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

[quote name='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[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']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.[/QUOTE]
lolwut?

Which one of you is trolling? Msut?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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:
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Those old sitcoms were phoney, but the general idea had to come from somewhere.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']My very sharp-minded mother is contantly pointing out to me how society has crumbled immensely since the 50's. :drool:[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']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).[/QUOTE]
You realize that Leave it to Beaver wasn't a documentary, right? Seriously, that time period was easier for white men, that's it.
 
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]

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:

1950s-fashion-differences-for-mother-and-daughter.jpg


Vs.

200px-Visible_Thong_1.jpg


&

1956_1957_young_men.jpg


Vs.

4779238581_4140c2ff82.jpg


Not to mention...

Desoto.jpg


Vs.

corollaaltis_frontside1.jpg


&

vlcsnap-2194849-1Gx.png


Vs.

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... :whistle2:k
 
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
Click to expand...
For middle-to-upper class white males, yes. Definately.
For everyone else, it's leaps and bounds down the ladder.
 
'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.
 
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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:
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']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:[/QUOTE]
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]

more regulation and golf will obviously fix it.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You do neither yourself nor your ideology *any* service with smarmy, flippant one-liners, however.[/QUOTE]

That's about 75% of the posts on this forum...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That's about 75% of the posts on this forum...[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Nobody debates things straight up. They insult, pick and choose, and spin.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Go ahead, I dare you - raise your hand if you actually think it's a bad idea to audit the Fed.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']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.[/QUOTE]
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?
 
[quote name='speedracer']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Your "no promiscuity" nonsense was rightly pilloried, no one should apologize because you say your feelings were hurt.[/QUOTE]

Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

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

[quote name='Msut77']Remember, R.P. used to edit a newsletter emblazoned with his name that ran vitriolic and vile racist "articles" all the time.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='speedracer']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?[/QUOTE]

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
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Show some fuckin' backbone, man. You're not even trying.[/QUOTE]

Yes. What he should do is explain why and how both parties are corrupt.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm confused. You're an honest to god Ron Paul libertarian? I thought you were trolling.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

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

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.
 
[quote name='SpazX']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.[/QUOTE]

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

Here's a pretty good essay on the topic. It's got sources, and words things better than I can.
 
Everyone knows that The Wonder Years was the most accurate depiction of the American family.

edit-
implied_facepalm.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top