by hoping that the private sector would recover largely through its own volition.[36] His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

In the same article, they do talk about how Hoover wasn't the super capitalist that I thought he was though. Looks like you were right on that one.

[TurboChickenMan]

(I apologize for taking so long to post this reply. My computer died a while back, things got busy around here, and just today I was finally able to recover this post off of my old hard drive...)

*massive sigh*

Boy, where do I start? :roll:

Well, I suppose by first stating that I believe Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are correct about most of the things that they say.

Next, I would like to explain why many of the people who like Ron Paul (including me) seem so obsessed with him. It's because we know just how evil the other side is, and Ron Paul is one of the very few people in mainstream politics who knows this too.

By the "other side", we mean the people who say things that are the opposite to what R.P. and P.S. say. These people are in the majority, and come in many forms, some of the more notable being:

"Activists"
"Neo-conservatives"
"Bankers"
"Socialists"
"Analysts"
"Pundits"

Please take note that these people may sometimes sneak in something that R.P. and/or P.S. usually say (in a diluted form, of course), in order win back people who may be drifting over to the "wrong" side.

But before I go on, I must preempt a selection of general statements that usually come up in replies to anything I and others like me post:

"Where's my tinfoil hat?"

"Democrats faked the moon landing!"

"ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON"

"Karl Marx said..."

"(Insert huge number here) doctors/scientists/professors/news agencies/elected officials/best selling authors can't be wrong!"

"And I bet you also love Hitler, don't you?"

Sorry to be so assuming and preemptive, but I know from experience how people that don't like hearing and/or are programmed to hate this stuff behave when they come upon it.

I must additionally point out that although the specific statements that I make might not be entirely set in stone or fallacy -free, there is a general tone that I'm trying to get across, and I would like it very much if we could discuss/argue this rather than honing in on and spinning the stuff that makes the opposite POV look oh-so-incredibly perfect.

Now to move on, I would like to explain some things that we believe to be true:

Natural medicine vs. Modern medicine

On one side, you have a selection of plant-and-mineral based supplements and remedies that, although not all effective or safe, are on average quite effective, safe, and have few side effects. On the other side, you have a selection of patented, highly-profitable, man-made chemical formulas that almost always have one or more side effects ranging from mild-but-irritating to death.

I'm not looking to compare the nitty-gritty of the two right now. I had just wanted to say that one of the things Ron Paul promotes is freedom of medicine. In other words, the freedom to choose any doctor, self-medicate, and refuse treatment.

Many public schools have mandatory vaccine programs, and the FDA is taxing, restricting, and banning natural medicines left and right. You also can't get health insurance unless you get treatment from specific doctors.

I personally don't see the point to this. What's wrong this letting people choose the type of treatment they want? :-|

R.P. on the matter. (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst042505.htm)

The gold standard vs. Fiat currency

One grows and declines in value as the country does. The other can be inflated at any time by just printing more paper.

R.P. on the matter. (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/documents/841.php)

Size of government, and concentration of power

The bigger the government, the higher the taxes.

The more concentrated the power, the less freedom you have.

It really is just that simple. 8-)

A whole section of R.P.'s thoughts on the matter. (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=16)

The environment

Here is one area where you do need some amount of governmental oversight, since private business, for the most part anyways, sees our world as just one massive pile of potential profit.

However, R.P. is fairly moderate when it comes to this matter. He doesn't approve of wide-reaching "environmental protection" measures like the Kyoto Accord (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst121597.htm) or CARA (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst060500.htm).

Racism

R.P. Believes that it is a side effect of big government (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm), and there isn't any hard evidence that he himself wrote those infamous newsletters (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html).

Abortion

He's completely against it, plain and simple.

He talks a bit about it in the first part of this video, but there's a lot of other topics that he goes into in that speech as well, if you're interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI&fmt=18

Finally, what I consider to be his most important speech ever, exposing, on the floor of the House of Representatives, the greatest evil that exists at the political level - the neo-conservatives.

It's available in text (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm) or in video form (below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk(See uploader's related videos for the remaining parts of the speech.)

You likely already know R.P.'s stance on war (summed up, it's not a good thing), and P.S.'s stance on the economy (it hasn't even come CLOSE to bottom yet), so I won't take up any more space with that stuff. I just wanted to clear a few things up about Ron Paul, so maybe you could try and see him in a somewhat better light... ;)

Campaign For Liberty (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/)
Peter Schiff's YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/schiffreport?blend=1&ob=4)

[/tome]

[mykevermin]

Being anti-abortion is totally consistent with Libertarianism.

[UncleBob]

Being anti-abortion is totally consistent with Libertarianism.

It is. If you believe a fetus is a human.

[TurboChickenMan]

Libertarianism is not a moral system. It's basically "do whatever you want, just don't steal or kill". Ron Paul is an old-fashioned conservative. Family values, honest business practice, etc.

[ElwoodCuse]

I do like how the Tea Party kooks are all like "yay Ron Paul! less government! less spending!" but then they get all pissed off when he says "let's start with the military, talk about a huge waste of money". Because any amount of money spent helping poor people or people without health insurance is too much but billions to kill brown people is A-OK.

[Clak]

Libertarianism is not a moral system. It's basically "do whatever you want, just don't steal or kill". Ron Paul is an old-fashioned conservative. Family values, honest business practice, etc.
What are family values?

[dmaul1114]

I do like how the Tea Party kooks are all like "yay Ron Paul! less government! less spending!" but then they get all pissed off when he says "let's start with the military, talk about a huge waste of money". Because any amount of money spent helping poor people or people without health insurance is too much but billions to kill brown people is A-OK.

Yep.

Another good example I read in an opinion piece this morning (forget which paper website it was) the NY court ruling that the federal government can't ban gay marriage as it violates state's rights.

Tea partiers like the states rights things, but are conflicted as they hate gay marriage. Which gets to the hypocrisy of the whole movement. They're only against big government when they aren't in power. Many of them would have no problem with "government interference" if it meant banning gay marriage, keeping gays out of the military, getting prayer and creationism in school, banning abortion etc. etc.

[IRHari]

There's a new Gallup poll that just came out. The concerns of the Republican party are almost the same as the concerns of the Tea Party.

So, again, what makes the Tea Party distinct? How are they different from the base of the Republican party?

[dmaul1114]

Nothing as they ARE the base of the Republican party. Again, most of them had little problems with big government when Bush (who shared their values etc.) was in office. But now that there's a "muslim socialist" in office, big government is the worst thing in the world.

I really don't think there are a lot of long-term libertarians at tea party rallies. It's mostly a bunch of social conservatives who are against government now that the other side has the power.

[dorino]

When a libertarian is the most sane person in Washington, something's wrong.

[cindersphere]

When a libertarian is the most sane person in Washington, something's wrong.
.

[TurboChickenMan]

What are family values?

The way things used to be before the 1960's. No promiscuity, no abortion, no affairs, no homosexual marriage, no open homosexuality, and so on. Think "Pleasantville", but not so weird and Hollywoodized.

It can't be enforced, Ron Paul doesn't want to enforce it, but he and his family practice and encourage it.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

^ I cannot confirm who originally said this, but I like the quote anyhow...

Also, the Tea Party movement has nothing to do with Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty. I kind of suspect it's a false flag operation (please see my set of stock reponses to this kind of claim on Page 4 before you bother replying with one yourself) meant to draw people away from the Campaign. It showed up pretty much out of thin air, and has been heavily featured in the mainstream media. Plus, neocon Sarah Palin (check her policies - she's insanely pro-war) has openly endorsed it... :oldman:

And although R.P. once ran for president under the Libertarian banner, he no longer calls himself one. He's a "staunch supporter of the Constitution" these days. No real definable label, although "old right" or "constitiutionalist" would be a lot closer than "libertarian".

As for his son Rand Paul, he's getting much more attention in the mainstream media than his father is. In a recent (and decent sized) Time magazine article about Rand, Ron was mentioned once, very breifly. This is because Rand's policies are much weaker than his father's (again, spare me the conspiracy B.S. - everything I believe is the result of fully examining BOTH sides of the issue).

[mykevermin]

The way things used to be before the 1960's. No promiscuity, no abortion, no affairs, no homosexual marriage, no open homosexuality, and so on. Think "Pleasantville", but not so weird and Hollywoodized.

http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278808594&sr=8-1

Nah, your account of 'how things used to be' is pretty goddamned Hollywood.

[IRHari]

Didn't Ron Paul vote for the Stupak amendment? Isn't that doing more than 'practicing and encouraging it'?

Look, I don't agree with a lot of Ron Paul's positions on things. But there are a lot of things I can agree with him on. We should come to a consensus on the things we agree on (Bush's warrantless wiretapping, the war on drugs, the iraq war, DADT, etc.) I think I saw Paul and Barney Frank working together to cut defense spending.

Check out this article which argues this pretty well:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy

[dorino]

The way things used to be before the 1960's. No promiscuity, no abortion, no affairs, no homosexual marriage, no open homosexuality, and so on. Think "Pleasantville", but not so weird and Hollywoodized.
Lol. Before 1960, homosexuals didn't exist, and men never cheated on their wives.

[TurboChickenMan]

Lol. Before 1960, homosexuals didn't exist, and men never cheated on their wives.

Before 1960, homsexuals didn't parade down Main Street, and affairs weren't discussed on national television.

"Family values" may not necessarily have been totally rock solid back then, but at least the opposite values weren't constantly in your face.

[dorino]

Before 1960, homsexuals didn't parade down Main Street, and affairs weren't discussed on national television.

"Family values" may not necessarily have been totally rock solid back then, but at least the opposite values weren't constantly in your face.
Yes, damn them, talking about things we don't want to hear! DONT TELL ME ABOUT IT AND IT GOES AWAY

[TurboChickenMan]

^ Since when were morals and privacy bad things? :-s

[IRHari]

If you're talking about the morals and privacy thing in relation to adultery, sure.

If you're talking about them in relation to homosexuality....not so much.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Didn't Ron Paul vote for the Stupak amendment? Isn't that doing more than 'practicing and encouraging it'?

Look, I don't agree with a lot of Ron Paul's positions on things. But there are a lot of things I can agree with him on. We should come to a consensus on the things we agree on (Bush's warrantless wiretapping, the war on drugs, the iraq war, DADT, etc.) I think I saw Paul and Barney Frank working together to cut defense spending.

Check out this article which argues this pretty well:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy

Paul occasionally votes for stuff he doesn't agree with on the whole if there's a strong element of something he supports. Stupak and many things with an income or net tax cut are two examples. Or the defense issue with Frank: Paul wants to bring troops home from all over the world, Barney doesn't. But Ron's going along with it because some is better than none in this instance.

Also, your second paragraph nails it. Seems like us younger folk tend to be able to do that; I hope it sticks as we hit our 30s, 40s, and beyond. In a libertarian perspective, Russ Feingold is a much better Senator than Hilary Clinton was, as an example.

[mykevermin]

Aww, the "Libertarian" finalls reveals himself to be a poor, poor, oppressed hegemon with a myopic preference for a world that exists such that it only *pretends* to be a certain way. No real desire for liberty or equality.

Just a fascist who knows that identifying as a "Republican" is out of vogue.

[speedracer]

The way things used to be before the 1960's. No promiscuity, no abortion, no affairs, no homosexual marriage, no open homosexuality, and so on. Think "Pleasantville", but not so weird and Hollywoodized.
lolwut?

Which one of you is trolling? Msut?

[IRHari]

Y'know, I don't think minorities (blacks in particular) would be particularly interested in going back to the way things used to be before the 1960s.

Think about that, especially considering how Rand Paul (and I assume the father too) feel about the one part of the CRA he disagrees with.

[SpazX]

It's always cute when somebody thinks sitcoms set in the pre-60s are documentaries. I personally wish life was like the late 90s and early 00s, back when everybody loved Raymond. It was a simpler time...

[mykevermin]

I preferred the early 1990's, when Parker Lewis simply couldn't lose.

[TurboChickenMan]

Remember, I showed that R.P. is 100% against racism.

And people will say anything to make a buck, plus anything can be slanted as much as needed to support a pre-determined POV. I look for hard evidence, and the hard evidence shows me that R.P. and P.S. are in the right with most of their stuff, and that things WERE better pre-60's. Those old sitcoms were phoney, but the general idea had to come from somewhere.

My very sharp-minded mother is contantly pointing out to me how society has crumbled immensely since the 50's. :drool:

[SpazX]

Those old sitcoms were phoney, but the general idea had to come from somewhere.

That's what I say when people tell me that trolls and fairies aren't real. The idea came from somewhere and that somewhere had to be essentially the same and real.

My very sharp-minded mother is contantly pointing out to me how society has crumbled immensely since the 50's. :drool:

It was Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade that did it. Along with the dreaded "meeting of the beds" where married couples started sleeping in the same bed. That triggered a lot of the downfall.

[IRHari]

You'd think that if you were 100% against racism you'd ban businesses from discriminating. But that would empower gummint wouldn't it? Which side is the right side, free market let racists be racists, or gummint?

[Clak]

The way things used to be before the 1960's. No promiscuity, no abortion, no affairs, no homosexual marriage, no open homosexuality, and so on. Think "Pleasantville", but not so weird and Hollywoodized.

It can't be enforced, Ron Paul doesn't want to enforce it, but he and his family practice and encourage it.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

^ I cannot confirm who originally said this, but I like the quote anyhow...

Also, the Tea Party movement has nothing to do with Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty. I kind of suspect it's a false flag operation (please see my set of stock reponses to this kind of claim on Page 4 before you bother replying with one yourself) meant to draw people away from the Campaign. It showed up pretty much out of thin air, and has been heavily featured in the mainstream media. Plus, neocon Sarah Palin (check her policies - she's insanely pro-war) has openly endorsed it... :oldman:

And although R.P. once ran for president under the Libertarian banner, he no longer calls himself one. He's a "staunch supporter of the Constitution" these days. No real definable label, although "old right" or "constitiutionalist" would be a lot closer than "libertarian".

As for his son Rand Paul, he's getting much more attention in the mainstream media than his father is. In a recent (and decent sized) Time magazine article about Rand, Ron was mentioned once, very breifly. This is because Rand's policies are much weaker than his father's (again, spare me the conspiracy B.S. - everything I believe is the result of fully examining BOTH sides of the issue).
You realize that Leave it to Beaver wasn't a documentary, right? Seriously, that time period was easier for white men, that's it.

[TurboChickenMan]

You'd think that if you were 100% against racism you'd ban businesses from discriminating. But that would empower gummint wouldn't it? Which side is the right side, free market let racists be racists, or gummint?

There are several options for minorities to take if businesses are free to discriminate. Boycott, protest, public awareness. People have already been shown that it's wrong to discriminate anyways, over-zealous laws are no longer needed.

And what I meant by "it had to come from somewhere" was "do you really think that 50's television was pure science fiction?".

Yeah, it was exaggerated. That's showbiz. But:

http://www.twolia.com/blogs/heres-looking-like-you-kid/files/2009/08/1950s-fashion-differences-for-mother-and-daughter.jpg

Vs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/commons.wikimedia.org/upload/thumb/4/48/200px-Visible_Thong_1.jpg

&

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/1950-2000/1956_1957_young_men.jpg

Vs.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4779238581_4140c2ff82.jpg

Not to mention...

http://jarod.pulo.com.au/acd2001/images/Desoto.jpg

Vs.

http://jdranade.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/corollaaltis_frontside1.jpg

&

http://z1.zod.fr/z/vlcsnap-2194849-1Gx.png

Vs.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QwXhaLMCEX8/SJPL_r_wjGI/AAAAAAAAAaA/i7A1u-SEhAQ/s400/matrix_punch.jpg

I've seen non-fictional examples of both time periods, and the current one is much more crass, off-kilter, and zombiefied.

Oh, and before you play the Robert Crumb card, he's an artist, and artists in general have a huge "better than thou" attitude (again, I've seen many an example, this isn't some empty jab).

P.S. I hope that you aren't honing in on the "family values" thing to get away from debating the more important points I've made regarding Ron Paul's actual politics... :-k

[dorino]

I think they're homing in on the family values thing because you pulled it out of your ass.

Also, stop using fashion, automobiles, and cinema as examples of family values. That makes no sense.
The true thing is, in the 1960s, the black neighbors didn't get to come over for Christmas dinner. The moral (family) values of the 60s were by no means the media's protrayal; It came from somewhere, sure. It came from the imaginations of idealistic white men.

that things WERE better pre-60's
For middle-to-upper class white males, yes. Definately.
For everyone else, it's leaps and bounds down the ladder.

[IRHari]

'Several options for minorities to take...'

See, the problem is you're putting the burden on those minorities. I don't think thats fair. The purpose of gov't is to protect its citizens.

ALL the burden should be on those businesses that discriminate, hence why there are laws to address that.

[SpazX]

Yes, people in 50s sitcoms wore clothes and drove cars from the 50s, I agree.

[UncleBob]

You'd think that if you were 100% against racism you'd ban businesses from discriminating. But that would empower gummint wouldn't it? Which side is the right side, free market let racists be racists, or gummint?

I'm (generally) against abortion, but I wouldn't ban it.
I'm against yelling out profanities and dropping the "f-bomb" willy-nilly, but I wouldn't ban it.
I'm against Pauly Shore movies and Celine Dion music, but I wouldn't ban them.
I'm against hate speech, but I wouldn't ban it.
I'm against burning the flag, but I wouldn't ban it.
I'm against loaning money to friends and family members, but I wouldn't ban it.

You can believe something is wrong (or that there's a better way to do something) without wanting to use force to make everyone else follow your moral compass.

[TurboChickenMan]

I think they're homing in on the family values thing because you pulled it out of your ass.

Also, stop using fashion, automobiles, and cinema as examples of family values. That makes no sense.

I moved from "family values" to "overall culture" to help make a general point about then vs. now. Fashion, autos, and cinema have declined at the same rate that family values have.

P.S. Cleopatra was released in the 60's. But it holds the same tone as the 50's Roman empire epics. Please do not "pick-and-spin" as is the standard during discussions like this. :roll:

[cindersphere]

Good job, your posts are even making the point of education being worse off today as well.

[dorino]

I moved from "family values" to "overall culture" to help make a general point about then vs. now. Fashion, autos, and cinema have declined at the same rate that family values have.

P.S. Cleopatra was released in the 60's. But it holds the same tone as the 50's Roman empire epics. Please do not "pick-and-spin" as is the standard during discussions like this. :roll:
Yes, in the 50s, movies from the 50s existed, and cars from the 50s were being driven. This culture still exists; With conservatism and those scared to accept social advancement/change.

[Clak]

I think we've officially reached critical stupidity, the forum can'na take anymore cap'n.

[dmaul1114]

Amen to that. It's only real purpose any more is to reveal idiots who need added to my ignore list.

[dorino]

:d

[TurboChickenMan]

My my, there sure is a lot of name calling, which I have not used, do not plan on using, and is a underhanded debate tactic whipped out whenever someone doesn't feel like debating points directly.

:roll:

What's wrong with debating the matter of cultural quality? I think it's totally fair to say that many aspects of western culture such as morals, fashion, "family values" (I clearly explained what I mean when I use this term, please don't repeat yourself/avoid the topic anymore), cinema, food, language, etc.

Plus, why continue to focus on a topic which originated from a rather small statement that I made which I intended to be debated alongside more important ones?

I definitely didn't expect honest and intelligent debate to last too long, but I think you've broken my online message board record for speed of degeneration of the main line of questioning.

P.S. People can protect theselves, be they white or minority. The role of government is only to keep order.

[dmaul1114]

I'd fucking shoot myself if I had to live in the Leave it to Beaver culture you worship.

Today's culture is far form perfect for sure, what with reality TV, obsession with celebrity, still being too fucking prudish about sex/nudity, cursing etc. etc. But it's far better than western culture at any earlier time point.

[Msut77]

It is kind of funny how chicken guy brings up the film Cleopatra, because Elizabeth Taylor had an affair with Richard Burton that basically the entire planet knew about.

If chicken isn't a troll he still wouldn't be worth responding to.

The whole entire point of the culture war is to focus on shit that is unmeasurable and will never be resolved.

[mykevermin]

Another quasi-intellectual who doesn't seem to understand what hegemony means.

Let's hit this from another angle; how should we solve the Gulf oil spill, mister libertarian?

[phantasyx]

I'm just wondering if anyone has posted the Ron Paul and Bruno video yet..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ

Well I had too... I have no idea what this Thread is about, but he's not that sane.

[perdition(troy]

Another quasi-intellectual who doesn't seem to understand what hegemony means.

Let's hit this from another angle; how should we solve the Gulf oil spill, mister libertarian?

more regulation and golf will obviously fix it.

[mykevermin]

Ladies and gentleman, a round of applause for Henny Youngman!

You show brief glints of having some semblance of an intellect. You do neither yourself nor your ideology *any* service with smarmy, flippant one-liners, however.

[UncleBob]

You do neither yourself nor your ideology *any* service with smarmy, flippant one-liners, however.

That's about 75% of the posts on this forum...

[TurboChickenMan]

That's about 75% of the posts on this forum...

This. It applies to every forum with a political section that I've been to, actually. I'd get less further than nowhere if I didn't use this tactic too.

Nobody debates things straight up. They insult, pick and choose, and spin.

Lemme use the first one for a moment since you're using it now:

"Most of the posters in online political debates sound like hip & trendy leftists fresh out of college. They also love to pounce on any political figure or poster remotely right-wing, be they libertarian, neo-con, or old right. Quasi-intelligent? Look who's talking!!! :???:"

Nowhere near as vitrolic as the rest, but I'm not like that.

P.S. Oil spill? Leave the oil company to fix it. It hurts their image, and they've got the expertise and money. Government bureaucrats can barely clean up a cup of spilled coffee.

[Msut77]

Nobody debates things straight up. They insult, pick and choose, and spin.

I have read a few of your posts, I am not impressed.

I have seen better trolls and if you aren't a troll then...

Your "no promiscuity" nonsense was rightly pilloried, no one should apologize because you say your feelings were hurt.

There is something I would like to see you respond to more:

Remember, I showed that R.P. is 100% against racism.

I must have missed that.

Remember, R.P. used to edit a newsletter emblazoned with his name that ran vitriolic and vile racist "articles" all the time.

[thrustbucket]

When I saw this thread had been resurrected, I had really hoped it was about the Federal Reserve Audit failing last week, when most Democrats voted against it (after all of them sponsoring it).

Go ahead, I dare you - raise your hand if you actually think it's a bad idea to audit the Fed.

That would be a legit discussion though, and we can't have that.

[Clak]

You aren't worth debating, making fun of your nut job idea of the perfect society is the only thing worth doing in this thread.

[speedracer]

Go ahead, I dare you - raise your hand if you actually think it's a bad idea to audit the Fed.
I don't know that much about it, certainly less than the average RAWR FED MUST DIE peeps. Where do we legally derive the power to audit a private reserve bank? I'm not versed in the relationship between it and the government other than politicians nominate board members.

[speedracer]

P.S. Oil spill? Leave the oil company to fix it. It hurts their image, and they've got the expertise and money. Government bureaucrats can barely clean up a cup of spilled coffee.
Wow, yea. I mean, just think of their image. That's serious business right there. And clearly their expertise and money is going a long way to fixing it. Day eighty-what again?

[perdition(troy]

its ok speed, the white house plan is that 90% of the oil coming out of the well will be contained by the end of june.

[thrustbucket]

I don't know that much about it, certainly less than the average RAWR FED MUST DIE peeps. Where do we legally derive the power to audit a private reserve bank? I'm not versed in the relationship between it and the government other than politicians nominate board members.

It is complicated, for sure. It can be done. It likely would have been done if HR-1207 had passed.

It's absolutely asinine that we put the power to control our money into a private bank in the first place, but there are political avenues to demand an audit. The people (Congress) gave them that power, and the people can take it back. The Fed knows this.

I have been researching though, and I can't figure out why so many Democrats turned on HR-1207 after having sponsored the bill. The only explanation is that it was looked at as a Republican bill and must be stopped for that reason alone.

[IRHari]

Almost like that bipartisan debt commission. Republicans were for it until Obama was for it, then they voted against it. No wait, the debt commission thing was worse.

Purely political.

[thrustbucket]

Debt Commission was worse? Really?

Yes it is politics, which goes a long way in proving how incompetent and useless both parties are.

[TurboChickenMan]

Your "no promiscuity" nonsense was rightly pilloried, no one should apologize because you say your feelings were hurt.

Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

I see a HUGE amount of spin coming from this statement. Brace yourselves, righties! #-o

Remember, R.P. used to edit a newsletter emblazoned with his name that ran vitriolic and vile racist "articles" all the time.

I mentioned the newsletters. He's always denied he wrote them, and he's called racism a form of collectivism, which he really doesn't like.

You aren't worth debating, making fun of your nut job idea of the perfect society is the only thing worth doing in this thread.

Another underhanded tactic - dismissal. All points are inherently worth arguing. Sure, consensuses have been reached on many topics such as Flat Earth and racism, but if somebody believes the opposite, the right thing to do is give him/her the facts rather than insult and dismiss him/her.

Oh, and I never said we had a perfect society pre-60's, just that it was a lot less dissolute.

Wow, yea. I mean, just think of their image. That's serious business right there. And clearly their expertise and money is going a long way to fixing it. Day eighty-what again?

Why wouldn't they want to fix their image? It's driving their stock into the toilet. And they seem to be using all the methods that they know to fix the leak, as quickly as they can. I do admit that they should be taking more outside advice, though, but not from the government. All they know how to do is run wars, collect taxes, and tell you how you should live your life (three things Ron Paul wants to do a LOT less of!).

And as for The Fed, here's an interesting video about it:

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553)

[mykevermin]

thrustbucket is nothing if not reliable. There's a 75% chance that if I click on "view post" when I see he's posted something preceding and following a comparative statement demonstrating how fucking miserably corrupt and/or in the pocket of multinational corporations the Republican party is, he just rolls over and plays dead, repeating the "both parties are corrupt" mantra.

Show some fuckin' backbone, man. You're not even trying.

[TurboChickenMan]

Show some fuckin' backbone, man. You're not even trying.

Yes. What he should do is explain why and how both parties are corrupt.

[speedracer]

I'm confused. You're an honest to god Ron Paul libertarian? I thought you were trolling.

[TurboChickenMan]

I'm confused. You're an honest to god Ron Paul libertarian? I thought you were trolling.

I'm a Paulite. Old-right/constituionalist rather than Libertarian, although I do approve of some of the libertarian agenda (the parts that R.P. also supports, obviously ;))

I don't troll. I'm just highly opinionated, and my tone/right-wing views often stir up s*** on forums, although not very often on purpose.

[SpazX]

Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

I see a HUGE amount of spin coming from this statement. Brace yourselves, righties! #-o

Well technically it's one sex act that leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It's not like it builds up or something. Promiscuity can increase the likelihood of one or both of those happening.

But, anyway, tell me about how much more promiscuous people are now, and the related rise in STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Map it out for me.

[TurboChickenMan]

Well technically it's one sex act that leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It's not like it builds up or something. Promiscuity can increase the likelihood of one or both of those happening.

But, anyway, tell me about how much more promiscuous people are now, and the related rise in STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Map it out for me.

Of course I know that sex doesn't build up... :roll:

Here's (http://tfcus.homestead.com/Anna_Wiersema.pdf) a pretty good essay on the topic. It's got sources, and words things better than I can.

[mykevermin]

Okay, I fell for it and clicked the link.

This is the first thing I saw:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32877/TurboChickenLOL.jpg

Troll confirmed.

[SpazX]

lol, alright, nevermind. Carry on.

[TurboChickenMan]

Troll confirmed.

Is original research taboo or something? :-k

[Clak]

Everyone knows that The Wonder Years was the most accurate depiction of the American family.

edit-http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/implied_facepalm.jpg

[SpazX]

Is original research taboo or something? :-k

Original research indeed. But she didn't even win the essay contest!

[Msut77]

Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

You mean promiscuity sans condoms?

He's always denied he wrote them

And?

What is good enough for you isn't good enough for a non Paulista.

All points are inherently worth arguing.

You haven't been on the internet long enough then.

Sure, consensuses have been reached on many topics such as Flat Earth and racism, but if somebody believes the opposite, the right thing to do is give him/her the facts rather than insult and dismiss him/her.

And if giving them the facts doesn't work?

[IRHari]

Another underhanded tactic - dismissal. All points are inherently worth arguing. Sure, consensuses have been reached on many topics such as Flat Earth and racism, but if somebody believes the opposite, the right thing to do is give him/her the facts rather than insult and dismiss him/her.

Absolutely wrong. You cannot fight irrationality with empirical evidence.

I'm a Paulite. Old-right/constituionalist rather than Libertarian, although I do approve of some of the libertarian agenda (the parts that R.P. also supports, obviously ;))

I like to call people like you 'Paulistinians'. It sounds much cooler ;)

[Clak]

Paulistinians :rofl:

[TurboChickenMan]

Original research indeed. But she didn't even win the essay contest!

The contest wasn't focused on just promiscuity. It's possible that the judges preferred other topics.

All I know is even though it's written by a 17 year old, I think it's fairly well written, and sources are included to back up many of the statistics.

You mean promiscuity sans condoms?

@ 2:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvXW7wtY64

And if giving them the facts doesn't work?

Ignore them. If that doesn't work, then insult away. Never skip to step 3.

Absolutely wrong. You cannot fight irrationality with empirical evidence.

All POV's submitted in an argument, whether they are known to be wrong by the world at large or not, are up in the air as to their validity until evidence is submitted to prove/disprove them.

This is my POV. Please sumbit evidence as to why you believe it is incorrect, if you do.

P.S. "Paulite" is a fairly common term (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%2BPaulite+%22ron+paul%22+OR+%22campaign+for+lib erty%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=c401d881a5ff002f) for us.

[Clak]

Well when someone thinks that Happy Days was more documentary than sitcom, most people have a hard time responding in any serious way.

[TurboChickenMan]

Well when someone thinks that Happy Days was more documentary than sitcom, most people have a hard time responding in any serious way.

It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatently obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.

[cindersphere]

It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatently obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.

So you're saying that we should debate the benefits of gassing and killing millions of jews as seriously as say providing health care to millions of people? Euthanasia of babies with birth defects? slavery based upon race?

[Msut77]

It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatantly obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.

I am dismissive of others idiocy all the time and I have never noticed a problem.

[mykevermin]

PANTS SHOULD BE WORN AS HATS.

Please discuss respectably, or it will lead to problems.

[thrustbucket]

thrustbucket is nothing if not reliable. There's a 75% chance that if I click on "view post" when I see he's posted something preceding and following a comparative statement demonstrating how fucking miserably corrupt and/or in the pocket of multinational corporations the Republican party is, he just rolls over and plays dead, repeating the "both parties are corrupt" mantra.

Show some fuckin' backbone, man. You're not even trying.

I take that post to mean you are still operating under the age-old superstition that A) One party is more corrupt than the other and B) There is a big enough difference in the two parties to positively affect/fix this country through voting for one.

Maybe we should call you old-faithful. No surprises here.


Yes. What he should do is explain why and how both parties are corrupt.

Or maybe we are owed an explanation of how one is less corrupt than the other, especially through recent examples.

Edit: Maybe I'm just putting too much stock into the word "corrupt". It's entirely possible that one man's "corrupt" is another mans paradise.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Edit: Maybe I'm just putting too much stock into the word "corrupt". It's entirely possible that one man's "corrupt" is another mans paradise.

There you go. Times might be tough, but I wouldn't notice if I worked on Wall Street.

[Clak]

It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatently obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.
I think you watch far too much television, now you're sounding like Tony Soprano.

[TurboChickenMan]

I think you watch far too much television, now you're sounding like Tony Soprano.

Discussing everything in detail, no matter thow asinine it may be, will lead to much less disagreement down the road.

In other words, ram evidence down people throats until they submit, rather than yell at them and make them think you're too cowardly to debate because you know they're right.

[IRHari]

Dude, didn't you read what I said about empirical evidence and irrationality?

ex:
A: Wheres obamas birth certificate?
B: here, he was born in hawaii
A: no i want the long form
B: here
A: no thats the long form certificate of live birth, its not the same as a birth cert.
B: are you Senator David Vitter?
A: yes

[Sarang01]

thrustbucket is nothing if not reliable. There's a 75% chance that if I click on "view post" when I see he's posted something preceding and following a comparative statement demonstrating how fucking miserably corrupt and/or in the pocket of multinational corporations the Republican party is, he just rolls over and plays dead, repeating the "both parties are corrupt" mantra.

Show some fuckin' backbone, man. You're not even trying.

I love ya myke but both parties ARE corrupt. You need to accept that both are a big load of horseshit, dung, whatever word you wanna use. Washington nailed it, being against political parties. These fucking party labels hold us back.
The only guy I respect now in any of em' is Ron Paul, ONE person. Dennis Moore, my rep., is a fucking shill for the Fed. I'm glad he's retiring and I hope his wife doesn't end up getting elected as she will likely be just as much in the pocket of the Fed as he has been.
As for ideology do you think I'd get elected to either party? I'm pro-Gun rights, pro-Choice, pro-Gay marriage, Anti-Death Penalty. I support reformation over reincarceration as I think it saves money and reincarnceration is just a pathetic way to punish someone because you're bitter or have some misguided notion. I'm referring to the people you truly have a chance at reforming.
I believe in complete deregulation though I think, as part of this, Corporations should only be able to last for 30 years, 35 if they're working on a Public Works program at the time. As part of this I don't believe in mergers.
These are just a few of my beliefs, another big one being the total sunshine on what you should list in your product, in terms of ingredients. A big part of this is listing if you use ingredients that are genetically modified.

[Msut77]

No one is saying the Democrats don't suck, but it isn't a question that they suck less than the Republicans.

[Sarang01]

Msut77 both have gotten onto the Crazy Train, putting measures to pander to Corporations and banks so much so to the detriment of individual people and especially the collective people and society, known as the Commons.
This shameless and self-destructive behavior is basically destroying our infrastructure in the process, just heading us right down the path to a 3rd world nation. Let us NOT forget that Corporatism and Capitalism are distinctly different. Corporatism is Capitalism in almost the worst scenario, turned into a malignant tumor. I can only think of Fascist China as worse.

[Msut77]

The Republican MO has been to basically destroy the country for decades.

Do Democrats not fight back hard enough? Most of the time.

Are there Democrats actively helping Republicans destroy the country? Yes.

But the solution is to get better Democrats.

[Sarang01]

The Republican MO has been to basically destroy the country for decades.

Do Democrats not fight back hard enough? Most of the time.

Are there Democrats actively helping Republicans destroy the country? Yes.

But the solution is to get better Democrats.

With REAL Republicans is there any problem being true to the MO? I'm talking about Ron Paul being the only one there by the way. I'm speaking States Rights and strong state governments nationwide. A weak federal government is the way to go, as our founders intended.
I know we've gotten some positive things out of it but what about the NSA?! The CIA I wouldn't mind if not for having Mohammed Mosadeq murdered to support BP getting money from Iran's oil assets instead of letting him nationalize it. If it ended up a failure that was Iran's mistake to make NOT our choice.
The list goes on of people the CIA has had threatened in the interest of multinational Corporations. They will then be assassinated if they don't comply to sign up their country through economic slavery via the World Bank's version of the subprime mortgage. I forgot to mention the 3rd world status that stays with that.
Oh yeah and it was the CIA that overstepped their bounds by initiating MK ULTRA on American soil, which should never have been done anywhere. Trying to strip someone of their Free Will, ugh.

[TurboChickenMan]

But the solution is to get better Democrats.

What about better Republicans?

They used to be moderate. But they've been hijacked by neo-cons.

Democrats, and all left-wingers for that matter, are for more government, more spending, more taxes. The lefties always talk about how they can do big government and big taxation RIGHT, but it's an inherently bad system. There's no point to arguing (even so, I do support properly arguing every topic even if there no point to it, as you know) about how to properly run a bad system.

Please explain how large government doesn't inevitably lead to corruption and tyranny. (Oh, and please don't use some argument like "you can't prove a negative". That's a cheap shut-up term.)

[Sporadic]

Democrats, and all left-wingers for that matter, are for more government, more spending, more taxes. The lefties always talk about how they can do big government and big taxation RIGHT, but it's an inherently bad system. There's no point to arguing (even so, I do support properly arguing every topic even if there no point to it, as you know) about how to properly run a bad system.


lol

more like tax-and-spend LIEberals am i rite?

[TurboChickenMan]

lol

more like tax-and-spend LIEberals am i rite?

Is that sarcasm?

I ask, because from experience, there's no such thing as a right-winger on online gaming forums.

[IRHari]

Every time I see a story about a game where they make fun of Bush/Cheney, theres always people who comment 'oh i hate when politics are in games'. They just hate having their boys being attacked. So yeah, based on my experience they are all over the place.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of people defending an esoteric idea of 'large government', I don't think most liberals here are statists.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What about better Republicans?

They used to be moderate. But they've been hijacked by neo-cons.

Democrats, and all left-wingers for that matter, are for more government, more spending, more taxes. The lefties always talk about how they can do big government and big taxation RIGHT, but it's an inherently bad system. There's no point to arguing (even so, I do support properly arguing every topic even if there no point to it, as you know) about how to properly run a bad system.

Please explain how large government doesn't inevitably lead to corruption and tyranny. (Oh, and please don't use some argument like "you can't prove a negative". That's a cheap shut-up term.)

Are you trying to argue there are no Republicans in power?

[thrustbucket]

The only thing more predictable and consistent than Republicats being equally corrupt is Mykevermin blocking those that don't agree with him or make him look the fool.

[Clak]

Damn tax and spend libruls, people making over $200,000 a year are already unfairly taxed, give them a break.

[thrustbucket]

Damn tax and spend libruls, people making over $200,000 a year are already unfairly taxed, give them a break.

When the Bush tax cuts expire, and you see your new pay stub, you might be singing a slightly different tune.

[Clak]

Republicans want all Bush tax cuts extended, Obama has said he'd extend them for everyone but the highest earners, those i mentioned above.

Now unless I somehow get a gigantic raise between now and then, how will this effect me negatively?

[Sporadic]

when the bush tax cuts expire, and you see your new pay stub, you might be singing a slightly different tune.

GODDAMN DEMOCRAPS TRYING TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR STUFF INSTEAD OF JUST LETTING THE DEFICIT GROW OUT OF CONTROL!

don't they know that they don't need to offset the cost of reducing tax rates?

WALLACE: We’re running out of time, so how are you going to pay $678 billion just on the tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year?

KYL: You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely congress has the authority and it would be right, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zaQf9kl248

[UncleBob]

Now unless I somehow get a gigantic raise between now and then, how will this effect me negatively?

mememe

[thrustbucket]

What the Bush Tax Cuts will bring in to pay off the deficit compared to the amount of spending we are now at (or more importantly will soon be at), makes them practically inconsequential.

Regardless of whether the Bush Tax Cuts were a good idea or not, or how justified or not they were, can anyone really argue that taking more money out of the middle and lower classes paychecks right in the middle of the worst economy of our lifetimes is a good idea?

Shit. At least wait for people to stand back up before you kick them in the financial balls again.

[dmaul1114]

Axelrod said very clearly on the sunday morning shows last weekend that there will be no tax increases for the middle class--including no increase from letting the Bush tax cuts expire. They'll either keep those in place and only let them expire for those making over $200K (or $250K if Obama sticks to his campaign talking points). Or let them expire and instantly be replaced by another tax cut for the middle and lower class taking their place.

[thrustbucket]

If that's the case, then good.

But we need more.

I know it's an unpopular thing to believe right now, but I do think that tax cuts pretty much always result in the best economic stimulus (if done right). I am not sure how or when this economic crisis will be resolved without it.

[speedracer]

What the Bush Tax Cuts will bring in to pay off the deficit compared to the amount of spending we are now at (or more importantly will soon be at), makes them practically inconsequential.
Social Security paid for a large portion of those tax cuts. I don't think that's inconsequential.
I know it's an unpopular thing to believe right now, but I do think that tax cuts pretty much always result in the best economic stimulus (if done right). I am not sure how or when this economic crisis will be resolved without it.
When times are good, cut taxes. When times are bad, cut taxes. We should cut taxes to a negative rate, then everything would magically pay for itself.

Srsly tho, how do you square wanting to cut taxes against the $300 billion dollar Obama tax cut that did, by your account, absolutely fuck all for the economy?

[UncleBob]

When times are good, cut taxes. When times are bad, cut taxes. We should cut taxes to a negative rate, then everything would magically pay for itself.

Isn't that what we already do for low income families that receive more "credits" than what they paid in?

[cindersphere]

Would those be imperial credits?

[speedracer]

Isn't that what we already do for low income families that receive more "credits" than what they paid in?
Sure, then we take it right back in payroll taxes.

[Clak]

I would ask how everything is supposed to be paid for without an increase in tax revenue, but then most conservatives also think we should cut spending on everything also, so it makes sense in that frame of mind.

Granted I'd be all for a large reduction in military spending.

[nasum]

Why can't one reasonable person stand up and say "average income is down "X"%, so we need to reduce spending by "X" + .001% to maintain our current budget."?

Or more simply put, someone needs to stand up and say that instead of committing dollars for the budget, things get a percentage of what is taken in and has to make due with what they get.

[dmaul1114]

I would ask how everything is supposed to be paid for without an increase in tax revenue, but then most conservatives also think we should cut spending on everything also, so it makes sense in that frame of mind.

Granted I'd be all for a large reduction in military spending.

Yeah, the simple fact of the matter is to get the debt down we're eventually going to have to increase tax revenue and cut spending. And either/or solution won't cut it.

[TurboChickenMan]

It's just so silly to see these arguments about how to tax and spend correctly, when the whole financial system is messed up to begin with. The national debt hasn't been anywhere near zero since Andrew Jackson killed what was the equivilant of the Federal Reserve at the time (sadly, the good times didn't last long, as its substitute was mismanaged).

Plus, neither the Democrats or today's Republicans want to cut spending anywhere near as drastically as Ron Paul does.

@ -1:10 (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/749248/3247731)

[nasum]

dmaul - why does it have to be the seesaw effect? Let's just have them aligned! Instead we get all this fudging with numbers and figures that are so preposturous that no one is willing to argue with them. There are so many sacred cows in the spending world that simply matching spending to previous year's tax intake will be the first step.

[TurboChickenMan]

The best way to do things would be to shrink the size of government, meaning cut both taxes and spending at the same time.

But get rid of the Fed first, so debt isn't created at the same rate money is.

[dmaul1114]

dmaul - why does it have to be the seesaw effect? Let's just have them aligned! Instead we get all this fudging with numbers and figures that are so preposturous that no one is willing to argue with them. There are so many sacred cows in the spending world that simply matching spending to previous year's tax intake will be the first step.

It's just hard to do as it's hard to get people to agree on what to cut.

If I called all the shots, I'd:

-let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $200K

-add some more higher income brackets--currently tops out at 35% for above $373K. I'd add at least 40, 45 and 50% brackets above that current cut off, with the 50% one starting at $1 million

-End the wars and cut defense spending

-Cut must subsidies--farm subsidies, subsidies to foreign countries (i.e. paying Egypt to not attack Israel etc.)

-Increase spending on public education--coupled with merit based pay and tenure systems to tie pay to quality of education. Using GPA, student evaluations, peer evaluations etc. as part of the process--not just standardized test scores

-Increase higher education funding

-Increase research funding for the sciences (covers everything form medicine to alternative energy to social sciences etc.)

-Get everyone health insurance

[Sporadic]

The best way to do things would be to shrink the size of government, meaning cut both taxes and spending at the same time.

But get rid of the Fed first, so debt isn't created at the same rate money is.

Dead serious question, what would go on the chopping block while you are also cutting taxes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

[EdRyder]

-Cut must subsidies--farm subsidies, subsidies to foreign countries (i.e. paying Egypt to not attack Israel etc.)



You'll get no argument from me whether or not it's a 'good' idea. But ,at this point I question if it can be done.
Its obvious that getting big corn off our tit is in the country's best interests but TPTB are going in a completely different direction. You can start a whole thread on this topic alone. Id love to hear ideas on how you push the agricultural lobby out of politicians pockets

[mykevermin]

^ public funding for elections, first and foremost.

[SpazX]

^ public funding for elections, first and foremost.

Yeah, why don't we do this already?

[mykevermin]

Yeah, why don't we do this already?

Cash, Rules, Everything, Around, Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all

That's why.

[TurboChickenMan]

Dead serious question, what would go on the chopping block while you are also cutting taxes?

Military. Close down all the foreign bases, end all the wars, and make the military almost solely for defending our (well, your - I'm Canadian) borders.

Intelligence. Shut down or at least severly downsize the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Homeland Security. The global size and effectiveness of terrorism is incredibly overblown, and I'm a big privacy nut - stop the spying.

Subsidies & bailouts. We do not have proper free-market capitalism ATM. Big business is heavily intertwined with government. Totally separate the two.

Social security & health care. Both are like throwing money into a black hole (a right-wing politician up here said that a few years ago). I haven't looked into the ramifications of totally cancelling both of them, so until I have, I'd say just reduce the size.

Education. Seriously, totally privatize it. Do you really want the state dictating what you learn and how? Curriculums are getting dumbed down, and degrees are becoming more and more worthless. Another black hole for tax dollars as well. R.P. on the matter. (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=13)

[SpazX]

That's why.

It's kind of a weird thing though, like we implicitly (or consciously) realize that whoever gets the most money will win. Even that they should win. That's libertarian voting, right?

[IRHari]

That's true SpazX, but that didn't stop me from voting for Joe Sestak in the primary.

I looked at Arlen Specter's vs. Joe Sestak's endorsements, they looked something like this:

[============================]
[=]

I think the reason more people, even Democrats, respect Ron Paul, is that we know where he stands on everything.

So sad that the apple has fallen far from the tree eh? re: Rand, I think ever since his Rachel Maddow interview he's been put in a bubble by the Republican establishment.

[SpazX]

Funny you mention Sestak because I just got called about him. First time I've been called (or at least picked up the phone) about voting for somebody. It was weird. Went something like this:

"Hi I'm blahblahblah volunteering for Joe Sestak, do you know Joe?"
"Um.....yeah?"
"Do you plan on supporting him?"
"Um.....maybe?"
"Would you like me to send you some information about him?"
"Um.....maybe?"

She thought she was getting interference and couldn't understand me...short phone call though.

[Clak]

Somehow I didn't picture Myke as a fan of Wu-Tang.

[SpazX]

Wu-Tang clan ain't nothin to fuck with.

[Msut77]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/job-openings-per-worker/

Anyone able to come up with a good reason why the Republicans are on a Jihad against the Unemployed?

Not like the deficit matters to them so is there someone who will take a stab at a reason?

[Sporadic]

Military. Close down all the foreign bases, end all the wars, and make the military almost solely for defending our (well, your - I'm Canadian) borders.

Intelligence. Shut down or at least severly downsize the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Homeland Security. The global size and effectiveness of terrorism is incredibly overblown, and I'm a big privacy nut - stop the spying.

Subsidies & bailouts. We do not have proper free-market capitalism ATM. Big business is heavily intertwined with government. Totally separate the two.

Social security & health care. Both are like throwing money into a black hole (a right-wing politician up here said that a few years ago). I haven't looked into the ramifications of totally cancelling both of them, so until I have, I'd say just reduce the size.

Education. Seriously, totally privatize it. Do you really want the state dictating what you learn and how? Curriculums are getting dumbed down, and degrees are becoming more and more worthless. Another black hole for tax dollars as well. R.P. on the matter. (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=13)

Ha, I was with you until the last two. People deserve the right to retire if they reach a certain age where most can no longer work and to get medical help when needed. It's not a "black hole for tax dollars" but an investment. Same with education.

Also, how can a place call itself a first world nation when their own citizens are passing on getting medical care (until it becomes too late) since it is too expensive? My own brother was almost forced to do that when a heart condition from birth became aggravated from some body building supplements he was taking. It's possible he wouldn't be alive if my parents didn't take out a 20K loan to pay for the surgery he needed.

Privatizing never works. It always ends up that we pay more for less.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/job-openings-per-worker/

Anyone able to come up with a good reason why the Republicans are on a Jihad against the Unemployed?

Not like the deficit matters to them so is there someone who will take a stab at a reason?

They are unemployed because they are lazy and how dare those lazy bastards leech off of the government me. I hate my job but I bootstrapped my way up to where I'm at with no help from anybody. If I can do it, why can't they?

I doubt the actual politicians believe that but their supporters eat that shit up.

[TurboChickenMan]

Privatizing never works. It always ends up that we pay more for less.

Social security (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=502)

Health care (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=355)

Education (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=13) (This is a sore spot for me, so I'm giving you the whole section...)

You have a question? Ron Paul has an answer for you. O:)

[IRHari]

Stop linking to shit ChickenMan. We know Ron Paul's answer is 'the free market will fix it'.

[Clak]

Wu-Tang clan ain't nothin to fuck with.
Their financial planning services are awesome too.

[Clak]

Yeah lets privatize education.

For crying out loud, you'd think Ron Paul was the messiah or something to these people.

[Sporadic]

Health care (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=355)

http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/11/us_medical_pric.html

Stop linking to shit ChickenMan. We know Ron Paul's answer is 'the free market will fix it'.

You are dead on. I tried reading some of that shit he posted and it basically boiled down to "the government fucked everything up, they need to pull out and THE FREE MARKET will fix itself." Which is insane considering how much businesses are already fucking us with barriers in place.

[TurboChickenMan]

Are you reading R.P.'s articles in detail or are you just skimming them?

It's not possible for you to judge for yourself how the free market would handle things, because we do not have a true free market right now.

I'm getting the feeling that you're instinctly bashing me and Ron Paul just because we have right-wing views ("these people"?). Like I said earlier, from experience there's no such thing as a right-winger on online gaming forums.

Cool the incensed chirping, please. Calmly argue your points, and I won't be so defensive next time.

Here's mine. Please read these, carefully... :-|

Corporatism (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1278)
Farm subsidies (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1085)
ENRON! (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=237)

[mykevermin]

The link on Enron is quite possibly the funniest, most uninformed thing I've ever read about that company's downfall.

[SpazX]

Chicken, has this country ever had a true free market, and do any countries currently?

[mykevermin]

You know what I hear a lot of college-level socialists argue?

"It's not possible for you to judge for yourself how communism would handle things, because we have not ever experienced true communism."

Just saying. Never having had a 'true form' of something doesn't qualify it to be a great idea. Or even necessarily something with trying. Like sorcery.

[SpazX]

You know what I hear a lot of college-level socialists argue?

"It's not possible for you to judge for yourself how communism would handle things, because we have not ever experienced true communism."

Just saying. Never having had a 'true form' of something doesn't qualify it to be a great idea. Or even necessarily something with trying. Like sorcery.

I was getting there, but I honestly want to see what he thinks. Ideals are usually pretty ideal and all.

Chicken - Even if there hasn't ever been a point in time where this country had a "true free market" was there a time when it was close? Or a country that's close?

[dorino]

The idea of communism is something I agree with. The idea of a free market is something I agree with.

I am, as a result, a socialist.


Oh my.

[Msut77]

You know what I hear a lot of college-level socialists argue?

"It's not possible for you to judge for yourself how communism would handle things, because we have not ever experienced true communism."

Just saying. Never having had a 'true form' of something doesn't qualify it to be a great idea. Or even necessarily something with trying. Like sorcery.

I think just going to start replying to chicken dude by saying (in a Fred Flinstone voice) Herp-a-Derp-a doo.

[Clak]

You know what I hear a lot of college-level socialists argue?

"It's not possible for you to judge for yourself how communism would handle things, because we have not ever experienced true communism."

Just saying. Never having had a 'true form' of something doesn't qualify it to be a great idea. Or even necessarily something with trying. Like sorcery.
Well they're right, and so are you. No country to my knowledge has ever rigidly followed any system of government, yet that doesn't mean doing so is a good idea either. As a country we've moved further away from true capitalism, just look at the U.S. around the industrial revolution, that was far closer to capitalism than we have now, and it benefited those with the capital more than anyone else, big surprise.

That's why when people start talking about the evil socialists I roll my eyes, because those same people wouldn't want pure capitalism anymore than pure socialism. I'm not even sure most of them know what socialism is beyond it being "evil", as if something like that can be inherently good or evil.

[TurboChickenMan]

I would like to point out that I am not a huge fan of communism, capitalism, or their diluted forms (socialism and corporatism, which are almost one and the same). I personally would like to see Social Credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) (so what if it's a Wikipedia link? Why would I go all over looking for likely the same info when I know where can get it right away?). Neither government or money would rule things.

But such a radical change is a very long way off, if ever, so the closest alternative would be true free market capitalism.

When you have full competition, and the public is able to choose exactly who it deals with, things will pretty much even themselves out after a while.

The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can't be eliminated by governments, not even totalitarian ones like the former Soviet Union. It can be regulated, over-taxed and manipulated until it is driven underground. Lately it has been wrongly accused of doing so many things it just doesn't do, that are really the fault of crony corporatism and convoluted government policies that brought on the crisis. Too many people equate the free market with big business doing whatever it wants, but that is not the free market. Unconstitutional taxpayer funded bailouts are what allow giant corporations to run roughshod over the economy. The free market is what puts them out of business when they misbehave.

The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft -- these are creatures of government.

We must watch out when government comes up with interventionist solutions to interventionist problems. The root of our problems lie in interventionism. Trusting the free market is the solution.

(http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=175)

As far as I know, the U.S. (and likely no country, actually) has never had a true free market system. But the reason for this is government has always been in the way ("The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon"). The economy was in much better shape back when there was less government interference (and that socialism you fellas are always hyping? Check out Europe - they've spent themselves into the gutter, plus there are several near-police states over there - corporatism is sending us in the same direction).

We've had several true communism systems, however (the Soviet Union being the first). That is what happens when there is ONLY government.

There is no way for there to be the "right" rulers of a flawed system. Ron Paul wants to change the system to what the Founding Fathers intended (they fought for independence from tyranny - they had their flaws, but I think people with a noble idea like that must have had a few other good ones!).

P.S. Msut, either argue like an intelligent being (if I'm not, at least I'm trying to), or just shut up. Insults are for losers. (Yeah, a bit of an ironic statement there, but I can't have people walking all over me...)

P.P.S. And yes, I do actually understand Social Credit. It's like an advanced form of bartering. I don't glom onto random ideas without looking into them first, something I'm sure y'all would love to accuse me of...

[mykevermin]

I imagine if you quizzed the average strongly-opinionated American on anything, they'd come back having failed miserably at even understanding the basic tenets of capitalism. They want the free market AND medicare.

0_o

Anyway, you're right about ideal-types. Max Weber wrote about the ideal type as a theoretical starting point to deduce from when making distinctions between types, but would never have dared argue that the ideal type was something that could exist in the real world.

Arguing for "pure" anything is not really worth discussing, because it can't happen. It's very much predicated on everything going "according to plan." The chaos and unpredictability of the world we live in demands that unexpected events occur that interfere with our ideal types to make them less than ideal; a system's ability to maneuver around those events is evidence of its stability, rather than its failure.

People who advocate that the "pure" whatever never happened are too thick to realize it could never happen. They're the people who think love happens like it does in romantic comedies (which is more often than not a simple recipe for a restraining order rather than love, but I digress). They don't realize that ideal types are as real as dreams. The failure of the "pure" is the failure of the purist's shortsightedness and naivete, and not the failure of those nuances (i.e., the things that make the ideal type 'unpure').

Short version: ChickenDude doesn't realize that waiting for a "pure free market" is waiting for godot. He doesn't realize that it's a fantasy, an unproven fantasy, and an unachievable fantasy.

Also, by and large the labor laws in place today that keep our citizens safe, well paid, off weekends and holidays, pays them an overtime wage, gives them benefits, and keeps their children in schools and out of factories? You can thank socialist ideas like unions and out-and-out socialists like Upton Sinclair. The free market never did a goddamned thing for you.

[thrustbucket]

What I've learned in the last 2 pages: If a goal is unachievable, do the opposite.

[TurboChickenMan]

ChickenDude doesn't realize that...

Would you mind not talking like a group of mothers chatting about their kids at daycare? :-x

[thrustbucket]

Would you mind not talking like a group of mothers chatting about their kids at daycare? :-x

You are new here aren't you?

[mykevermin]

Would you mind not talking like a group of mothers chatting about their kids at daycare? :-x

aww, pobrecito. i thought you wanted to discuss ideas like grown ups, yet all you quote from my post is a slur.

get over it if you wanna move up from the card table to where the grown ups sit, ok?

[thrustbucket]

aww, pobrecito. i thought you wanted to discuss ideas like grown ups, yet all you quote from my post is a slur.

get over it if you wanna move up from the card table to where the grown ups sit, ok?

Translation:

Take Mykevermin's trite, self-indulgent, verbal masturbation on your face with mouth wide open or he'll block you.

Spoiler: He doesn't like teeth.

[UncleBob]

[...] yet all you quote from my post is a slur.

From what I've seen, that's pretty much about what his posts consists of. Don't worry about it ChickenDude. ;)

[DrSodaberg]

Yeah, we're all bros in this thread!

http://threadbombing.com/data/media/22/3517jvp.gif

[IRHari]

Also, by and large the labor laws in place today that keep our citizens safe, well paid, off weekends and holidays, pays them an overtime wage, gives them benefits, and keeps their children in schools and out of factories? You can thank socialist ideas like unions and out-and-out socialists like Upton Sinclair. The free market never did a goddamned thing for you.

Wrong myke, Lord Ron Paul would say that the government is the reason why workers are not safe, paid less, or not given benefits.

Government creates unsafe working conditions, not the free market.

[CENNY]

DrSodaberg (or any asian movie expert): what movie is that hilarious gif from? Chow Yun Fat rules.

[mykevermin]

Let's go back to the Enron thing ChickenHomie linked to.

To think that the government caused Enron is the most fucking insane thing I've heard all day long - and keep in mind I saw an interview with Sharron Angle earlier today, so the bar's higher than normal.

[Clak]

But unions have never done anything but cause labor costs to increase. Besides, companies treat workers well out of the goodness of their hearts, they'd never take advantage of anyone.

[IRHari]

Exactly Clak, it's not in their economic interest to treat workers badly. They'd lose money. Patriarch Ron Paul would say the government is the problem here, creating unnecessary regulation. If gov't agencies like OSHA would stop interfering the free market would fix the problem.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Doesn't NAFTA move us closer to a free market?

[Msut77]

The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon...

I stopped there.

[UncleBob]

I'd love to see some research done on the number of mega-large corporations and how they've manipulated the government into creating laws and market conditions that favor their growth.

[Clak]

Exactly Clak, it's not in their economic interest to treat workers badly. They'd lose money. Patriarch Ron Paul would say the government is the problem here, creating unnecessary regulation. If gov't agencies like OSHA would stop interfering the free market would fix the problem.
Of course, people would quit any company which treated them badly and those companies would go under, just like used to happen before these damn unions.

[EdRyder]

But unions have never done anything but cause labor costs to increase. Besides, companies treat workers well out of the goodness of their hearts, they'd never take advantage of anyone.

Exactly Clak, it's not in their economic interest to treat workers badly. They'd lose money. Patriarch Ron Paul would say the government is the problem here, creating unnecessary regulation. If gov't agencies like OSHA would stop interfering the free market would fix the problem.

Of course, people would quit any company which treated them badly and those companies would go under, just like used to happen before these damn unions.

Stop. I swear I can feel an inoperable brain tumor coalescing in my head right now.

[Sarang01]

Since everyone is talking about tax cuts right now I think the best place to cut taxes is in the states. I'm referring to EVERY state that charges sales tax on food. We need these dropped period. I'm referring to in the grocery stores as such. It seems absurd to me that you would charge tax on something a person so fundamently NEEDS as opposed to wants.
As for this idea just cutting taxes across the board will fix everything I disagree. In terms of your bang for the buck, people putting money back into the system, it's NOT rich people. Trickle down is a delusion and has always been a load of horseshit.
If you're rich you're likely investing something which will take a comparative long while for the economy to truly see the benefit. You also will avoid spending as much on consumer goods as the average person would, see: buying wholesale.

[thrustbucket]

They really should drop food tax. I've never understood it. However, then each product in a grocery store would need to be tagged as tax-free or not in some central computer. Still, I think it's a good idea.

That way, the health nazi's can still tax things like soda and doritos. But there is no reason to tax milk and bread.

[IRHari]

Ah I heart calling things _____ nazis. The lazy man's analogy.

[SpazX]

They really should drop food tax. I've never understood it. However, then each product in a grocery store would need to be tagged as tax-free or not in some central computer. Still, I think it's a good idea.

It's easy as hell for the big stores, there's no food tax here and it seems to work fine, things are tagged on the receipts and sales tax is calculated only on the taxed items. It might be annoying for some small independent store that happens to sell food and other things, but I don't think it would really be that bad.

[nasum]

They really should drop food tax. I've never understood it. However, then each product in a grocery store would need to be tagged as tax-free or not in some central computer. Still, I think it's a good idea.

That way, the health nazi's can still tax things like soda and doritos. But there is no reason to tax milk and bread.

Minnesota does this. I do most of my shopping at a Super Target and the SKUs are just addressed differently within the POS. Buy a game? Tax. Buy a shirt or a cut steak? No tax. Buy a dozen of soda? Tax. It isn't that difficult to setup the POS to handle these kinds of things. In fact, a buddy (that is a CAG lurker no less) works for Target Corporate and helps implement some of these things.

[mykevermin]

Yeah, I've always seen foods sold w/out tax and non-essential items (soda as nasum mentioned) taxed.

Also, end the corn subsidy.

[nasum]

oh come on now! Why end the subsidy that has given us corn syrup as an ingredient in 95% of packaged foods? I mean really, a useless starch in almost everything you eat has to be good for you right?

[dmaul1114]

Minnesota does this. I do most of my shopping at a Super Target and the SKUs are just addressed differently within the POS. Buy a game? Tax. Buy a shirt or a cut steak? No tax. Buy a dozen of soda? Tax. It isn't that difficult to setup the POS to handle these kinds of things. In fact, a buddy (that is a CAG lurker no less) works for Target Corporate and helps implement some of these things.

Yep, many states already do this.

Another example would be CVS and other pharmacy were each item is coded as eligible or not for Flexible Spending Accounts.

I can buy medicine and other eligible stuff, along with non-eligible stuff, pay first with my FSA card, then it will give me a balance for the non-eligible stuff to pay with a normal card etc.

It's not rocket science to set up the POS systems to handle flagging taxes or other things for each item.

[Clak]

We have tax free holidays around back to school time here. Things like school supplies, computers, I think clothing too, are tax free. That's done every year and I've never heard of any complaints from area retailers, in fact they probably like the increased traffic in their stores.

[TurboChickenMan]

Taxation is a crime. (http://taxationisacrime.blogspot.com/)

And since I'm sick of trying to get through to all these trained leftists, I'll get someone else do it for me...

http://www.cafemom.com/group/33200/forums/read/11151399/Why_You_Cant_Argue_With_A_Liberal

I love the picture in the comments... XD

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

P.S. Not tryin' to stir up s***, just tellin' it like it is.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Glad to see you taking the high road, Turbo.

[Clak]

Well if I didn't have reason to ignore him before I certainly do now.