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

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

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

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

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

Oh yeah and all liberals are socialists, apparently.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah I just got my National Socialist Party card in the mail last week, you guys get yours yet?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=16
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=15
 
Will the effort be worth it? I bet it won't.

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']National Socialist = Nazi (facism). Or is that what you were going for?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']#2? Arguing about the way the other side debates rather than discussing the content.[/QUOTE]

HAR.jpg


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were Bush and the six years of Republican controlled Congresses Marxist, too?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Do you mean criticizing this? Right. This sign has so much content.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, posting this picture isn't any worse than the idiots that post giant .jpgs calling other forum members trolls or the facepalm.jpgs and such. I mean, it's not like we have any of those people around here.
 
The German National Socialist Party was the party of the Nazis, doesn't mean it would be everywhere else. That's what I keep talking about, everyone has this knee jerk reaction that Socialists=Nazis. Considering that conservatives usually aren't the most racially tolerant people in the country, they're closer to Nazis in that regard than most liberals.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']To be fair, posting this picture isn't any worse than the idiots that post giant .jpgs calling other forum members trolls or the facepalm.jpgs and such. I mean, it's not like we have any of those people around here.[/QUOTE]

It's the glaring shit-in-your-face hypocrisy of the dudes post that foc was pointing to.
 
That and his man crush on Paul is wearing a bit thin. Dude worships Paul like he's part of a cult.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It's the glaring shit-in-your-face hypocrisy of the dudes post that foc was pointing to.[/QUOTE]

I'm just saying, it's no better or worse than the glaring poop-in-your-face name calling that all too many people on this forum partake in.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Were Bush and the six years of Republican controlled Congresses Marxist, too?[/QUOTE]

Close. Neo-conservative.

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

[quote name='Clak']That and his man crush on Paul is wearing a bit thin. Dude worships Paul like he's part of a cult.[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of the Obama cult.

Doesn't the right-wing deserve a messiah-esque figure too? :whistle2:|
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Close. Neo-conservative.

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

Have the neocons been purged yet?

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

...

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

I guess fighting one contiguous piece of land is smarter than fighting on two fronts.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If Obama's "socialist ilk" in Congress are removed from power this November, won't the neocons just start back up again?[/QUOTE]

Yes. Sadly. :(

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

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

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

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

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

lolololololololololololololololololololololololol
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']One "lol" plus a proper rebuttal would have sufficed.[/QUOTE]

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

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

I would also love to see him do his Dr. No gimmick as president
 
I certainly did not have that much faith in Barack Obama's election. Ron Paul's not the messiah dude. He is a creationist. God did it, the free market will fix it. Faith based policies.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It's the glaring shit-in-your-face hypocrisy of the dudes post that foc was pointing to.[/QUOTE]

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

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

Chickenposted a youtube clip to a comedian in a reply to me pointing out that condoms help fight std's... So Yeah...
 
[quote name='Msut77']Chickenposted a youtube clip to a comedian in a reply to me pointing out that condoms help fight std's... So Yeah...[/QUOTE]

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

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

At any rate, with how far down the rabbit hole we are into destroying this country (and that's the last 20 years, not the last 20 months) I don't think any one person can come along and change anything. To use an admittedly weak analogy, it's going to take something as insane as Polar Shifting to really ahve anything change. And as long as people can make a career out of being a politician, and become wealthy in doing so, nothing will change and it's just a huge puppet show.
 
[quote name='nasum']Maybe it's just a sign of the times that people will get behind Ron Paul or Barrack Obama in such a steadfast manner.
After 8 years of a stammering nincompoop, Ron Paul's ability to give a straight answer that at least seems to have some conviction and thought behind it is incredibly refreshing. Obama reminds me of the same suave and smooth talking used car salesman we got with Clinton.

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

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

Could you please explain why his statements are supposedly wrong?

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

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

For clothing it's limited. The type of it might be construed as free.
 
Then how many utility companies do you have to deal with before you find the one that provides the service you want at the price you can afford? That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Free Market. Certain things will, as they need to be, enforced monopolies.

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

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

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

So are government-funded police...
 
I wouldn't want to privatize the police force. The government's job is to protect us. A business' goal is to make money. I'd rather the primary goal of police be protection and not profit.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I wouldn't want to privatize the police force. The government's job is to protect us. A business' goal is to make money. I'd rather the primary goal of police be protection and not profit.[/QUOTE]

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

A good idea would be the scumbag towing companies that take advantage of lack of signs, poorly placed signs on private property (apartment complexes, privately owned parking lots etc. etc. to tow cars a couple miles and charge $200-300 to get them back etc.
 
I don't know man, saying that cops and blackwater are basically the same is quite the stretch.

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

Private police = Mall Cops. Notice how they don't carry guns? Also, private police would open the door to way too much vigilantism...
 
[quote name='nasum']Then how many utility companies do you have to deal with before you find the one that provides the service you want at the price you can afford? That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Free Market. Certain things will, as they need to be, enforced monopolies.[/QUOTE]
Texas deregulated its energy market. I have over 30 companies to choose from when I buy power. There are fixed rates, variable rates, 100% renewable energy choices, 10%, 0%, you name it.

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

Yay free market.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']What about fire dept's?[/QUOTE]

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

It's when various people start trying to make the case for other types of protection that the state should provide that government turns into a planet-sized hydra that usually does more harm than good.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes, almost all physically protective services should be state run.[/quote]
How can we trust the government with such important services but not private industry?
 
I agree, I heart smog in California, it was extremely harmful for CARB to start imposing all these bogus regulations. The answer is less government and more free market.
 
[quote name='speedracer']How can we trust the government with such important services but not private industry?[/QUOTE]

Because essentially services should be profit motivated but quality of service motivated.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because essentially services should be profit motivated but quality of service motivated.[/QUOTE]
But if the market is king, why defer to the government when your bacon is on the line? If the free market provides such better service at such better rates, wouldn't that be doubly so when lives are on the line? I'm hearing "we trust the market explicitly EXCEPT when we need quality and service guaranteed. Then we cannot trust the market". But if that's the case.. I mean wtf?

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

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

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

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

Though if you think about, even a lot of NASA's work is promoted by capitalist sentiment--especially the tremendous progress in the 50s and 60s when we couldn't let those damn communists get to the moon first! :D
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's when various people start trying to make the case for other types of protection that the state should provide that government turns into a planet-sized hydra that usually does more harm than good.[/QUOTE]

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

R.P. on freedom. (See, he's back in the discussion now...)

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

Government = One choice x
Free market = Many choices ✔

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. Don't take my word for anything. Try having a look through the Ron Paul Library instead. One of his articles is better than a thousand of my posts... ;)
 
[quote name='speedracer']How can we trust the government with such important services but not private industry?[/QUOTE]

Because it's LAW Enforcement.

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

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

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

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

You can't privatize any branch of the government because the goal of a private entity is profit, while the goal of Government must always be the protection of the individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top