Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? RON PAUL SAYS YES!

[quote name='Revolution']I would agree with you if other large corporations were not receiving bailouts. Govt and large corporations are in bed with each other. I would not go so far so to reward failure. Furthermore, more regulation has only proven to delay the inevitable downfall and places too much power in the hands of the few over the many. Enron is a prime example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. Politicians help them with our tax dollars and they return the favor to not us, but them. However, if they overindulge and don't account for market forces, the correction will undoubtedly occur sooner than later. [/QUOTE]

1) as politely as possible, I must ask: you have no idea what went wrong with Enron, do you?

2) if you agree that corporations have the capacity to be every bit as evil and oppressive as governments, why is your ideology to strip away any state power to oversee or regulate them? don't you see the absurdity of that?

also, since you're nonwhite, I'm curious what you think of the Paul perspective on the 14th amendment.
 
[quote name='Clak']I wish we had a what-if machine where we could see what life without government would be like. I can guarantee you small government types wouldn't like it.[/QUOTE]

You are likely correct. Small government types would probably not like no government. That's why we support small government instead of supporting the complete abolition of the entire government.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Human beings can't live without some sort of government. The weak will always seek out the strong for protection. In exchange, they provide money, food, or other services.

The Wild West was the last bastion of free market, limited government types. They lived in constant fear of attack from natives, bandits, and corporate thugs. You lived and died by the gun. Schools and health care were damn near non-existent. Is this what you really want to go back to?

Did you not play Bioshock? Power is always grabbed by ambitious individuals. You can ban government but then people will band together as tribes, religions, or what not. People are social creatures. Societies demand a power structure.[/QUOTE]

I'm not suggesting we ban government, only limit its current form to say, initially, to 1997 spending levels.

Also, I did play Bioshock as evident by the thread title, and I love it. But I'm not willing to accept what a game tells me as the be all, end all. Its merely entertainment with thought provoking content. Acceptance of its ideas without questioning it is to be conditioned by it. Pew Pew!
 
[quote name='Revolution']Ron Paul is a Republican first, not a libertarian. I, personally, gravitate towards any idea I like. As such, if a democrat politician says something in line with his/her party, but I like it, I will support it. Again, getting caught up in labeling is not going to help anyone. I don't have time to provide you with dichotomies.

I'm from NY and the best stereotyped ASSumption you make is that I am white??? lol and that it, somehow, relates to my experience of oppression. Are you suggesting that white people can't know what oppression is? I'll throw you a bone: I'm not white. I'm guessing you know what oppression is? Please do tell or don't waste my time, discuss the issues or just keep reading and learning, but this time, try to focus on something more meaningful than a label I choose to identify with, I mean out of all the things that were written, just wow.[/QUOTE]
Until white people have been enslaved, have Jim Crow laws, be disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, completely disenfranchised, and treated like second-class citizens, then no. They don't. Are you going to tell me that racism is over cause Obama was elected too? Spare me. As a person of color, you should know that. "Reverse-racism"!=racism just because the word racism is in it.

As for ideas you follow that you like? Like going back to an unsustainable gold standard? Eliminating the FDA, EPA, and DoE? Allowing rampant discrimination because the market will fix it? The reason why we have those is because the market didn't fucking work; it killed people to make an extra $.01 of profit.

Foreign intervention is one thing, but social and economic policies will bring us back to the 1800's. Is that what you want? Cause that's what he's advocating.

Seems to me that even I know more about Ron Paul than you do.
 
[quote name='Revolution']I'm not suggesting we ban government, only limit its current form to say, initially, to 1997 spending levels.

Also, I did play Bioshock as evident by the thread title, and I love it. But I'm not willing to accept what a game tells me as the be all, end all. Its merely entertainment with thought provoking content. Acceptance of its ideas without questioning it is to be conditioned by it. Pew Pew![/QUOTE]

So what's your end game then? What sort of limited government do you find acceptable? Do you want social services like education? How about fire departments and police stations?

We've had chances to live with limited government and it's never worked. Again, look at the Old West. Ask yourself if that's how you truly want to live your life. You're "free" but you have to carry a gun at all times so is that really freedom?

You act like none of this ever happened before. Somehow, we can change human behavior. We'll have a society that doesn't have crime. We'll have a truly free market that never takes advantage of the little guy. Really?

One other problem with underwater societies? Who maintains the city? It works initially when you bring x amount of engineers, doctors, and what not. What happens if none of the people in the next generation choose to study engineering or medicine? What happens if the population explodes because people are screwing like rabbits and there's no Planned Parenthood? It just doesn't work.
 
[quote name='depascal22']So what's your end game then? What sort of limited government do you find acceptable? Do you want social services like education? How about fire departments and police stations?

We've had chances to live with limited government and it's never worked. Again, look at the Old West. Ask yourself if that's how you truly want to live your life. You're "free" but you have to carry a gun at all times so is that really freedom?

You act like none of this ever happened before. Somehow, we can change human behavior. We'll have a society that doesn't have crime. We'll have a truly free market that never takes advantage of the little guy. Really?

One other problem with underwater societies? Who maintains the city? It works initially when you bring x amount of engineers, doctors, and what not. What happens if none of the people in the next generation choose to study engineering or medicine? What happens if the population explodes because people are screwing like rabbits and there's no Planned Parenthood? It just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
You're full of crap. Of course it would work. The best and brightest are always RATIONAL ACTORS!!!!
 
[quote name='depascal22']So what's your end game then?[/QUOTE]

I have heard it called it Minarchism before, it is basically Anarchy except they expect their to be a police force etc. to help save them. Mostly because they are just aware enough to know they wouldn't three seconds in the every man for himself ammo and canned goods economy the other variations of libertarians lust for.
 
[quote name='Revolution']1) there are experiments planned to see what such societies would be like. They will be out in the sea. Seriously.

2) The feeling of being "unfree" comes from not having any say in the wars or monetary policies that bureaucrats decide in their favor, and then being taxed into oblivion to support said practices. This, among many other things - corporate bailouts!!!

3) I take exception to the idea of relative freedom, as in relative to the middle east or China.

4) I'm not asking for anarchy, only limited government. I'm not trying to attack you , but how do you know what complete freedom would be like? We have been conditioned to accept our oppression.[/QUOTE]
The entire point of government is that we've given up a little freedom for the ability to live without having to personally deal with the plethora of stuff the government deals with. You can't have complete freedom and government at the same time. You could solve your issue with not having a say by simply taking a vote on every single thing the government does, you think the government works slowly now, try that out.

I know what complete freedom would be like because I know why we need government and I know what that provides, just take that away, and there you go. As far as you being oppressed.....just no. There are some people in this country who have been oppressed, but overall, no.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) as politely as possible, I must ask: you have no idea what went wrong with Enron, do you?

No, I don't really know, at least not in the way you probably see it. If you could summarize what went wrong with Enron as you see it, that would great. I don't make any claims of being an economist :whistle2:#

2) if you agree that corporations have the capacity to be every bit as evil and oppressive as governments, why is your ideology to strip away any state power to oversee or regulate them? don't you see the absurdity of that?

Yes, I do see the absurdity in the logic if you look at it from that perspective. But it changes when you consider that oppressive large corporations and large government go hand in hand. Regulation of corporations leads to their taxation which makes government richer, encourages outsourcing, as well as hedged elections because of large campaign contributions. We expect them to be regulated, as in kept in check, but that does not end up happening. At least not as often as an under the table activity. If government was not tied up with the corps, then we would have had a few less today as it should have been.

also, since you're nonwhite, I'm curious what you think of the Paul perspective on the 14th amendment.[/QUOTE]


As for what I think of Paul's perspective on the 14th:

If we successfully secured our borders to the point where they were impenetrable, then this would be a non-issue. I'm not trying to demagogue the issue, but it really would be a better use of our "defense" spending. I honestly don't know what to make of the 14th and Paul. On one hand, it will curtail hospital and benefit spending being extended to undocumented persons. It may or may not reduce illegal immigration. I am for preserving America and am a proud American, but when I travel to the mid-west I am not seen as an American by at least 50%. It is a combination of cultural, financial, and social concerns that I am not an authority on. On the most objective level, the decision to not allow citizenship as a birthright does not negatively affect me.
 
What are libertarian views on the Civil Rights Act?

I know there are some people who think restaurants should be able to discriminate if they want to. Individual freedoms?
 
[quote name='depascal22']So what's your end game then? What sort of limited government do you find acceptable? Do you want social services like education? How about fire departments and police stations?

I want education to be a city or state affair. Being from NY, I would love to see NYPD get slashed quite a bit. But yes, all of these services are welcome and to be regulated at the state or city level, no higher. My end game is mid 1900s with a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Currency does not have to be the gold standard, let the currencies compete. Though it is likely that gold and silver will win.

We've had chances to live with limited government and it's never worked. Again, look at the Old West. Ask yourself if that's how you truly want to live your life. You're "free" but you have to carry a gun at all times so is that really freedom?

Yes, it is. See my explanation on social cooperation and elite throwing posted before.

You act like none of this ever happened before. Somehow, we can change human behavior. We'll have a society that doesn't have crime. We'll have a truly free market that never takes advantage of the little guy. Really?

One other problem with underwater societies? Who maintains the city? It works initially when you bring x amount of engineers, doctors, and what not. What happens if none of the people in the next generation choose to study engineering or medicine? What happens if the population explodes because people are screwing like rabbits and there's no Planned Parenthood? It just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

I'm not choosing to procreate as much as I want. Why should I help you if choose to do so without considering the impact on the rest of us? Also, the cities are not UNDERwater, merely over it, kind of like a floating city. And Andrew Ryan or Sofia Lamb will maintain them. :D


Much of what Ron Paul says is theory and sounds completely unrealistic to many. I argue, that in the process of having his very polar viewpoints conflict, with say, the current socialist viewpoints of the left, we are more likely to arrive at a practical solution. We need more non-partisans, which is one of the reasons I support him. More gridlocks can defend our liberties as opposed to the dangerous moderates and partisans that want everything to pass. Obviously we are not going to do away with everything overnight. That would be draconian, but if if we the people could at least have a few more options, such as opting out of SS and FIC, that would be great because not everyone wants to fund gitmo and the murder of children while simultaneously allowing the FR to counterfeit our money (treason).
 
[quote name='IRHari']What are libertarian views on the Civil Rights Act?

I know there are some people who think restaurants should be able to discriminate if they want to. Individual freedoms?[/QUOTE]

What you mentioned is the easiest spin on the matter. Out of principle, the act is unconstitutional. That does not make anyone supporter or advocate a racist! Market forces will punish those who choose to turn away customers because they simply won't make money. Ultimately, you need to see that so many private clubs and properties exist where such conditions already exist. This would just be expanding the rule to apply to all private property, even those existing in the public. Besides, in this day and age, discriminating locations will get shot up or burned down. Out of principle, it must be said, that I have the constitutional right to choose who I want on my property. That does not mean I will discriminate if I am a (smart) business owner.
 
[quote name='Revolution'] That does not make anyone supporter or advocate a racist![/quote]

I am pretty sure it does.

Market forces will punish those who choose to turn away customers because they simply won't make money.
Click to expand...

Explain Jim Crow.

Did every establishment go out of business right after it was started?
 
[quote name='Revolution']My end game is mid 1900s with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[/quote]
WTF are you talking about. The US was balls deep in world affairs. Korean War, Taiwan, Philipines, Germany, Austria, Italy, fucking Palestine, Gaza, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos...this is all between 1945 and 1970. 19-fucking-70.

Currency does not have to be the gold standard, let the currencies compete. Though it is likely that gold and silver will win.
Click to expand...
We might as well use diamonds too. Or uranium. Both are worth more than gold or silver.

Much of what Ron Paul says is theory and sounds completely unrealistic to many. I argue, that in the process of having his very polar viewpoints conflict, with say, the current socialist viewpoints of the left, we are more likely to arrive at a practical solution. We need more non-partisans, which is one of the reasons I support him. More gridlocks can defend our liberties as opposed to the dangerous moderates and partisans that want everything to pass. Obviously we are not going to do away with everything overnight. That would be draconian, but if if we the people could at least have a few more options, such as opting out of SS and FIC, that would be great because not everyone wants to fund gitmo and the murder of children while simultaneously allowing the FR to counterfeit our money (treason).
Click to expand...
Everything is partisan. Especially your partisan ass.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am pretty sure it does.

No, it does not. If you need legislation just to tell you to not be racist then I don't know what to say. I would appreciate it if you took more of my comment into consideration than just "soundbyting" the issue. For example, what do you then make of those groups that already impose restrictions for entering their private club or group on their property?



Explain Jim Crow.

If 10 blue people eat at a BK,they make $100.
If 10 blue people and 10 green people eat at a BK, they make $200.
If 10 blues are eating, but 10 greens are turned away, they earn $100 - Jim Crow era

Did every establishment go out of business right after it was started?[/QUOTE]

wtfBBQareyousaying?
 
[quote name='dohdough']WTF are you talking about. The US was balls deep in world affairs. Korean War, Taiwan, Philipines, Germany, Austria, Italy, fucking Palestine, Gaza, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos...this is all between 1945 and 1970. 19-fucking-70.

I know, I want the mid 1900s scope of federal government with a foreign policy of
non-interventionism, which was absent during that time period. Everyone else seemed to understand that point. You are only half-listening err...reading.

We might as well use diamonds too. Or uranium. Both are worth more than gold or silver.

Sure, its a free country. We should be allowed to use whatever we want.


Everything is partisan. Especially your partisan ass.[/QUOTE]

Ok.
 
[quote name='Revolution']wtfBBQareyousaying?[/QUOTE]

I am reading someones words and actually responding to what they are saying instead of repeating the things a cult tells me to.

You should try it some time.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am reading someones words and actually responding to what they are saying instead of repeating the things a cult tells me to.

You should try it some time.[/QUOTE]

Anyone can play devil's advocate. You merely criticize instead of promoting your own ideas. You don't have to like the guy, but in terms of the presidential playing field, I find him to be the best player out there.

Who do you plan to vote for anyway?
 
Waitagoddamnedminute...

you think corporations are large and oppressive now, and yet the time period you exalt is the height of the industrial revolution?

Man alive, I guess you'll have to wait for Bioshock Infinite to come out, then.
 
[quote name='Revolution']Anyone can play devil's advocate.[/quote]

Pointing out the utter crap you spout isn't "playing devil's advocate" but then you seem to have your own personal definition for many words.

You merely criticize instead of promoting your own ideas.
Click to expand...

I am sorry I hurt your feelings. Perhaps you should take the butthurt to the Obamacare thread?

You seem to have stopped posting there.
 
[quote name='Revolution']Ok.[/QUOTE]
1. Spend an extra 10 fucking seconds and format your posts better.

2. Be more clear on what you say instead of editing something in that wasn't there to begin with.

3. Jim Crow was less about being served at whites-only businesses, but more about economic disenfranchisement and equal opportunity to quality infrastructure.

4. The mid 1900's was great if you were a white male and absolute shitty if you weren't.

5. You're obviously not here to have a deep conversation and am more interested in LOL-bertarians jerking you off and being part of their outgroup. Well guess what, you're just a tool that was co-opted by billionaires. You're no better than Insane Clown Posse fans.

6. U R DUM. Which isn't a problem in itself, but it is when you insist on staying dumb instead of actually learning about economics, sociology, and some basic fucking US history.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Waitagoddamnedminute...

you think corporations are large and oppressive now, and yet the time period you exalt is the height of the industrial revolution?

Man alive, I guess you'll have to wait for Bioshock Infinite to come out, then.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I can't wait for that game. Maybe I'll want the early 1900s after I play it? lol jk
But don't take what I say by its pieces.
If we also don't have the federal reserve, bailouts, interventionist foreign policy, and what have you, then I believe it would be a good idea. I'm only pointing out the financial scope of federal government of that era, not the era itself.

On a another note, I'm merely stating my opinions and I'm beginning to feel as if this thread has lost its focus. Are there such few supporters out there? I can't keep replying to everyone, I could use some help although I asked for it lol.

Can you guys seriously say there is a presidential candidate better than Ron Paul. I mean no other candidate can spark the ideas and discussion found in this thread. Regardless of whether you agree or not, that has to count for something.
 
[quote name='dohdough']

2. Be more clear on what you say instead of editing something in that wasn't there to begin with.

I never edit in anything, other than the correction of a one or two letter typo. I make a new post for a new statement.

3. Jim Crow was less about being served at whites-only businesses, but more about economic disenfranchisement and equal opportunity to quality infrastructure.

I agree. The point is that we don't live with Jim Crow today.

4. The mid 1900's was great if you were a white male and absolute shitty if you weren't.

That is for sure.

5. You're obviously not here to have a deep conversation and am more interested in LOL-bertarians jerking you off and being part of their outgroup. Well guess what, you're just a tool that was co-opted by billionaires. You're no better than Insane Clown Posse fans.

6. U R DUM. Which isn't a problem in itself, but it is when you insist on staying dumb instead of actually learning about economics, sociology, and some basic fucking US history.[/QUOTE]

What do people like you get out of throwing insults around? I'm happy to keep debating you but this is ridiculous.
 
Bernie Sanders has the guts to say what needs to be said:

tax the wealthy and the corporations, reduce the military-industrial complex, and regulate the everlovin' fuck out of wall street.

If you really think the industrial revolution was the ideal time for capitalism you'd do yourself good by going to read about labor conditions at the time.
 
I didn't know it was being framed in terms of the people, as opposed to the businesses. I thought the businesses would be considered individuals and they have the freedom, since they're private, to do business with whomever they want.
 
Eh, Ron Paul talks a good game, but I want real freedom. Freedom to murder whoever I want, abort as many babies as I want, do as many drugs as I want, unencumbered by religious nonsense, not this faux freedom where it's really about businesses making more money. That's real freedom.
 
[quote name='davo1224']How could anyone not see this troll thread coming from a mile away?[/QUOTE]
Feeding trolls is a hobby of mine. I enjoy it like a nice glass of Cristal while watching WWF.
 
[quote name='Revolution']Can you guys seriously say there is a presidential candidate better than Ron Paul. I mean no other candidate can spark the ideas and discussion found in this thread. Regardless of whether you agree or not, that has to count for something.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Revolution']What do people like you get out of throwing insults around? I'm happy to keep debating you but this is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
See #5 on my list.
 
[quote name='Clak']Btw, if you want non-interventionism you're going to have to look elsewhere than the 50s.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...he already said that he was talking about the world of "Leave it to Beaver" and not all that war stuff. The rampant sexism, domestic violence, alcoholism, racism, child abuse, etc is A.OK. cause white dudes ruled the world and could punch their women in the mouth if they got testy.
 
And did all the grocery shopping, because no man is going to be caught dead pushing a cart around.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...he already said that he was talking about the world of "Leave it to Beaver" and not all that war stuff. The rampant sexism, domestic violence, alcoholism, racism, child abuse, etc is A.OK. cause white dudes ruled the world and could punch their women in the mouth if they got testy.[/QUOTE]

Of course he does. What else do pillars of society do?
 
the hell you got against alcoholics?

So he's officially announced that he's seeking the nomination. I really wish he wouldn't as he doesn't have a shot in hell against Obama but could be a promising 2016 candidate. Instead he'll have the stigma of 2 failed attempts at seeking the nomination and a failed attempt at the presidency if he does indeed get the nod. Which, in and of itself, is still unlikely.
 
Wasn't he not intending to actually run in '04? Or was that '08? I saw the documentary on NFLX about him (An Unreasonable Man I think it was called) but for whatever reason it isn't fresh in my mind at the moment.

I know imaginary history is all kinds of trouble, but I'd be very curious to see what a Nader Administration response to terrorism would have been.
 
I'll try again because I want to see the response.

[quote name='Revolution']Market forces will punish those who choose to turn away customers because they simply won't make money.[/quote]
Which is exactly what didn't happen. Did market forces not apply before the Act?
Besides, in this day and age, discriminating locations will get shot up or burned down.
Click to expand...
Mmmmhmmm.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/judg...use-hes-trying-really-hard-to-make-it-better/
[quote name='mykevermin']Waitagoddamnedminute...

you think corporations are large and oppressive now, and yet the time period you exalt is the height of the industrial revolution?[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what it's all about (Rand basing her work on the era?), but I've never met a libertarian that didn't hold up the industrial revolution as the perfection of libertarian ideals.
 
[quote name='nasum']Wasn't he not intending to actually run in '04? Or was that '08? I saw the documentary on NFLX about him (An Unreasonable Man I think it was called) but for whatever reason it isn't fresh in my mind at the moment.

I know imaginary history is all kinds of trouble, but I'd be very curious to see what a Nader Administration response to terrorism would have been.[/QUOTE]

He did totally half-ass it in 2004, hemming and hawing about whether he would run before settling on running rather late in the cycle, missing a ton of state ballots and infuriating leftists who had long been on a "you're fucking up our efforts to get Bush out of office."

I don't know what the response would be - but there's something to be said about the thing we sometimes call the "post 9/11 world." Nader seemed like a reasonable candidate in 2000 because we weren't dealing with the thought of such pervasive, far-reaching, permanent state of perpetual war that we have been in for a decade now. I don't think a candidate without strong foreign policy skills would get very far in this day and age.

Then again, I could be full of shit. People still think Sarah Palin is a viable candidate.
 
[quote name='nasum']the hell you got against alcoholics?

So he's officially announced that he's seeking the nomination. I really wish he wouldn't as he doesn't have a shot in hell against Obama but could be a promising 2016 candidate. Instead he'll have the stigma of 2 failed attempts at seeking the nomination and a failed attempt at the presidency if he does indeed get the nod. Which, in and of itself, is still unlikely.[/QUOTE]

Ahhh, alcoholics. Claimed the lives of both my parents.
 
[quote name='nasum']the hell you got against alcoholics?

So he's officially announced that he's seeking the nomination. I really wish he wouldn't as he doesn't have a shot in hell against Obama but could be a promising 2016 candidate. Instead he'll have the stigma of 2 failed attempts at seeking the nomination and a failed attempt at the presidency if he does indeed get the nod. Which, in and of itself, is still unlikely.[/QUOTE]

He'll be 81 by the time the 2016 elections arrive, this is his last shot.
 
2004 was his last shot!
It's fairly obvious that the RNC doesn't take him seriously, he's like their Dennis Kucinich with better hair.

I'm still wondering why dohdough is such an alcoholicist
 
applying the libertarian perspective, it makes perfect sense to be against the civil rights act but not necessarily racist. Basically, if the govt is providing institutional racism, then why should the govt now be in charge of the opposite? How about get the govt out of it and let private property owners make their own decisions? That way "the free market" (pause for exhaltation) will either show that racism is good or bad for business. No reason for that silly govt to get involved at all really.
 
[quote name='nasum']applying the libertarian perspective, it makes perfect sense to be against the civil rights act but not necessarily racist. Basically, if the govt is providing institutional racism, then why should the govt now be in charge of the opposite? How about get the govt out of it and let private property owners make their own decisions? That way "the free market" (pause for exhaltation) will either show that racism is good or bad for business. No reason for that silly govt to get involved at all really.[/QUOTE]
That logic is completely flawed considering the time and place.

This is what I said in another thread: You think that ending the war on drugs will stop institutional racism like Paul suggests? No. What he proposes would allow rampant discrimination worse then what we have now. The civil rights act of 1964 was less about eating at white establishments and more about access to political and economic enfranchisment of which they were actively denied. The "free market" didn't put those institutions under because THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO CAPITAL(for black people to act as a force in the market).

You say that the market will fix it, but you fail to acknowledge how the market was heavily leveraged IN FAVOR of whites and STRONGLY AGAINST black people. The market won't make corrections for people that are systematically not allowed to participate in it. This is why capitalism is fucked along with all of the right-wing harping about the free market and fucking bootstraps. It's all bullshit meant to keep certain segments of society disenfranchised.
 
[quote name='revolution']he's the only shot we have at restoring america. If you don't think so, tell me why.


Original:are you a ron paul fan?

Just wondering, because i'm one and would like to see if there are any like minded gamers out there. Thanks for any replies![/quote]

ron paul 2012
 
[quote name='dohdough']That logic is completely flawed considering the time and place.

This is what I said in another thread: You think that ending the war on drugs will stop institutional racism like Paul suggests? No. What he proposes would allow rampant discrimination worse then what we have now. The civil rights act of 1964 was less about eating at white establishments and more about access to political and economic enfranchisment of which they were actively denied. The "free market" didn't put those institutions under because THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO CAPITAL(for black people to act as a force in the market).

You say that the market will fix it, but you fail to acknowledge how the market was heavily leveraged IN FAVOR of whites and STRONGLY AGAINST black people. The market won't make corrections for people that are systematically not allowed to participate in it. This is why capitalism is fucked along with all of the right-wing harping about the free market and fucking bootstraps. It's all bullshit meant to keep certain segments of society disenfranchised.[/QUOTE]

Indoctrinated by the black panthers as well?
 
Gentlemen.

We must now consider the possibility that one "solid snake" is, in fact, Libertarian Rumblebear (not to be confused with "Libertarian Bear Rumble", the Tea Party's gay-only wrestling league).

Discuss. Or don't. I'd be cool with either one, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top